Literature review

A comprehensive literature review of relevant articles was conducted across multiple databases and sources. The results of the search are summarized in Table 1. The search process involved querying various databases, namely, Web of Science (3,405 articles), PubMed (543 articles), and Google Scholar (65 articles), using specific keywords related to MBDs in India, including malaria, dengue, chikungunya, Japanese encephalitis, and lymphatic filariasis. Additionally, 69 articles were obtained from personal libraries and in-person consultations. In total, the initial search yielded 4,082 articles.

Table 1. Flow chart of the literature review from article identification, screening, eligibility assessment, to inclusions.

View Fullscreen

Following the initial search, a screening procedure was performed based on the titles and abstracts of the articles, resulting in the exclusion of 2,503 articles deemed irrelevant or duplicative. The remaining articles underwent a thorough eligibility assessment based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 968 articles were evaluated for eligibility, and 716 articles were excluded based on the criteria outlined in Table 1. The reasons for exclusion included being reviews, community-based studies, clinical information, disease symptom diagnosis, disease treatment, or falling into other categories.

A total of 252 articles that satisfied the predetermined inclusion criteria were selected and subjected to analysis. These articles encompassed a range of diseases, as specified in Table 1, with distinct quantities assigned to each disease (malaria: 79 articles; dengue: 61 articles; chikungunya: 24 articles; Japanese encephalitis: 53 articles; lymphatic filariasis: 35 articles). Through an in-depth examination, publicly accessible data regarding cases and fatalities spanning a period of 50 years were utilized in the analysis.

Normalization of data

Normalization is a crucial step in the study to address the wide range of reported cases and deaths associated with diseases like malaria, dengue, chikungunya, Japanese encephalitis, and lymphatic filariasis. The reported cases varied from thousands to millions, while deaths ranged from hundreds to thousands. To enable accurate comparisons and a comprehensive evaluation of disease patterns and severity over the five-decade period, a standardized normalization method was employed. By employing the standardized normalization method, biases stemming from variations in the data were mitigated, considering factors beyond population size. The dataset was transformed to ensure fair and consistent comparisons, avoiding potential biases that could distort the analysis and interpretation of the data. Normalization plays a critical role in providing a more objective and accurate assessment of disease patterns and severity by accounting for these inherent variations and enabling a comprehensive evaluation. The normalization process helps in mitigating variations and biases that may arise due to differences in population size or other factors. By utilizing the normalization formula, the dataset was transformed to ensure fair and consistent comparisons, reducing the influence of potential biases. The formula used for Min-Max normalization was

This formula scaled the feature values to a range between 0 and 1, allowing standardized comparisons across the entire dataset. This normalization technique facilitated a more precise understanding of the trends and magnitudes of these MBDs. The meticulously curated and normalized data are visually presented in Figs. 1 and 2, providing valuable insights into the long-term dynamics of these diseases.

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

1. Malaria

In 1897, Sir Ronald Ross made a groundbreaking discovery in Secunderabad, India, by demonstrating the role of the Anopheles mosquito and Plasmodium parasite in the transmission of malaria (CDC 2015). Since then, mosquito control has been a major public health concern worldwide. Malaria has been devastating to humanity for centuries, claiming the lives of millions of people. India was particularly affected during the colonial period, from the early 18th century to 1947 when it gained independence (Watts 1999). Although India has made significant progress in controlling and reducing the burden of malaria over the past 75 years, the disease remains a significant problem, particularly in the central and eastern regions of the country (Wangdi et al. 2016; Dev 2020, 2022).

India has been severely affected by malaria (Sharma 1999; Tyagi 1994). Although no systematic countrywide survey was conducted before independence in 1947, it is estimated that more than 100 million people contract malaria each year, resulting in approximately one million deaths annually (Dhingra et al. 2010). To address the devastating impact of malaria, the Government of India established the National Malaria Control Program (NMCP) in 1953, which was later upgraded to the National Malaria Eradication Program (NMEP) in 1958, primarily with two objectives: 1) to prevent deaths from malaria and 2) to curb the spread of malaria through active surveillance and early case management (Sharma and Mehrotra 1986).

