Stakeholders in One Health

Policies to prevent zoonotic spillover: protocol for a systematic scoping review of evaluative evidence

INTRODUCTION

The increasing incidence of pathogen transmission from animals to humans (zoonotic spillover events) has been attributed to behavioural practices and ecological and socioeconomic change. As these events sometimes involve pathogens with epidemic or pandemic potential, they pose a serious threat to population health. Public policies may play a key role in preventing these events. The aim of this review is to identify evaluations of public policies that target the determinants of zoonotic spillover, examining approaches taken to evaluation, choice of outcomes measures and evidence of effectiveness. Our approach to identifying and analysing this literature will be informed by a One Health lens, acknowledging the interconnectedness of human, animal and environmental health.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic scoping review methodology will be used. To identify articles, we will search Medline, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Global Health in May 2021 using search terms combining animal health and the animal-human interface, public policy, prevention and zoonoses. We will screen titles and abstracts and extract data according to published guidelines for scoping reviews. All evaluations of public policies aiming to prevent zoonotic spillover events will be eligible for inclusion. We will summarise key data from each study, mapping policies along the spillover pathway and outlining the range of policies, approaches to evaluation and outcome measures. Review findings will provide a useful reference for researchers and practitioners, outlining the state of the evaluative evidence around policies to prevent zoonotic spillover.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Formal ethical approval is not required, because the study does not involve primary data collection. The findings of this study will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, presentations and summaries for key stakeholders.

When One Health Meets the United Nations Ocean Decade: Global Agendas as a Pathway to Promote Collaborative Interdisciplinary Research on Human-Nature Relationships

Strong evidence shows that exposure and engagement with the natural world not only improve human wellbeing but can also help promote environmentally friendly behaviors. Human-nature relationships are at the heart of global agendas promoted by international organizations including the World Health Organization’s (WHO) “One Health” and the United Nations (UN) “Ocean Decade.” These agendas demand collaborative multisector interdisciplinary efforts at local, national, and global levels. However, while global agendas highlight global goals for a sustainable world, developing science that directly addresses these agendas from design through to delivery and outputs does not come without its challenges. In this article, we present the outcomes of international meetings between researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers from the United Kingdom and Brazil. We propose a model for interdisciplinary work under such global agendas, particularly the interface between One Health and the UN Ocean Decade and identify three priority research areas closely linked to each other: human-nature connection, conservation-human behavior, and implementation strategies (bringing stakeholders together). We also discuss a number of recommendations for moving forward.

The concept of one health applied to the problem of zoonotic diseases

Zoonotic diseases are a burden on healthcare systems globally, particularly underdeveloped nations. Numerous vertebrate animals (e.g., birds, mammals and reptiles) serve as amplifier hosts or reservoirs for viral zoonoses. The spread of zoonotic disease is associated with environmental factors, climate change, animal health as well as other human activities including globalization, urbanization and travel. Diseases at the human-animal environment interface (e.g., zoonotic diseases, vector-borne diseases, food/water borne diseases) continue to pose risk to animals and humans with a great significant mortality and morbidity. It is estimated that of 1400 infectious diseases known to affect humans, 60% of them are of animal origin. In addition, 75% of the emerging infectious diseases have a zoonotic nature, worldwide. The one health concept plays an important role in the control and prevention of zoonoses by integrating animal, human, and environmental health through collaboration and communication among osteopaths, wildlife, physicians, veterinarians professionals, public health and environmental experts, nurses, dentists, physicists, biomedical engineers, plant pathologists, biochemists, and others. No one sector, organization, or person can address issues at the animal-human-ecosystem interface alone.

