Justice Is the Missing Link in One Health: Results of a Mixed Methods Study in an Urban City State

Mapping Research Priorities for Climate Change Adaptation in Agriculture: A One Health Perspective

BACKGROUND

The climate emergency poses significant threats to agricultural productivity, the health and economic prospects of agricultural workers, and animal welfare. This requires development and implementation of adaptation strategies to mitigate the impact in the long-term. The purpose of this study was to identify and map research priorities for climate change adaptation in agriculture, focusing on protecting the health of agricultural workers and livestock animals.

METHODS

Based on the One Health framework, we utilized a participatory, mixed-method approach called group concept mapping. In 2023, 20 faculty members from various disciplines at a land-grant university were recruited through email and purposive sampling, based on group concept mapping methodology. Fifteen faculty members brainstormed ways to reduce health risks for agricultural workers and livestock in the Pacific Northwest amid climate change. Forty ideas were sorted and rated for importance and feasibility by 11 and 10 faculty, respectively.

FINDINGS

Multidimensional scaling yielded five clusters: wildfire smoke impacts, basic science, forecasting extreme weather, tradeoffs, and occupational health and labor. Key research areas include studying wildfire smoke's effects on agricultural products, animals, and workers, and identifying adaptive strategies for climate change's impact on humans and livestock. Overall, 25% included all three pillars of the One Health framework.

CONCLUSIONS

Most research directions were focused on risk management, with limited emphasis on the One Health framework.

APPLICATION TO PRACTICE

Transdisciplinary collaboration is needed to apply a One Health approach in climate adaptation efforts for agriculture and can be enhanced through transdisciplinary education and training opportunities.

The ethical considerations of primordial pandemic prevention from a one health perspective

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has left a devastating global toll. As such, there is a strong impetus to prevent future global pandemics. Ethical considerations are an integral element of pandemic preparedness and response plans and should be incorporated into any pandemic prevention plan to explicitly examine the incorporated values from various stakeholders. Our study aims to determine the ethical considerations of primordial pandemic prevention from a One Health perspective.

METHODS

This was a prospective Delphi consensus seeking-study. We aimed to recruit a purposive, globally representative sample of experts in the fields of public health ethics, One Health ethics, pandemic ethics and pandemic prevention. Two rounds were completed between November 2021, and January 2022. The first round consisted of open-ended questions to establish ethical considerations for primordial pandemic prevention. Thematic analysis was used to uncover themes. The second-round presented the ethical consideration results of the first round, and asked participants to rate the importance of each of them.

RESULTS

The first-round had 27 participants, and the second-round had 25 participants. Both rounds had global representation from all intended fields of expertise. There were five ethical considerations for which consensus was achieved: Promoting equity, global collective effort, distributive justice, evidence-based efficiency and the interconnectedness of humans, animals and the environment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study identified five ethical considerations for primordial pandemic prevention from a globally representative sample. The findings will contribute to current and future pandemic prevention policy, and expand ethics research in the fields of One Health, pandemic prevention and zoonotic disease control.

Towards an Ethical Analysis of Research in One Health (EAROH)

The COVID-19 and Monkeypox pandemics and the ongoing Marburg outbreak in Rwanda provide a stark reminder of the importance of espousing a One Health (OH) approach to zoonoses as well as other public health and global health issues. Recent years have in fact seen an exponential rise in biomedical and public health journals and publications explicitly adopting the name of OH. Not all research that pertains to be OH however is indeed OH research, insofar as it does not comply with the proclaimed OH goals of benefiting humans, animals, and the environment. Thus, to ensure such compliance a checklist or toolkit for an ethical analysis of research in OH (EAROH) should be required prior to publication in scientific journals or grant applications. Such a toolkit should be developed by a working group of scholars with expertise in OH ethics, animal ethics, and environmental ethics.