As a result of extensive indoor residual spraying of dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) and a robust surveillance system, malaria was nearly eradicated in India by the mid-1960s, with fewer than one million cases and no reported deaths (Gunasekaran et al. 2005). However, this progress was short-lived, and the disease resurged as a major public health problem in the mid-1970s, with 6.45 million cases and several thousand deaths. During this time, many dominant mosquito vectors developed resistance to preferred insecticides such as DDT and malathion (Anvikar et al. 2014).

Efforts were made to combat malaria through the implementation of the Urban Malaria Scheme (UMS) in 1971–72 and the Modified Plan of Operation (MPO) in 1977. These initiatives helped reduce malaria cases to around two million. However, the impact was more noticeable on vivax malaria, while falciparum malaria continued to show an upward trend despite the Plasmodium falciparum Containment Program (PfCP), launched in the 1970s and subsequent years (Shiv et al. 2000, Kumar et al. 2007).

The reduction of funding for anti-malaria programs following successful elimination has been a significant contributing factor to the resurgence of malaria in certain countries, including India. In the late 1950s, the provision of DDT by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) led to a substantial decline in malaria prevalence in India, from an estimated 100 million cases per year in the early 20th century to about 100,000 cases in 1965 (Sharma and Mehrotra 1986). However, as malaria incidence decreased, USAID withdrew its funding, expecting the Indian government to bear the financial burden. Unfortunately, India faced challenges in producing or procuring the large quantities of DDT required, leading to a lack of effective control measures. This, in turn, resulted in the reestablishment of malaria, with cases peaking at 6 million by 1976 (Sharma and Mehrotra 1986). Insufficient vigilance in malaria control efforts and the scaling back of intervention programs have also contributed to the reestablishment of malaria in certain regions. Inadequate availability and dissemination of information about the malaria status in different areas, lack of awareness about the possibility of reestablishment, challenges in border control and population movement, and limited training and preparedness in malaria control have further compounded the issue (WHO 2007). Additionally, factors such as drug and insecticide resistance, natural disasters, and conflicts can exacerbate the inherent risk of malaria transmission and increase the potential for reestablishment.

Malaria was initially regarded a disease of rural India (Tyagi 2002). However, due to diverse pressure malaria became prevalent in various ecotypes such as forest malaria, urban malaria, rural malaria, industrial malaria, border malaria, and migration malaria. A new malaria paradigm, “Desert Malaria,” was recently described de novo by Tyagi (2023). Control of malaria in such diverse systems of ecotypes became a complex enterprise, and its management required decentralization and approaches based on local transmission involving multisectoral action and community participation through consilience (Pattanayak et al. 1994, Ranjha and Sharma 2021).

The National Malaria Eradication Program (NMEP) underwent a notable transformation in 1998, leading to its renaming as the National Anti-Malaria Program (NAMP), in order to align with the altered focus. In 2003, recognizing the synergies in the prevention and control of vector-borne diseases, including Japanese encephalitis and dengue, the program underwent further restructuring. It was renamed as the National Vector Borne Disease Control Program (NVBDCP) by integrating the three ongoing centrally sponsored schemes: NAMP, the National Filaria Control Program (NFCP), and the Kala-Azar Control Program (DGHS 2023).

Even then, the program faced challenges in technical, financial, and operational management, prompting critical reviews. As a result, in 2022 the National Centre for Vector-Borne Disease Control (NCVBDC) was established to address these challenges and enhance the efforts in preventing and controlling vector-borne diseases, including malaria, Japanese encephalitis, dengue, and others. The establishment of NCVBDC marked a significant milestone in the ongoing efforts to combat vector-borne diseases in India. Over the past four decades, the efforts of the government of India have yielded significant progress, with malaria cases declining to fewer than 0.02 million and only 64 deaths in 2022. The aim is to eliminate not only malaria, but also other vector-borne diseases, with a target of eliminating malaria and filariasis by 2030 (Ghosh and Rahi 2019, NCVBDC 2023).

Several key milestones mark the trajectory of malaria in India; during the 1970s, there was a significant increase in malaria cases with 1.42 million malaria cases during 1972, which increased to 6.46 million in 1976. In subsequent years, efforts to combat malaria led to a decline in cases, although some fluctuations were observed. The number of malaria cases declined to around 0.88 million in 2013, but then increased to 1.09 million cases in 2016, and started declining again after the year 2017. Overall, the number of malaria cases has declined significantly in recent years, from 6.46 million cases in 1976 to 0.017 million cases in 2022 (Narain and Nath 2018, CBHI 2023, WHO 2023b).

