Health promotion and harm reduction attributes in One Health literature: A scoping review

Reflective practice is a prerequisite for One Health development

One Health is being promoted as a transformative approach in health, conservation, and environmental sustainability. The polycrisis of climate change, pandemics, food insecurity, biodiversity loss, pollution and inequity is creating an urgency to evolve the epistemology and methods of One Health. However, the amount of effort placed into critical and systematic reflection on One Health is outweighed by advocacy for its use, or for expanding its scope of practice. This paper advocates for reflective One Health practice to foster new ways of knowing and doing that are helpful in the face of a rapidly narrowing window of opportunity to preserve the social and environmental factors that secure health and resilience for all species and generations. We propose six areas for reflection; (1) how to moderate conformity so that One Health does not become its own silo; (2) finding the moral purpose of One Health to align actions with desired outcomes; (3) coping with the problem of too many interacting problems; (4) the strategic trajectory of growth to accelerate action on root causes and ensure One Health is future-ready; (5) how to identify priorities across a vast array of problems, values, and needs and (6) how to know if we are making the world healthier and safer and for whom. Reflective practice requires investment in ongoing conversation to guard against over-confidence that we have captured the "one right way" to meet changing expectations and circumstances in a fair and effective way. Our intention is to stimulate thinking and discussion within the One Health community to ensure that "doing is shaped by knowing". We hope One Health will continue to be an emergent and highly variable set of ever more effective practices that constantly changes in response to the complex, interconnected and changing problems facing the health of people, animals, and the environment.

Understanding Community Perceptions of the St. Kitts’ “Monkey Problem” by Adapting Harm Reduction Concepts and Methods

Wicked problems in One Health are associated with dynamicity and uncertainty that require experts, authorities and community members to reach for innovative means of collective inquiry, and collaborative interventions to address the deep social issues at the root of interspecies problems. In this study we explore the value of harm reduction concepts to understand a hundreds of year old issue, the St. Kitts’ “monkey problem,” which involves the invasive African green monkey (Chlorocebus sabaeus) as the cause of deleterious effects on agriculture, but concurrent positive effects on tourism and biomedical research. The harm reduction approach, a systems and settings-based approach with decades of success in public health, can serve as a framework to produce action on persistent societal problems. Harm reduction concepts and methods and participatory epidemiology were used to uncover local perceptions about human-monkey interactions and “meet people where they are” by asking the research question: Are there commonalities in perceptions and values linked to the St. Kitts’ “monkey problem” that are shared across diverse representatives of society that can act as a common starting place to launch collaborative responses to this invasive species? Through a series of focus group activities and interviews we found that the Kittitian “monkey problem” is a contentious and dichotomous problem pervasive in most of society that has no single stakeholders nor one solution. Harm reduction helped to map the island’s human-monkey system and elucidated an entry point toward tackling this problem through the identification of shared values, and also provided a model for incremental gains that may be achieved. Likening the St. Kitts “monkey problem” to a wicked problem enabled stakeholders to seek more options to manage the problem rather than to conclusively solve it. Frequently mentioned shared values including the protection of farmer crops and backyard harvests likely represent strong entry points to this problem and a jumping-off point to begin collective action toward future improvements.

A Rapid Literature Review of Multi-Criteria Decision Support Methods in the Context of One Health for All-Hazards Threat Prioritization

Background

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is a decision support tool that can be used in public health emergency management. The use of a One Health lens in MCDA can support the prioritization of threats and interventions which cut across the human, animal, and environmental domains. Previous literature reviews have focused on creating a snapshot of MCDA methodological trends. Our study provides an update to the MCDA methods literature with key considerations from a One Health perspective and addresses the application of MCDA in an all-hazards decision-making context.

Methods

We conducted a literature search on MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, the CAB database, and a limited online gray literature search in partnership with a librarian from Health Canada. Articles were limited to those published in the year 2010 or later in a high-income setting (OECD member countries).

Results

Sixty-two articles were included for synthesis. Of these articles, most were Canadian studies (20%); and prioritized health risks, threats, and interventions in the human domain (69%). Six commonly used prioritization criteria were identified: threat, health, intervention, strategic, social, and economic impact. Stakeholders were engaged in 85% of studies and commonly consisted of government groups, non-governmental groups, subject matter experts, and the public. While most articles (65%) included elements of One Health based on our definition, only 5 studies (9%) explicitly acknowledged One Health as a guiding principle for the study. Forty seven percentage of studies noted that MCDA was beneficial in supporting the decision-making process.

Conclusion

Current literature on health prioritization presents some variability in the depth of integration of the One Health framework and on the use of various MCDA methodologies given prioritization objectives. Studies which applied a comprehensive One Health approach, prioritized disparate threats, or conducted cyclical prioritizations for governing bodies were broad in scope, but sparse. The results of our review indicate the need for better guidance on the integration of a One Health approach and the use of various MCDA methods given the main prioritization objectives.

COVID-19 severity determinants inferred through ecological and epidemiological modeling

Understanding variations in the severity of infectious diseases is essential for planning proper mitigation strategies. Determinants of COVID-19 clinical severity are commonly assessed by transverse or longitudinal studies of the fatality counts. However, the fatality counts depend both on disease clinical severity and transmissibility, as more infected also lead to more deaths. Instead, we use epidemiological modeling to propose a disease severity measure that accounts for the underlying disease dynamics. The measure corresponds to the ratio of population-averaged mortality and recovery rates (m/r), is independent of the disease transmission dynamics (i.e., the basic reproduction number), and has a direct mechanistic interpretation. We use this measure to assess demographic, medical, meteorological, and environmental factors associated with the disease severity. For this, we employ an ecological regression study design and analyze different US states during the first disease outbreak. Principal Component Analysis, followed by univariate, and multivariate analyses based on machine learning techniques, is used for selecting important predictors. The usefulness of the introduced severity measure and the validity of the approach are confirmed by the fact that, without using prior knowledge from clinical studies, we recover the main significant predictors known to influence disease severity, in particular age, chronic diseases, and racial factors. Additionally, we identify long-term pollution exposure and population density as not widely recognized (though for the pollution previously hypothesized) significant predictors. The proposed measure is applicable for inferring severity determinants not only of COVID-19 but also of other infectious diseases, and the obtained results may aid a better understanding of the present and future epidemics. Our holistic, systematic investigation of disease severity at the human-environment intersection by epidemiological dynamical modeling and machine learning ecological regressions is aligned with the One Health approach. The obtained results emphasize a syndemic nature of COVID-19 risks.

Therapy Dog Welfare Revisited: A Review of the Literature

During the past decade, the field of human-animal interaction(s) research has been characterized by a significant increase in scientific findings. These data have contributed to our current understanding of how humans may benefit from contact with animals. However, the animal experience of these interactions is still an under-researched area. This paper addresses the welfare of dogs who participate in animal-assisted interventions (AAIs) to improve health in human recipients. This paper builds on previous work by Glenk (2017) and provides an updated review of the literature on therapy dog welfare published from 2017-2021. New advances in scientific methodology, such as the determination of salivary oxytocin, breath rate and tympanic membrane temperature, are analyzed regarding their value and limitations for research in AAIs. Moreover, welfare-related social and environmental factors (e.g., freedom of choice, exploration of novel environments, inequity aversion, individual development, working experience, relationship with handler and handler skills) that profoundly influence dog perception and well-being are reviewed and discussed. Accounting for the globally increasing interest and the number of dogs utilized in AAIs, safeguarding therapy dog well-being, and identifying situations, circumstances and protocols that may challenge animal welfare remains an emerging and crucial area of scientific effort.