Countering Zoonotic Diseases: Current Scenario and Advances in Diagnostics, Monitoring, Prophylaxis and Therapeutic Strategies

Human life and health have interacted reciprocally with the surrounding environment and animal fauna for ages. This relationship is evident in developing nations, where human life depends more on the animal population for food, transportation, clothing, draft power, and fuel sources, among others. This inseparable link is a potent source of public health issues, especially in outbreaks of zoonotic diseases transmitted from animals to humans. Zoonotic diseases are referred to as diseases that are naturally transmitted between vertebrate animals and humans. Among the globally emerging diseases in the last decade, 75% are of animal origin, most of which are life-threatening. Since most of them are caused by potent new pathogens capable of long-distance transmission, the impact is widespread and has serious public health and economic consequences. Various other factors also contribute to the transmission, spread, and outbreak of zoonotic diseases, among which industrialization-led globalization followed by ecological disruption and climate change play a critical role. In this regard, all the possible strategies, including advances in rapid and confirmatory disease diagnosis and surveillance/monitoring, immunization/vaccination, therapeutic approaches, appropriate prevention and control measures to be adapted, and awareness programs, need to be adopted collaboratively among different health sectors in medical, veterinary, and concerned departments to implement the necessary interventions for the effective restriction, minimization, and timely control of zoonotic threats. The present review focuses on the current scenario of zoonotic diseases and their counteracting approaches to safeguard their health impact on humans.

Supporting One Health for Pandemic Prevention: The Need for Ethical Innovation

Bioethics is a field in which innovation is required to help prevent and respond to zoonotic diseases with the potential to cause epidemics and pandemics. Some of the developments necessary to fight pandemics, such as COVID-19 vaccines, require public debate on the benefits and risks of individual choice versus responsibility to society. While these debates are necessary, a more fundamental ethical innovation to rebalance human, animal, and environmental interests is also needed. One Health (OH) can be characterized as a strategy that recognizes and promotes the synergy between human, animal, and environmental health. Yet, despite the recognition that these entities are interdependent, there is a pronounced inequality in the power relations between human, non-human animal, and the environmental interests which threatens the well-being of all. Until OH can ensure the moral status of animals and the environment and thereby the equal consideration of these interests, it will struggle to protect non-human interests and, as a result, human health. To create a sustainable health system requires a renewed concept of justice that is ecocentric in nature and an application of OH that is flexible and responsive to different ethical interests (e.g., person-centred care and physician responsibilities). Ultimately, to save themselves, humans must now think beyond themselves. Bioethics must assume a key role in supporting the developments required to create and maintain relationships able to sustain environmental and human health.

Social insights on the implementation of One Health in zoonosis prevention and control: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

The One Health (OH) concept has been promoted widely around the globe. OH framework is expected to be applied as an integrated approach to support addressing zoonotic diseases as a significant global health issue and to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of zoonosis prevention and control. This review is intended to overview the social impact of the implementation of OH on zoonosis prevention and control.

METHODS

A scoping review of studies in the past 10 years was performed to overview the integration feature of OH in zoonosis prevention and control and the social impacts of OH. PubMed and Web of Science were searched for studies published in English between January 2011 and June 2021. The included studies were selected based on predefined criteria.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies were included in this review, and most of them adopted qualitative and semi-qualitative methods. More than 50% of the studies focused on zoonosis prevention and control. Most studies were conducted in low- and middle-income countries in Africa and Asia. Applying OH approach in diseases control integrates policymakers, stakeholders, and academics from various backgrounds. The impact of OH on economic is estimated that it may alleviate the burden of diseases and poverty in the long term, even though more financial support might be needed at the initial stage of OH implementation. OH implementation considers social and ecological factors related to zoonosis transmission and provides comprehensive strategies to assess and address related risks in different communities according to regions and customs.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on reviewed literature, although there seems to be a lack of guidelines for assessing and visualizing the outcomes of OH implementation, which may limit the large-scale adoption of it, evidence on the contributions of implementing OH concepts on zoonosis prevention and control indicates long-term benefits to society, including a better integration of politics, stakeholders and academics to improve their cooperation, a potential to address economic issues caused by zoonosis, and a comprehensive consideration on social determinants of health during zoonosis prevention and control.

The "One Health" approach in the face of Covid-19: how radical should it be?

BACKGROUND

The 2020-2021 coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic is just the latest epidemic event that requires us to rethink and change our understanding of health. Health should no longer be conceived only in relation to human beings, but in unitary terms, as a dimension that connects humans, animals, plants, and the environment (holistic view, One Health). In general, alterations occurring in this articulated chain of life trigger a domino effect.