Overall analysis shows a notable decline in malaria cases since 1997, as depicted in Fig. 1. Conversely, Fig. 2 depicts a proportionate increase in the number of malaria-related deaths from 1994 to 2014 with an average of 963 deaths per year, and the highest recorded number of deaths (1707) reported in 2006. However, there is a positive trend of declining death rates in recent years from 2010 onwards, which is an encouraging development. To ensure that this declining trend continues, it is crucial to learn from past experiences and take proactive measures to prevent a resurgence of the disease (Dhiman 2019).

It is important to acknowledge that the reported figures may not fully reflect the true magnitude of malaria cases in India, as a significant number of cases may go unreported or undiagnosed. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted malaria control efforts in India (Rogerson et al. 2020, Sharma et al. 2022, Park et al. 2023). When considering the regional distribution of malaria cases, states like Odisha, Chhattisgarh, and Jharkhand consistently have reported the highest numbers over the past decade.

On a global scale, the latest World Malaria Report indicates that there were 247 million malaria cases in 2021, slightly higher than the 245 million cases reported in 2020 (WHO 2023a). This highlights the need for innovative technological advancements to combat this deadly disease (Damodaran et al. 2011, Ghosh and Rahi 2019). However, India has made significant progress in the fight against malaria, achieving an impressive reduction of 83% in malaria morbidity and 92% in malaria mortality between 2000 and 2019 (MOHFW 2022). Building upon this progress, India has developed a comprehensive roadmap, known as the National Strategic Plan for the Elimination of Malaria 2023–2027. Guided by this strategic plan, the Indian government has been actively implementing various strategies to combat malaria and is resolute to eliminate the disease within its borders. With a vision of a malaria-free nation by 2027 and complete eradication by 2030, this plan outlines a clear path towards achieving this goal (Rahi and Sharma 2020, WHO 2023b).

2. Dengue

Dengue is another significant mosquito-borne viral disease that is prevalent in many parts of India (Baruah et al. 2021). It was primarily confined to a few Southeast Asian countries during the 1950s and 1960s. However, it subsequently spread globally, leading to regional and worldwide epidemics in the 1970s and beyond (Dar et al. 1999, Dash et al. 2012, Mondal 2023). It is caused by the dengue virus, which is transmitted by Ae. aegypti as a major vector and Ae. albopictus as a minor vector (Chetry et al. 2020). It is a self-limiting, systemic viral infection transmitted between humans by these mosquitoes. Dengue fever is caused by one of four ssRNA viruses, DENV-I, DENV-II, DENV-III, and DENV-IV, also referred to as serotypes of the genus Flavivirus, belonging to the family Flaviviridae (Lall and Dhanda 1996, Sharma et al. 2000, Chakravarti et al. 2012, Gupta et al. 2012, Sivagnaname et al. 2012, Ganeshkumar et al. 2018).

Dengue fever has indeed been a significant public health concern in India for the past three decades, with a widespread impact on several states, particularly in urban areas (Paulson 2022). It has become endemic in almost all states across the country, as illustrated in Fig. 3. In 1996, India faced a major outbreak of dengue, affecting a substantial number of individuals. The reported cases amounted to 16,517, resulting in a devastating toll of 545 fatalities. It is worth mentioning that the city of Delhi alone accounted for 10,252 cases and 423 deaths. This outbreak served as a pivotal moment, highlighting the emergence of dengue as a significant public health concern in India (Chakravati et al. 2012, NVBDCP 2020). In 2003 one of the most severe outbreaks of dengue occurred, resulting in 75,808 reported cases and 195 deaths. Kerala State was particularly affected, with more than 3,000 cases and more than five dozen deaths documented (Tyagi et al. 2006). Subsequently, numerous outbreaks of dengue have been reported in various states of India. This persistent rise in cases has raised concerns among health authorities and experts regarding the control and prevention of dengue in the country (Wilder-Smith and Rupali, 2019).

