A user-friendly decision support tool to assist one-health risk assessors

Bridging Food Systems and One Health: A key to preventing future pandemics?

Food Systems and One Health are two approaches increasingly known for the holistic perspective they bring when addressing the issues that concern them: food and health. This systematic literature review aims to explore the evidence for using these approaches in a concerted manner to better manage zoonoses. By zoonoses management, we refer to improving the ability to address current zoonoses as well as preventing future ones. A total of 98 scientific articles were screened, of which 29 were considered eligible due to their focus on operationalizing each approach to help address zoonoses, as well as a combination of the two. Most articles implement One Health to prevent zoonoses by guiding stakeholders in concerted and participatory decision-making processes. However, the One Health approach can also be adopted via data modelling. Several articles refer to the monitoring and evaluation process of One Health initiatives to prevent zoonoses and discuss best practices to successfully implement the approach. Contrastingly, only three studies adopt a Food System approach to manage zoonoses, despite the profound connections existing between our food systems and the emergence of zoonotic risks. We conclude that there is a lack of integration between the One Health and Food System approaches to manage zoonoses. We also show that experts call for integration, so that not only human, animal, plant, and environmental health are considered, but also the socio-economic trade-offs when monitoring and developing strategies to manage zoonoses. This can be reversed, enabling zoonotic risks to be addressed when planning for our food systems of tomorrow.

Current and potential use of animal disease data by stakeholders in the global south and north

What cannot be measured will not be managed. The Global Burden of Animal Diseases (GBADs) will generate information on animal disease burdens by species, production system, type and gender of farmer and consumer, geographical region, and time period. To understand the demand for burden of animal disease (BAD) data and how end-users might benefit from this, we reviewed the literature on animal diseases prioritisation processes (ADPP) and conducted a survey of BAD information users. The survey covered their current use of data and prioritizations as well as their needs for different, more, and better information. We identified representative (geography, sector, species) BAD experts from the authors' networks and publicly available documents and e-mailed 1485 experts. Of 791 experts successfully contacted, 271 responded (34% response rate), and 185 complete and valid responses were obtained. Most respondents came from the public sector followed by academia/research, and most were affiliated to institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Of the six ADPPs commonly featured in literature, only three were recognised by more than 40% of experts. An additional 23 ADPPs were used. Awareness of ADDPs varied significantly by respondents. Respondents ranked animal disease priorities. We used exploded logit to combine first, second and third disease priorities to better understand prioritzation and their determinants. Expert priorities differed significantly from priorities identified by the ADDPs, and also from the priorities stated veterinary services as reported in a survey for a World Organisation of Animal Health (WOAH) technical item. Respondents identified 15 different uses of BAD data. The most common use was presenting evidence (publications, official reports, followed by disease management, policy development and proposal writing). Few used disease data for prioritzation or resource allocation, fewer routinely used economic data for decision making, and less than half were aware of the use of decision support tools (DSTs). Nearly all respondents considered current BAD metrics inadequate, most considered animal health information insufficiently available and not evidence-based, and most expressed concerns that decision-making processes related to animal health lacked transparency and fairness. Cluster analysis suggested three clusters of BAD users and will inform DSTs to help them better meet their specific objectives. We conclude that there is a lack of satisfaction with current BAD information, and with existing ADDPs, contributing to sub-optimal decision making. Improved BAD data would have multiple uses by different stakeholders leading to better evidenced decisions and policies; moreover, clients will need support (including DSTs) to optimally use BAD information.

Building a pathway to One Health surveillance and response in Asian countries

To detect and respond to emerging diseases more effectively, an integrated surveillance strategy needs to be applied to both human and animal health. Current programs in Asian countries operate separately for the two sectors and are principally concerned with detection of events that represent a short-term disease threat. It is not realistic to either invest only in efforts to detect emerging diseases, or to rely solely on event-based surveillance. A comprehensive strategy is needed, concurrently investigating and managing endemic zoonoses, studying evolving diseases which change their character and importance due to influences such as demographic and climatic change, and enhancing understanding of factors which are likely to influence the emergence of new pathogens. This requires utilisation of additional investigation tools that have become available in recent years but are not yet being used to full effect. As yet there is no fully formed blueprint that can be applied in Asian countries. Hence a three-step pathway is proposed to move towards the goal of comprehensive One Health disease surveillance and response.

Orientation of One Health development: think globally and act locally

One Health is dedicated to maintaining and fostering a dynamic balance among humans, animals, and the environment. Since 2013, it has seen considerable developments globally. This review aims to encapsulate the history of One Health, as well as chart its future trajectory. Numerous research institutions founded under the principles of One Health have been established, and several pragmatic projects are currently underway. While it is imperative to solidify foundational education, further policy support is required to cultivate the One Health paradigm. Identifying research directions at a political level is necessary to provide the technical support needed for practical application. The future of One Health envisions a comprehensive approach to primary prevention, the utilization of open and shared data sets, as well as real-world surveys and interviews. This integrated approach is encapsulated in the concept of One Health Delivery. At this stage, One Health Delivery needs to build a systematic framework that focuses on integrating and communicating across disciplines and training researchers with complete practical skills.