METHODOLOGY

In this paper, we review the One Health paradigm in the light of the Covid-19 pandemic and distinguish two approaches within it that might be dubbed the Prudent one and the Radical one. Each approach is structured in three levels - epistemological, medical, and ethical.

RESULTS

In this way, we show how we humans can better address the pandemic today and how, in the future, we can treat the whole living system better, by renouncing our anthropocentric perspective on health.

CONCLUSION

We hold that the Prudent approach can be very helpful, and we discuss the medical and ethical issues related to it. We also consider the Radical view and the epistemological turn it requires compared to the Prudent one.

Stamping Out Animal Culling: From Anthropocentrism to One Health Ethics

Culling is used in traditional public health policies to control animal populations. These policies aim primarily to protect human interests but often fail to provide scientific evidence of effectiveness. In this article, we defend the need to move from a strictly anthropocentric approach to disease control towards a One Health ethics, using culling practices as an example. We focus on the recent badger culls in the UK, claiming that, based on data provided by the English Government, these culls may be unjustified, all thing considered. We highlight the relevance of ethical reasoning rooted in One Health for this discussion, and make several suggestions including a moratorium on culling until data are provided to support the effectiveness of culling; to conduct a randomized trial to compare proactive culling with alternative methods; to apply deliberative democratic methods to assess public opinion towards the culls, and to find in Brexit an opportunity for aiming for more effective control measures.

The Berlin principles on one health - Bridging global health and conservation

For over 15-years, proponents of the One Health approach have worked to consistently interweave components that should never have been separated and now more than ever need to be re-connected: the health of humans, non-human animals, and ecosystems. We have failed to heed the warning signs. A One Health approach is paramount in directing our future health in this acutely and irrevocably changed world. COVID-19 has shown us the exorbitant cost of inaction. The time to act is now.

One health ethics: a response to pragmatism

Johnson and Degeling have recently enquired whether one health (OH) requires a comprehensive normative framework, concluding that such a framework, while not necessary, may be helpful. In this commentary, we provide a context for this debate, and describe how pragmatism has been predominant in the OH literature. We nevertheless argue that articulating a comprehensive normative theory to ground OH practice might clear existing vagueness and provide stronger guidance in relevant health dilemmas. A comprehensive theory will also be needed eventually to ground notions such as universal good. We, thus, call for the systematic articulation of a comprehensive, metaethical theory, concomitantly with already ongoing normative work.

One Health and Zoonotic Uncertainty in Singapore and Australia: Examining Different Regimes of Precaution in Outbreak Decision-Making

A One Health approach holds great promise for attenuating the risk and burdens of emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) in both human and animal populations. Because the course and costs of EID outbreaks are difficult to predict, One Health policies must deal with scientific uncertainty, whilst addressing the political, economic and ethical dimensions of communication and intervention strategies. Drawing on the outcomes of parallel Delphi surveys conducted with policymakers in Singapore and Australia, we explore the normative dimensions of two different precautionary approaches to EID decision-making—which we call regimes of risk management and organizing uncertainty, respectively. The imperative to act cautiously can be seen as either an epistemic rule or as a decision rule, which has implications for how EID uncertainty is managed. The normative features of each regime, and their implications for One Health approaches to infectious disease risks and outbreaks, are described. As One Health attempts to move upstream to prevent rather than react to emergence of EIDs in humans, we show how the approaches to uncertainty, taken by experts and decision-makers, and their choices about the content and quality of evidence, have implications for who pays the price of precaution, and, thereby, social and global justice.