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

Between 1997 and 2012, India reported an average of 11,151 dengue cases and 95 deaths annually. However, experts suggest that this number significantly underestimates the true impact of the disease. A case study conducted in Madurai district and an expert Delphi panel estimated an average of 5,778,406 clinically diagnosed dengue cases per year during this period, which is 282 times higher than the reported number (Mariappan 2013, Shepard et al. 2014, Hariharan et al. 2019). As per the NCVBDC, India recorded 75,808 cases and 195 deaths attributed to dengue fever in 2013. The following year, in 2014 there were 40,571 reported cases and 137 deaths. The number of dengue cases continued to rise, reaching 99,913 in 2015, resulting in 220 deaths. However, the most severe outbreak took place in 2017, with a staggering 188,401 reported cases and 325 deaths recorded nationwide (Chakravati et al. 2012, NCVBDC 2023).

Although the number of dengue cases in India significantly decreased in 2020, possibly due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdowns (Sharma et al. 2022), cases began to rise again in 2021 with more than 193,445 cases and 346 deaths reported (NCVBDC 2023). This demonstrates the unpredictable nature of dengue. Overall, the data presented in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 highlight that dengue fever continues to be a major public health concern in India. At present 27 out of 36 states and union territories are affected by dengue (Fig. 3), transmitted by Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus. The above figures demonstrate the need for ongoing efforts to control and manage the disease effectively (Chakravati et al. 2012). The incidence of dengue cases is highest during the monsoon season, from July to October, when mosquito breeding is most prevalent. Urbanization, unplanned construction, temporary settlements, and lack of sanitation facilities contribute to the spread of the disease. Additionally, climate change may be causing an increase in the incidence of dengue cases, as warmer temperatures and increased rainfall create a more favorable environment for the Aedes mosquito breeding (Dhara et al. 2013, Pramanik et al. 2020).

3. Chikungunya

Chikungunya poses a significant public health threat in India, with multiple outbreaks documented over the past two decades (Tyagi 2007). This mosquito-borne viral disease is transmitted to humans through the bites of infected Aedes mosquitoes, specifically Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus (Das et al. 2007). Notably, it has been reported for the first time that Ae. albopictus has emerged as the primary vector for chikungunya in Kerala, independently driving the epidemic without reliance on Ae. aegypti in 2007 (Thenmozhi et al. 2007, Kumar et al. 2011). Chikungunya can cause high fever, joint pain, muscle pain, headache, fatigue, and rash, among other symptoms. Although the disease is not usually fatal, it can be debilitating and may cause long-term joint pain and secondary complications in some patients (WHO 2022a).

Chikungunya has been reported in many states of the country, including Karnataka, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu (Yergolkar et al. 2006, Cecilia 2014), and also from Andaman and Nicobar and Lakshadweep islands (Paramasivan et al. 2009). As per the data depicted in Fig. 1, chikungunya outbreaks have been a recurring phenomenon in India over the past few decades (NCVBDC 2023). The graph illustrates significant spikes in reported cases, with a major outbreak in 2006 recording a staggering 1.39 million cases (Kalantri et al. 2006, Krishnamoorthy et al. 2009). Another notable surge occurred in 2016, with more than 58,000 confirmed cases across the country, particularly affecting Delhi. These statistics clearly demonstrate the recurrent nature and impact of chikungunya outbreaks in India, emphasizing the urgency of ongoing efforts to effectively address and manage the disease.

The significance of chikungunya in the Indian context is that it affects a large number of people, generally during the monsoon and postmonsoon seasons when mosquito populations are at their highest. The disease can have a significant impact on public health, leading to increased health care costs and lost productivity due to illness (Singh et al. 2012). Additionally, chikungunya outbreaks can place a significant burden on health care systems, particularly in areas where resources are limited. According to the World Health Organization, chikungunya has been given low priority compared to other diseases in line with country’s limited resource allocation (WHO 2008).

4. Japanese encephalitis

Japanese encephalitis (JE) is a mosquito-borne zoonotic viral diseases caused by the Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV), belonging to the genus Flavivirus in the family Flaviviridae. The history of JE goes back to the so-called “Yoshiwara cold” in 1904, and this was followed by encephalitis epidemics in 1924, 1935, and 1948 (Miyake 1964). But the first recognition of JE based on serological surveys was made in 1955, in Tamil Nadu, India (Carey et al. 1968, Namachivayam and Umayal 1982). Subsequently, the disease was identified in other parts of the country, and JE was confirmed as the cause of encephalitis cases. Since then, JE has been recognized endemic and reported in many parts of India, particularly in rural areas, and continues to be a significant public health concern in the country with the highest case fatality rate (Chakravarty et al. 1975, Dhillon and Raina 2008).