Critical Evaluation of Cross-Sectoral Collaborations to Inform the Implementation of the "One Health" Approach in Guadeloupe

In Guadeloupe, a French overseas territory located in the Eastern Caribbean, infectious and non-infectious diseases, loss of biodiversity, natural disasters and global change threaten the health and well-being of animals, plants, and people. Implementing the “One Health” (OH) approach is crucial to reduce the archipelago's vulnerability to these health threats. However, OH remains underdeveloped in Guadeloupe, hampering efficient and effective intersectoral and transdisciplinary collaborations for disease surveillance and control. A multidisciplinary research group of volunteer researchers working in Guadeloupe, with collective expertise in infectious diseases, undertook a study to identify key attributes for OH operationalization by reviewing past and current local collaborative health initiatives and analyzing how much they mobilized the OH framework. The research group developed and applied an operational OH framework to assess critically collaborative initiatives addressing local health issues. Based on a literature review, a set of 13 opinion-based key criteria was defined. The criteria and associated scoring were measured through semi-directed interviews guided by a questionnaire to critically evaluate four initiatives in animal, human, plant, and environmental health research and epidemiological surveillance. Gaps, levers, and prospects were identified that will help health communities in Guadeloupe envision how to implement the OH approach to better address local health challenges. The methodology is simple, generic, and pragmatic and relies on existing resources. It can be transposed and adapted to other contexts to improve effectiveness and efficiency of OH initiatives, based on lessons-learned of local past or current multi-interdisciplinary and intersectoral initiatives.

Examining the concept of One Health for indigenous communities: A systematic review

Purpose

This paper examines whether the usage of the concept of One Health in Canada-based research aligns with traditional Indigenous notions of health and wellness.

Methods

A comprehensive search of the literature was conducted using primary databases, including Scholars Portal, ProQuest Social Science, Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), OVID Healthstar, Embase, Medline, Pubmed and Google Scholar. Papers discussing One Health and Indigenous Health were selected and analyzed through Nvivo12 to generate common themes across the studies.

Results

The analysis identified three major themes that focused on One Health as it relates to climate change, zoonosis, and social relationships between humans and animals. Climate change was seen to have affected the environmental health of Northern latitude areas where many Indigenous communities reside. Infectious diseases within Indigenous communities were a frequent topic of study and indicated that infections transmitted by dogs are likely to be addressed with One Health interventions. One Health interventions are likely to equally address the health of humans, animals, and the environment.

Conclusions

No significant connection between One Health and Indigenous knowledges was established in the analyzed articles. Articles discussed One Health as it pertains to epidemiological surveillance and research. The implications of utilizing One Health towards Indigenous Peoples and culture were not explicitly addressed.

Who could be One Health Activist at the community level?: A case for India

BACKGROUND

Community health workers (CHWs) are the mainstay of the public health system, serving for decades in low-resource countries. Their multi-dimensional work in various health care services, including the prevention of communicable diseases and health promotion of non-communicable diseases, makes CHWs, the frontline workers in their respective communities in India. As India is heading towards the development of One Health (OH), this study attempted to provide an insight into potential OH activists (OHA) at the community level. Thus, this case study in one of India's western cities, Ahmedabad, targeted identifying OHA by exploring the feasibility and the motivation of CHWs in a local setting.

METHODS

This case study explores two major CHWs, i.e., female (Accredited Social Health Activists/ASHA) health workers (FHWs) and male (multipurpose) health workers (MHWs), on their experience and motivation for becoming an OHA. The data were collected between September 2018 and August 2019 through a mixed design, i.e., quantitative data (cross-sectional structured questionnaire) followed by qualitative data (focus group discussion with a semi-structured interview guide).

RESULTS

The motivation of the CHWs for liaisoning as OHA was found to be low; however, the FHWs have a higher mean motivation score [40 (36-43)] as compared to MHWs [37 (35-40)] out of a maximum score of 92. Although most CHWs have received zoonoses training or contributed to zoonoses prevention campaigns, their awareness level was found to be different among male and female health workers. Comparing the female and male health workers to act as OHA, higher motivational score, multidisciplinary collaborative work experience, and way for incentive generation documented among the female health workers.

CONCLUSION

ASHAs were willing to accept the additional new liaison role of OHAs if measures like financial incentives and improved recognition are provided. Although this study documented various systemic factors at the individual, community, and health system level, which might, directly and indirectly, impact the acceptance level to act as OHA, they need to be accounted for in the policy regime.