Integrative concepts and practices of health in transdisciplinary social ecology

Increasing recognition of interdependencies of the health of humans, other organisms and ecosystems, and of their importance to socio-ecological systems, necessitates application of integrative concepts such as One Health and EcoHealth. These concepts open new perspectives for research and practice but also generate confusion and divergent opinion, prompting new theories, and call for empirical clarification and evaluation. Through a semi-systematic evaluation of knowledge generation in scientific publications (comprised of literature reviews, conceptual models and analyses of communities of practice), we show how integrative concepts and approaches to health evolve and are adopted. Our findings indicate that while their contexts, goals and rationales vary, integrative concepts of health essentially arise from shared interests in living systems. Despite recent increased attention to ecological and societal aspects of health including broader sustainability issues, the focus remains anthropocentric and oriented towards biomedicine. Practices reflect and in turn transform these concepts, which together with practices also influence ways of integration. Overarching narratives vary between optimism and pessimism towards integrated health and knowledge. We conclude that there is an urgent need for better, coherent and more deeply integrative health concepts, approaches and practices to foster the well-being of humans, other animals and ecosystems. Consideration of these concepts and practices has methodological and political importance, as it will transform thinking and action on both society and nature and specifically can enrich science and practice, expanding their scope and linking them better. Transdisciplinary efforts are crucial to developing such concepts and practices to properly address the multiple facets of health and to achieve their appropriate integration for the socio-ecological systems at stake. We propose the term “transdisciplinary health” to denote the new approaches needed.

EcoHealth and One Health: A theory-focused review in response to calls for convergence

BACKGROUND

EcoHealth and One Health are two major approaches broadly aimed at understanding the links between human, animal, and environment health. There have been increasing calls for convergence between the two. If convergence is desired, greater clarity regarding the underlying theoretical assumptions of both approaches is required. This would also support integrated research to effectively address complex health issues at the human, animal and environment interface. To better understand the areas of overlap and alignment, we systematically compared and contrasted the theoretical assumptions of both approaches.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to gain a more in-depth understanding of the ontological, epistemological and methodological underpinnings of EcoHealth and One Health in order to identify areas of difference and overlap, and consider the extent to which closer convergence between the two may be possible.

METHODS

We undertook a scoping review of literature about the ontological, epistemological and methodological positions of EcoHealth and One Health, and analyzed these according to Lincoln, Lynham and Guba's paradigm framework.

RESULTS

EcoHealth and One Health are both collaborative, systems-focused approaches at the human, animal, and ecosystem health interface. EcoHealth typically leans towards constructivist-leaning assumptions. Many consider this a necessary aspiration for One Health. However, in practice One Health remains dominated by the veterinary and medical disciplines that emphasize positivist-leaning assumptions.

DISCUSSION

The aspirations of EcoHealth and One Health appear to overlap at the conceptual level, and may well warrant closer convergence. However, further shared discussions about their epistemological and ontological assumptions are needed to reconcile important theoretical differences, and to better guide scopes of practice. Critical realism may be a crucial theoretical meeting point. Systems thinking methods (with critical realist underpinnings), such as system dynamics modelling, are potentially useful methodologies for supporting convergent practice.

Attending to scalar ethical issues in emerging approaches to environmental health research and practice

Accelerated changes to the planet have created novel spaces to re-imagine the boundaries and foci of environmental health research. Climate change, mass species extinction, ocean acidification, biogeochemical disturbance, and other emergent environmental issues have precipitated new population health perspectives, including, but not limited to, one health, ecohealth, and planetary health. These perspectives, while nuanced, all attempt to reconcile broad global challenges with localized health impacts by attending to the reciprocal relationships between the health of ecosystems, animals, and humans. While such innovation is to be encouraged, we argue that a more comprehensive engagement with the ethics of these emerging fields of inquiry will add value in terms of the significance and impact of associated interventions. In this contribution, we highlight how the concept of spatial and temporal scale can be usefully deployed to shed light on a variety of ethical issues common to emerging environmental health perspectives, and that the potential of scalar analysis implicit to van Potter's conceptualization of bioethics has yet to be fully appreciated. Specifically, we identify how scale interacts with key ethical issues that require consideration and clarification by one health, ecohealth, and planetary health researchers and practitioners to enhance the effectiveness of research and practice, including justice and governance.