Over the last 30 years, JE has had a significant impact on public health in India, particularly in rural areas. A JE epidemic occurred in Andhra Pradesh during October and November 1999 affecting 15 out of 23 districts with 873 cases and 178 deaths (Rao et al. 2000). Later, in 2003 an outbreak occurred in Warangal and Karim Nagar districts of Andhra Pradesh (Das et al. 2004)

India has witnessed multiple sporadic outbreaks of JE, particularly in the northern and southern regions of the country (Fig. 4). The analysis of mosquito-borne diseases as shown in Fig. 2 reveals that JE poses a major stumbling block, characterized by its highest case fatality rate (CFR). The graph highlights the severity of JE compared to other mosquito-borne diseases, indicating a significant impact on public health. These findings underscore the importance of prioritizing efforts to control and prevent JE transmission, as it presents a considerable threat to affected regions. The large-scale outbreak of JE was reported in India in 2005, which resulted in more than 6,727 cases and 1,682 deaths (Parida et al. 2006, Kulkarni et al. 2018). This outbreak was centered around the city of Gorakhpur and its surrounding areas, and it mostly affected children. Another substantial outbreak of JE was recorded in 2011 and 2012, with more than 9,000 cases and 1,350 deaths, and the focal area of disease outbreak mainly reported the state of Assam (Mariappan et al. 2014). In 2016, the country witnessed another outbreak of JE, with more than 1,600 cases and 300 deaths, of which most cases were reported from Odisha state (Sahu et al. 2018). Once again, in 2019, there was a surge in the number of JE cases, with 2,545 cases and 266 deaths reported primarily from Bihar state (Rajaiah and Kumar 2022).

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

Japanese encephalitis outbreaks in India typically occur during the monsoon season, between June and September, when mosquito populations are high. The disease is most prevalent in rural areas, where mosquito control measures may be inadequate and vaccination coverage may be low. Vaccination programs and mosquito control measures remain crucial in preventing and controlling outbreaks of JE in India (Verma 2012). The Government of India has introduced the live attenuated SA-14-14-2 vaccine against JE in routine immunization program under the Universal Immunization Program in 181 endemic districts (Vashishtha and Ramachandran 2015). Nevertheless, the government interventions resulted in significant decline in CFR of JE from 17.6% in 2014 to 11.2% in 2020 (MOHFW 2022).

5. Lymphatic filariasis

Lymphatic filariasis (LF), also known as elephantiasis, is another neglected tropical disease caused by parasitic worms Wuchereria bancrofti Cobbold, Brugia malayi Brug, and Brugia timori Partono that are transmitted to humans through the bite of infected Culex and Anopheles mosquitoes. Lymphatic filariasis is a debilitating disease that often develops during childhood (WHO 2019). In its early stages, the disease may be asymptomatic or present with nonspecific symptoms. Despite the lack of external symptoms, the lymphatic system suffers damage, which may persist for several years. Individuals who are infected with the disease continue to transmit the disease (Kalyanasundaram et al. 2020). It has severe long-term physical consequences, including painful swelling of the limbs. During episodes of acute attacks, patients may be bedridden for days, and performing regular activities becomes challenging. The severity of these attacks causes not only physical distress but also social stigma and hinders the individual’s earning potential (Shukla et al. 2019).

India accounts for approximately 40% of the global disease burden, with 272 lymphatic filariasis endemic districts across 16 states and five union territories (NCVBDC 2023) (Fig. 5). Nearly 670 million people in India are at risk of contracting the disease (Ramaiah et al. 2000, Tripathi et al. 2022). In the 1970s and 1980s, the disease burden was highest in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Orissa, where the prevalence of LF was over 10%. India launched its national program of National Filaria Eradication Program (NFEP) in 2004 with a mass drug administration (MDA) strategy to the at-risk population, and since then, India has made significant progress in reducing the burden of LF. The status of LF condition is improving among the affected people in India due to the disease intervention through MDA (Ramaiah et al. 2001, Molyneux and Zagaria 2002, Molynuex 2003, Ramaiah et al. 2005, MOHFW 2022).