'One Health' Actors in Multifaceted Health Systems: An Operational Case for India

The surging trend of (re)emerging diseases urges for the early detection, prevention, and control of zoonotic infections through the One Health (OH) approach. The operationalization of the OH approach depends on the contextual setting, the presence of the actors across the domains of OH, and the extent of their involvement. In the absence of national operational guidelines for OH in India, this study aims to identify potential actors with an attempt to understand the current health system network strength (during an outbreak and non-outbreak situations) at the local health system of Ahmedabad, India. This case study adopted a sequential mixed methods design conducted in two phases. First, potential actors who have been involved directly or indirectly in zoonoses prevention and control were identified through in-depth interviews. A network study was conducted as part of the second phase through a structured network questionnaire. Interest and influence matrix, average degree, network density, and degree of centralization were calculated through Atlas.Ti (ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany), UCINET (Analytic Technologies, Lexington, KY, USA) software. The identified actors were categorized based on power, administrative level (either at the city or district level), and their level of action: administrative (policy planners, managers), providers (physicians, veterinarians), and community (health workers, community leaders). The matrix indicated that administrative actors from the district level were ‘context setters’ and the actors from the city level were either ‘players’ or ‘subjects’. The network density showed a strength of 0.328 during the last outbreak of H5N1, which decreased to 0.163 during the non-outbreak situation. Overall, there was low collaboration observed in this study, which ranged from communication (during non-outbreaks) to coordination (during outbreaks). The private and non-governmental actors were not integrated into collaborative activities. This study concludes that not only collaboration is needed for OH among the sectors pertaining to the human and the animal health system but also better structured (‘inter-level’) collaboration across the governance levels for effective implementation.

Repurposing NGO data for better research outcomes: a scoping review of the use and secondary analysis of NGO data in health policy and systems research

Background

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) collect and generate vast amounts of potentially rich data, most of which are not used for research purposes. Secondary analysis of NGO data (their use and analysis in a study for which they were not originally collected) presents an important but largely unrealised opportunity to provide new research insights in critical areas, including the evaluation of health policy and programmes.

Methods

A scoping review of the published literature was performed to identify the extent to which secondary analysis of NGO data has been used in health policy and systems research (HPSR). A tiered analytical approach provided a comprehensive overview and descriptive analyses of the studies that (1) used data produced or collected by or about NGOs; (2) performed secondary analysis of the NGO data (beyond the use of an NGO report as a supporting reference); and (3) analysed NGO-collected clinical data.

Results

Of the 156 studies that performed secondary analysis of NGO-produced or collected data, 64% (n = 100) used NGO-produced reports (mostly to a limited extent, as a contextual reference or to critique NGO activities) and 8% (n = 13) analysed NGO-collected clinical data. Of these studies, 55% (n = 86) investigated service delivery research topics and 48% (n = 51) were undertaken in developing countries and 17% (n = 27) in both developing and developed countries. NGOs were authors or co-authors of 26% of the studies. NGO-collected clinical data enabled HPSR within marginalised groups (e.g. migrants, people in conflict-affected areas), albeit with some limitations such as inconsistent and missing data.

Conclusion

We found evidence that NGO-collected and produced data are most commonly perceived as a source of supporting evidence for HPSR and not as primary source data. However, these data can facilitate research in under-researched marginalised groups and in contexts that are hard to reach by academics such as conflict-affected areas. NGO–academic collaboration could help address issues of NGO data quality to facilitate their more widespread use in research. The use of NGO data use could enable relevant and timely research in the areas of programme evaluation and health policy and advocacy to improve health and reduce health inequalities, especially in marginalised groups and developing countries.

Integrated Approach to Facilitate Stakeholder Participation in the Control of Endemic Diseases of Livestock: The Case of Peste Des Petits Ruminants in Mali