Megatrends in Infectious Diseases: The Next 10 to 15 Years

It has been about 100 years since the Spanish influenza pandemic of 1918-19 that killed an estimated 50 million individuals globally. While we have made remarkable progress in reducing infection-related mortality, infections still account for 13 to 15 million deaths annually. This estimate is projected to remain unchanged until 2050. We have identified 4 megatrends in infectious diseases and these are “emerging and re-emerging infections”, “antimicrobial resistance”, “demographic changes” and “technological advances”. Understanding these trends and challenges should lead to opportunities for the medical community to reshape the future. Further inroads will also require broad approaches involving surveillance, public health and translating scientific discoveries into disease control efforts. Key words: Antimicrobial resistance, Demographic changes, Emerging infections, Technological advances

Does One Health require a novel ethical framework?

Emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) remain a significant and dynamic threat to the health of individuals and the well-being of communities across the globe. Over the last decade, in response to these threats, increasing scientific consensus has mobilised in support of a One Health (OH) approach so that OH is now widely regarded as the most effective way of addressing EID outbreaks and risks. Given the scientific focus on OH, there is growing interest in the philosophical and ethical dimensions of this approach, and a nascent OH literature is developing in the humanities. One of the key issues raised in this literature concerns ethical frameworks and whether OH merits the development of its very own ethical framework. In this paper, we argue that although the OH approach does not demand a new ethical framework (and that advocates of OH can coherently adhere to this approach while deploying existing ethical frameworks), an OH approach does furnish the theoretical resources to support a novel ethical framework, and there are benefits to developing one that may be lost in its absence. We begin by briefly explaining what an OH approach to the threats posed by EIDs entails before outlining two different ways of construing ethical frameworks. We then show that although on one account of ethical frameworks there is no need for OH to generate its own, there may be advantages for its advocates in doing so.

Public preferences for One Health approaches to emerging infectious diseases: A discrete choice experiment

There is increasing scientific consensus that a One Health approach (acknowledging links between human, animal and environmental health) is the most effective way of responding to emerging infectious disease (EID) threats. However, reviews of past EID events show that successful implementation of control strategies hinge on alignment with public values. Given the limited evidence about public values in this area, we sought to understand public preferences for attributes associated with One Health strategies for EID prevention and control, using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The DCE was conducted in 2016 using an online panel of Australian respondents aged over 18. Participants were presented with 18 pairs of scenarios describing One Health strategies and outcomes, and asked to select their preferred one. Scenarios were described by nine attributes with varying levels: personal autonomy, economic development, environmental health, community cohesion, free trade and travel, zoonotic risk, mortality, animal welfare and food security. Respondents were broadly representative of the Australian population (n = 1999, mean age 45.3 years (range 18-89); 50.7% male). The public preferred scenarios in which individual freedoms are not restricted for the greater good; unemployment is low; the environment is healthy; there is good community cohesion; travel, imports and exports are tightly controlled; there is lower mortality and incidence of disease; and where animal welfare and food security are protected. Although lower morbidity and mortality were preferable, respondents were willing to accept extra cases of severe disease and deaths to avoid reductions in some attributes. However, a mixed logit model indicated significant heterogeneity. A latent class analysis suggested wide variability across respondent classes in the valuation of attributes, and the trade-offs respondents were willing to accept. Therefore, a single approach to managing EID using One Health is unlikely to be acceptable to all community members.

Management of arthropod vector data - Social and ecological dynamics facing the One Health perspective

Emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) are spread by direct and/or indirect contacts between a pathogen or parasite and their hosts. Arthropod vectors have evolved as excellent bloodsuckers, providing an elegant transportation mode for a wide number of infectious agents. The nature of pathogen and parasite transfer and the models used to predict how a disease might spread are magnified in complexity when an arthropod vector is part of the disease cycle. One Health is a worldwide strategy for expanding interdisciplinary collaborations and communications in all aspects of health care for humans, animals and the environment. It would benefit from a structured analysis to address vectoring of arthropod-borne diseases as a dynamic transactional process. This review focused on how arthropod vector data can be used to better model and predict zoonotic disease outbreaks. With enhanced knowledge to describe arthropod vector disease transfer, researchers will have a better understanding about how to model disease outbreaks. As public health research evolves to include more social-ecological systems, the roles of society, ecology, epidemiology, pathogen/parasite evolution and animal behavior can be better captured in the research design. Overall, because of more collaborative data collection processes on arthropod vectors, disease modeling can better predict conditions where EIDs will occur.