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

The northwestern states and union territories, namely, Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh, Rajasthan, Delhi, and Uttaranchal, and the northeastern states, namely, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Manipur, and Tripura, are known to be free from indigenously acquired filarial infection. Cases of filariasis have been recorded from Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Pondicherry, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Daman and Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and Lakshadweep (NCVBDC 2023). The latest data from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare show an overall reduction of 90.4% in the prevalence of microfilaria in the population, and the number of people living in endemic areas has decreased from 650 million in 2004 to 256 million in 2019 (MOHFW 2022). India has eliminated LF in 13 states and union territories, and another 11 states and union territories have achieved the target of bringing the prevalence of LF down to less than 1% (Sabesan et al. 2022). The government has implemented a comprehensive disability prevention and management program to address the disability associated with LF. Despite the achievements, LF remains a significant public health problem in India, particularly in northeastern and southeastern regions of the country. The Government of India prioritized the elimination of LF through the annual MDA program in 2004 and continued with a single dose of diethylcarbamazine citrate (DEC), 6 mg/kg of body weight, plus albendazole annually over a period of 5–6 years. The prevalence of LF in India decreased from 1.24% in 2004 to 0.36% in 2015 (Srivastava and Dhillon 2008, Sabesan et al. 2022). However, the frequent and often predictable outbreaks of acute encephalitis in different parts of the country constitute a huge challenge to public health in India (Narain et al. 2017).

Challenges

1. Mosquito resistance: Vector mosquitoes, such as An. stephensi, developed resistance to commonly used insecticides. India has a diverse range of vectors and vector-borne diseases, with different transmission dynamics and ecological requirements. This makes vector control efforts complex and challenging, as strategies may need to be tailored to different vectors and diseases based on their specific characteristics. The limited availability of alternative insecticides further complicates the situation (Dev and Manguin 2016, Dykes et al. 2016).

2. Drug resistance: Malaria parasites, particularly Plasmodium falciparum Welch, became resistant to commonly used drugs like chloroquine. The spread of drug-resistant strains to remote areas, including the northeastern states of India, posed a significant challenge. Additionally, the unavailability of effective alternative antimalarials exacerbated the situation (Shah et al. 2011).

3. Urbanization: Urbanization may create environmental conditions that favor mosquito breeding, and the rapid growth of the urban population in Indian towns and cities, which increased from 17% in 1951 to 34% in 2018, contributed to the spread of malaria. The urban malaria vector, An. stephensi, thrived in these urban areas, leading to malaria transmission in new regions (Brieger et al. 2001, WUP 2018). India’s diverse burden of vector-borne diseases, each with unique epidemiology, transmission dynamics, and ecological context, poses a challenge for global health efforts that require tailored strategies for vector control, diagnosis, and treatment (Gubler 2011, Ananya and Miller 2021, Athni et al. 2021).

4. Availability of health care and resources are limited, which presents challenges for diagnosing and treating vector-borne diseases. Addressing the socioeconomic determinants of health is essential in adopting a comprehensive approach. It is important to note that the surveillance system fails to capture patients who seek health care from sources other than designated health centers, including public or private sector facilities (Narain and Nath 2018). Insufficient resources and infrastructure, especially in rural and remote areas, impede effective efforts in vector control. Moreover, there may be limitations in terms of trained personnel, equipment, and funding for sustaining vector control programs in certain areas (Priya and Chikersal 2013, Jagannathan and Kakuru 2022).

5. Lack of awareness and community engagement, awareness about vector-borne diseases and vector control strategies among communities, health care providers, and policymakers may be inadequate in some areas of India. This can lead to suboptimal implementation of vector control measures, low community participation in vector control programs, and challenges in sustaining vector control efforts (Gopalan et al. 2021).

6. Intersectoral coordination: Vector control efforts require coordination among multiple sectors, including health, environment, agriculture, and urban planning, among others. Lack of coordination among these sectors can result in fragmented and suboptimal vector control strategies (Rajvanshi et al. 2020).