In Mali, small ruminants (SRs) are an important means for enhanced livelihood through income generation, especially for women and youth. Unfortunately, opportunities for livestock farmers to tap into these resources for economic growth are hindered by high burden of endemic diseases such as peste des petits ruminants (PPR). A key component for the control of PPR is vaccination of SRs. However, low participation of farmers to vaccination was identified by stakeholders of the livestock value chains as a key constraint to successful vaccination programs. This study was implemented in the framework of a project which aimed at improving the domestic ruminant livestock value chains in Mali by upscaling proven interventions in animal health, feeds and feeding and livestock marketing. The objectives of the study were to review the context of livestock vaccination in Mali and evaluate the impact of innovation platforms (IP) as a means for engaging stakeholders in the vaccination process. Desk review, key informant interviews (KII) and net-mapping were used to understand the context of livestock vaccination, while vaccination coverage and sero-monitoring together with group interviews were used to measure the impact of the intervention. IPs were created in 24 communes in three regions: 15 IPs in Sikasso, 4 IPs in Mopti and 5 IPs in Timbuktu. They developed work plans and implemented activities focusing on improving interaction among key vaccine chain delivery stakeholders such as farmers, private veterinarians, vaccine manufacturers, local leaders and public veterinary services; involving them in the planning, implementation and evaluation of vaccination programs and fostering knowledge sharing, communication and capacity building. After 2 years of implementation of IPs, vaccination coverage for SRs increased significantly in target communes. During the first year, seroprevalence rate for PPR increased from 57% (CI95: 54-60%) at baseline to 70% (CI95: 67-73%) post-vaccination in Sikasso region, while in Mopti region, seroprevalence increased from 51% (CI95: 47-55%) at baseline to 57% (CI85: 53-61%) post-vaccination. Stakeholder engagement in the vaccination process through facilitated IPs was successful in fostering participation of farmers to vaccination. However, a sustainable vaccination strategy for Mali would benefit from consolidating the IP model, supported by Government investment to strengthen and adjust the underlying public-private-partnership.

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.

Is the current surge in political and financial attention to One Health solidifying or splintering the movement?

INTRODUCTION

The global health field has witnessed the rise, short-term persistence and fall of several movements. One Health, which addresses links between human, animal and environmental health, is currently experiencing a surge in political and financial attention, but there are well-documented barriers to collaboration between stakeholders from different sectors. We examined how stakeholder dynamics and approaches to operationalising One Health have evolved further to recent political and financial support for One Health.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed methods study, first by qualitatively investigating views of 25 major policymakers and funders of One Health programmes about factors supporting or impeding systemic changes to strengthen the One Health movement. We then triangulated these findings with a quantitative analysis of the current operations of 100 global One Health Networks.

RESULTS

We found that recent attention to One Health at high-level political fora has increased power struggles between dominant human and animal health stakeholders, in a context where investment in collaboration building skills is lacking. The injection of funding to support One Health initiatives has been accompanied by a rise in organisations conducting diverse activities under the One Health umbrella, with stakeholders shifting operationalisation in directions most aligned with their own interests, thereby splintering and weakening the movement. While international attention to antimicrobial resistance was identified as a unique opportunity to strengthen the One Health movement, there is a risk that this will further drive a siloed, disease-specific approach and that structural changes required for wider collaboration will be neglected.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis indicated several opportunities to capitalise on the current growth in One Health initiatives and funding. In particular, evidence from better monitoring and evaluation of ongoing activities could support the case for future funding and allow development of more precise guidelines on best practices.

The growth and strategic functioning of One Health networks: a systematic analysis

BACKGROUND

The recent increase in attention to linkages between human health, animal health, and the state of the environment has resulted in the rapid growth of networks that facilitate collaboration between these sectors. This study ascertained whether duplication of efforts is occurring across networks, which stakeholders are being engaged, and how frequently monitoring and evaluation of investments is being reported.

METHODS

This study is a systematic analysis of One Health networks (OHNs) in Africa, Asia, and Europe. We defined an OHN as an engagement between two or more discrete organisations with at least two of the following sectors represented: animal health, human health, and the environment or ecosystem. Between June 5 and Sept 29, 2017, we systematically searched for OHNs in PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, and relevant conference websites. No language restrictions were applied, but we were only able to translate from English and French. Data about OHNs, including their year of initiation, sectors of engagement, regions of operation, activities conducted, and stakeholders involved, were extracted with a standardised template and analysed descriptively.

FINDINGS

After screening 2430 search results, we identified and analysed 100 unique OHNs, of which 86 were formed after 2005. 32 OHNs covered only human and animal health, without engaging with the role of the environment on health. 78 OHNs involved academic bodies and 78 involved government bodies, with for-profit organisations involved in only 23 and community groups involved in only ten. There were few collaborations exclusively between networks in the developing world (four OHNs) and only 15 OHNs reported monitoring and evaluation information. The majority of OHNs worked on supporting communication, collaboration, information sharing, and capacity building.

