Scabies is a dermatological parasitic infestation prevalent in many regions worldwide. Classified as a neglected disease by World Health Organization (WHO) since 2017, it is often associated with poor living conditions and overcrowding. Towards the end of 2021, unusual high numbers of scabies cases in outpatient consultations were observed in two Médecins Sans Frontières’ (MSF) Primary Healthcare Centers (PHCs) in Rohingya refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. Here, we aimed to describe the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients with scabies consulting the clinics from July 2022–November 2023. A cross-sectional study using routinely collected data from scabies’ consultations at two MSF clinics located in camp 14 and 15 (total population 91,241 in 2023) was conducted. We retrospectively analyzed programmatic data of patients of all ages attending outpatient consultations and clinically diagnosed as scabies. Data were extracted from MSF clinical routine monitoring databases and descriptive statistics were reported. During the 16-month period, a total of 178,922 scabies consultations were recorded, amongst whom 57.7% were women and 42.3% men. Children <5 years constituted 20.5% of the cases, age-groups 6-14, 36.6%, and ≥15 years, 42.9%. Camp 15 had the highest number of cases (39.4%), followed by other camps (29.7%), and then camp 14 (24.4%). Most cases were simple scabies (79.5%); one in five were scabies with secondary infection cases. Patients were mainly treated with oral ivermectin (71.2%) and topical permethrin (24.3%); 19.5% of patients also received antibiotics. Our findings indicate that scabies is a significant health concern in the Cox’s Bazar refugee camp. This study recorded over 178000 cases in the above period. The scale of this outbreak warrants further actions, including a prevalence survey, quality implementation of mass drug administration, and multidisciplinary interventions related to camps’ living conditions such as water and sanitation.

Unfair knowledge practices easily beset our efforts to achieve health equity within and between countries. Enacted by people from a distance and from a position of power (‘the centre’) on behalf of and alongside people with less power (‘the periphery’), these unfair practices have generated a complex literature of complaints across various axes of inequity. We identified a sample of this literature from 12 journals and systematized it using the realist approach to explanation. We framed the outcome to be explained as ‘manifestations of unfair knowledge practices’; their generative mechanisms as ‘the reasoning of individuals or rationale of institutions’; and context that enable them as ‘conditions that give knowledge practices their structure’. We identified four categories of unfair knowledge practices, each triggered by three mechanisms: (1) credibility deficit related to pose (mechanisms: ‘the periphery’s cultural knowledge, technical knowledge and “articulation” of knowledge do not matter’), (2) credibility deficit related to gaze (mechanisms: ‘the centre’s learning needs, knowledge platforms and scholarly standards must drive collective knowledge-making’), (3) interpretive marginalization related to pose (mechanisms: ‘the periphery’s sensemaking of partnerships, problems and social reality do not matter’) and (4) interpretive marginalization related to gaze (mechanisms: ‘the centre’s learning needs, social sensitivities and status preservation must drive collective sensemaking’). Together, six mutually overlapping, reinforcing and dependent categories of context influence all 12 mechanisms: ‘mislabelling’ (the periphery as inferior), ‘miseducation’ (on structural origins of disadvantage), ‘under-representation’ (of the periphery on knowledge platforms), ‘compounded spoils’ (enjoyed by the centre), ‘under-governance’ (in making, changing, monitoring, enforcing and applying rules for fair engagement) and ‘colonial mentality’ (of/at the periphery). These context–mechanism–outcome linkages can inform efforts to redress unfair knowledge practices, investigations of unfair knowledge practices across disciplines and axes of inequity and ethics guidelines for health system research and practice when working at a social or physical distance.