7. Socioeconomic and cultural factors, such as human behavior, mobility, and practices related to housing, sanitation, and livestock management, can influence vector-borne disease transmission. Addressing these factors requires understanding local social and cultural dynamics, which can pose challenges in implementing effective vector control strategies (CDC 2020b, Athni et al. 2021).

Perspectives

Despite the numerous challenges posed by MBDs, there exist various promising perspectives for global health endeavors to effectively combat and address these diseases.

1. Achieving national health goals requires a well-trained and skilled health workforce, as well as active participation from the community and public. To ensure high-quality health services at all levels of the health care delivery system in India, it is essential to establish a public health cadre in every state and ensure that the workforce has the necessary skills and expertise. By doing so, India can make progress toward meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (Priya and Chikersal 2013, Tiwari et al. 2022).

2. It is important to continuously monitor and adapt vector control efforts to address changing ecological, social, and environmental conditions for effective control of vector-borne diseases. The Government of India has established the Virus Research and Diagnostic Laboratory Network (VRDLN) to strengthen the laboratory capacity in the country for providing timely diagnosis of disease outbreaks. The network is providing additional data on dengue epidemiology (Murhekar et al. 2019, Joshua et al. 2020).

3. Innovations in vector control strategies can play a crucial role in addressing the challenges of MBDs. This may include the development of new biodegradable insecticide formulations such as plant-based silver nanoparticles to replace the chemical pesticides and delivery mechanisms that are effective against insecticide-resistant mosquitoes (Naik et al. 2014, Siddaiah and Reddya 2021). Genetic technologies, such as gene-editing techniques like CRISPR-Cas9, can also offer innovative approaches for vector control by disrupting mosquito populations or making them resistant to disease transmission (Veerakumar et al. 2014).

4. Technological advancements in disease surveillance and diagnosis can improve early detection, monitoring, and response to MBDs. This may include the use of remote sensing, geospatial technologies, and big data analytics for mapping disease transmission patterns and identifying high-risk areas (Gujju et al. 2013). Rapid diagnostic tests, point-of-care diagnostics, and mobile health technologies can enhance the speed and accuracy of disease diagnosis, enabling timely interventions and targeted control measures (Hong et al. 2022).

5. Interdisciplinary approaches that involve collaborations between researchers, policymakers, public health practitioners, and communities can help address the complex challenges of MBDs. Integrating knowledge and expertise from fields such as entomology, epidemiology, climatology, social sciences, and health systems can provide holistic insights into disease dynamics and inform evidence-based strategies. Interdisciplinary approaches can also foster community engagement, behavior change, and participatory decision making, promoting sustainable and locally adapted interventions (Jones et al. 2021).

6. Empowering communities through education, awareness, and capacity building can be a potent tool for addressing MBDs. This may involve community-led initiatives for vector control, such as source reduction, proper waste management, and improving water storage practices. Education and awareness campaigns can promote behavior change, including the use of personal protective measures, such as insecticide-treated bed nets, repellents, and clothing, to reduce exposure to mosquito bites and limit the contact opportunity between humans and vector mosquitoes. Empowered communities can also actively participate in disease surveillance and reporting, contributing to early warning systems and response efforts (Rajvanshi et al. 2020).

7. A potential solution to mitigate the issue of MBDs is through the establishment of a public-private partnership, and a coordinated effort between the public and private sectors is crucial in effectively addressing the problem of mosquito-borne diseases (Kamat 2001, Jones et al. 2021, Yassanye et al. 2021).

8. Adopting a One-Health approach that recognizes the interconnectedness of human health, animal health, and environmental health can help address the challenges of mosquito-borne diseases. This may involve integrated surveillance systems that monitor disease in humans, animals, and vectors, and identify potential spillover events. Collaborations between human health, veterinary, and environmental agencies can facilitate coordinated responses to disease outbreaks and address the underlying drivers of disease transmission (Prata et al. 2022).

9. Strong policy and governance frameworks are essential for addressing the challenges of mosquito-borne diseases. This may include policies that promote environmental management, urban planning, and sustainable development practices to reduce mosquito breeding habitats. Policies to improve health care access, including diagnostics, treatment, and preventive measures, can be crucial (Rahi and Sharma 2022). Effective governance mechanisms that promote coordination, resource allocation, and accountability among relevant stakeholders can facilitate the implementation of integrated strategies (Sinha et al. 2014).