INTERPRETATION

Amid concerns about there being insufficient strategic direction and coordination in the growth of OHNs, our study provides empirical evidence about limitations in stakeholder representation, apparently absent or ambiguous monitoring and evaluation structures, and potential areas of duplication. The collective strategic functioning of OHNs might be improved by more transparent reporting of goals and outcomes of OHN activities, as well as more collaborations led by networks within the developing world and increased attention to environmental health.

FUNDING

None.

Optimization of human, animal, and environmental health by using the One Health approach

Emerging diseases are increasing burdens on public health, negatively affecting the world economy, causing extinction of species, and disrupting ecological integrity. One Health recognizes that human, domestic animal, and wildlife health are interconnected within ecosystem health and provides a framework for the development of multidisciplinary solutions to global health challenges. To date, most health-promoting interventions have focused largely on single-sector outcomes. For example, risk for transmission of zoonotic pathogens from bush-meat hunting is primarily focused on human hygiene and personal protection. However, bush-meat hunting is a complex issue promoting the need for holistic strategies to reduce transmission of zoonotic disease while addressing food security and wildlife conservation issues. Temporal and spatial separation of humans and wildlife, risk communication, and other preventative strategies should allow wildlife and humans to co-exist. Upstream surveillance, vaccination, and other tools to prevent pathogen spillover are also needed. Clear multi-sector outcomes should be defined, and a systems-based approach is needed to develop interventions that reduce risks and balance the needs of humans, wildlife, and the environment. The ultimate goal is long-term action to reduce forces driving emerging diseases and provide interdisciplinary scientific approaches to management of risks, thereby achieving optimal outcomes for human, animal, and environmental health.

Veterinary epidemiology: Forging a path toward one health

The One Health concept has been extensively used to describe those practices that support transdisciplinary collaborations involving animal and human health and the environment. During the past International Society of Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics (ISVEE) conference in Merida (Mexico) in November 2015, a panel discussion was held to identify gaps and needs required for success with such approaches. Key messages included further development of dynamic, transdisciplinary collaborations, new mechanisms for obtaining, integrating and interpreting data from diverse sources, the identification of One Health joint priorities and resources for the veterinary and public health professions, and operationalization and institutionalization of One Health. Additionally, all abstracts that were presented at ISVEE containing the term "One Health" were identified. There has been an increase in the use of the term over time. One Health research has been presented at ISVEE since at least as early as 2009 and has been highlighted at the conference for work carried out in at least 41 countries from 69 research centers or institutions, with highly diversified articles, which reveals the richness of this field of research.

One Health proof of concept: Bringing a transdisciplinary approach to surveillance for zoonotic viruses at the human-wild animal interface

As the world continues to react and respond inefficiently to emerging infectious diseases, such as Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome and the Ebola and Zika viruses, a growing transdisciplinary community has called for a more proactive and holistic approach to prevention and preparedness - One Health. Such an approach presents important opportunities to reduce the impact of disease emergence events and also to mitigate future emergence through improved cross-sectoral coordination. In an attempt to provide proof of concept of the utility of the One Health approach, the US Agency for International Development's PREDICT project consortium designed and implemented a targeted, risk-based surveillance strategy based not on humans as sentinels of disease but on detecting viruses early, at their source, where intervention strategies can be implemented before there is opportunity for spillover and spread in people or food animals. Here, we share One Health approaches used by consortium members to illustrate the potential for successful One Health outcomes that can be achieved through collaborative, transdisciplinary partnerships. PREDICT's collaboration with partners around the world on strengthening local capacity to detect hundreds of viruses in wild animals, coupled with a series of cutting-edge virological and analytical activities, have significantly improved our baseline knowledge on the zoonotic pool of viruses and the risk of exposure to people. Further testament to the success of the project's One Health approach and the work of its team of dedicated One Health professionals are the resulting 90 peer-reviewed, scientific publications in under 5 years that improve our understanding of zoonoses and the factors influencing their emergence. The findings are assisting in global health improvements, including surveillance science, diagnostic technologies, understanding of viral evolution, and ecological driver identification. Through its One Health leadership and multi-disciplinary partnerships, PREDICT has forged new networks of professionals from the human, animal, and environmental health sectors to promote global health, improving our understanding of viral disease spillover from wildlife and implementing strategies for preventing and controlling emerging disease threats.