Meanings and mechanisms of One Health partnerships: insights from a critical review of literature on cross-government collaborations

How do food safety technical working groups within a One Health framework work? Experiences from Vietnam and Ethiopia

BACKGROUND

Persistent challenges of fragmented, food safety management in low- and middle-income countries underscore the need for more robustly coordinated mechanisms. National food safety technical working groups, operating under a One Health framework, offer potential in streamlining coordination efforts to effectively address these challenges. However, more clarity regarding their formation and functioning is important for understanding how to best establish and support such groups. The aim of this study is to systematically document the development process of established groups in Vietnam and Ethiopia.

METHODS

We assess the process used to establish and support the technical working groups against six critical success factors for multisectoral collaboration: drive change, define, design, realise, relate, and capture success. To do so, we review meeting minutes, Terms of Reference, and other related publications.

RESULTS

The analysis underscores the importance of financial and technical support by development partners in initiating working groups while also highlighting the challenge posed by the absence of legal frameworks to secure government commitment. Embedding the technical working groups within existing government structures - such as One Health platforms - from the outset could help to ensure the active participation and sustainability of such groups.

CONCLUSION

Both Vietnam and Ethiopia have established operational and institutionalized technical working groups to bolster national food safety efforts under a One Health framework. The approaches employed in these countries could serve as valuable models for others seeking to establish comparable multisectoral collaborative mechanisms to address emerging health risks.

Constructing a One Health governance architecture: a systematic review and analysis of governance mechanisms for One Health

The integration of human, animal, and environmental health in the One Health framework is crucial for tackling complex health and environmental issues. Governance structures in One Health initiatives are essential for coordinating efforts, fostering partnerships, and establishing effective policy frameworks. This systematic review, registered with PROSPERO, aims to evaluate governance architectures in One Health initiatives. Searches in PubMed, Scopus, WoS, and Cochrane from 2000 to 2023 were conducted. Key terms focused on peer-reviewed articles, systematic reviews, and relevant grey literature. Nine eligible studies were selected based on inclusion criteria. Data synthesis aimed to assess governance mechanisms' functionality and effectiveness. Among 1277 sources screened, nine studies across diverse regions were eligible. An adapted framework assessed implementation mechanisms of international agreements, categorizing them into Engagement, Coordination, Policies, and Financial domains. The findings highlight the importance of effective governance, stakeholder engagement, and collaborative approaches in addressing One Health's challenges. Identified challenges include deficient intersectoral collaboration, funding constraints, and stakeholder conflicts. Robust governance frameworks are pivotal in One Health paradigms, emphasizing stakeholder engagement and collaboration. These insights guide policymakers, practitioners, and researchers in refining governance structures to enhance human-animal health and environmental sustainability. Acknowledging study limitations, such as methodological variations and limited geographical scope, underscores the importance of further research in this area.

Navigating One Health in research-for-development: Reflections on the design and implementation of the CGIAR Initiative on One Health

Adopting One Health approaches is key for addressing interconnected health challenges. Yet, how to best put One Health into practice in research-for-development initiatives aiming to 'deliver impacts' remains unclear. Drawing on the CGIAR Initiative on One Health - a global initiative to address zoonotic diseases, antimicrobial resistance, and food and water safety - we reflect on challenges during program conception and implementation, prompting us to suggest improvements in multisectoral collaboration, coordination, and communication. Our approach involves conducting a researcher-centered process evaluation, comprising individual interviews that are subsequently thematically analyzed and synthesized. The key takeaway is that limited time for planning processes and short program timelines compared to envisioned development impacts may impede research-for-development efforts. Yet, collaborative work can be successful when adequate time and resources are allocated for planning with minimal disruption throughout implementation. Additionally, due to the multifaceted nature of One Health initiatives, it is important to pay attention to co-benefits and trade-offs, where taking action in one aspect may yield advantages and disadvantages in another, aiding to identify sustainable One Health development pathways. Forming close partnerships with national governments and local stakeholders is essential not only to promote sustainability but also to ensure local relevance, enhancing the potential for meaningful impact. Finally, regularly assessing progress toward development goals is critical as development stands as an overarching objective.

Global Mapping and Visualization Analysis of One Health Knowledge in the COVID-19 Context

Globally, the COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the health, social, and economic systems, triggering lasting damage and exposing the complexity of the problem beyond just being a health emergency. This crisis has highlighted the need for a comprehensive and collaborative strategy to successfully counter infectious diseases and other global challenges. With the COVID-19 pandemic pushing One Health to the forefront of global health and sustainable development agendas, this concept has emerged as a potential approach for addressing these challenges. In the context of COVID-19, this study investigates global knowledge about One Health by examining its state, significant contributions, and future directions. It seeks to offer an integrated framework of insights guiding the development of well-informed decisions. A comprehensive search using the Scopus database was conducted, employing specific terms related to One Health and COVID-19. VOSviewer 1.6.19 software was used to generate network visualization maps. Countries' research output was adjusted based on their gross domestic product (GDP) and population size. The study identified a total of 527 publications. The United States led with 134 documents (25.4%), but India topped the adjusted ranking. One Health journal stood as the most common outlet for disseminating knowledge (49 documents; 9.3%), while Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the United States emerged as the most prolific institution (13 documents; 2.5%). Key topics were related to the virus transmission mechanisms, climate change impacts, antimicrobial resistance, ecosystem health, preparedness, collaboration, community engagement, and developing of efficient surveillance systems. The study emphasizes how critical it is to capitalize on the present momentum of COVID-19 to advance One Health concepts. Integrating social and environmental sciences, and a variety of professions for better interaction and collaboration is crucial. Additionally, increased funding for developing countries, and legislative empowerment are vital to advance One Health and boost disease prevention.

Analyzing One Health governance and implementation challenges in Mexico

Establishing a robust One Health (OH) governance is essential for ensuring effective coordination and collaboration among human, animal, and environmental health sectors to prevent and address complex health challenges like zoonoses or antimicrobial resistance. This study conducted a mixed-methods environmental scan to assess to what extent Mexico displays a OH governance and identify opportunities for improvement. Through documentary analysis, the study mapped OH national-level governance elements: infrastructure, multi-level regulations, leadership, multi-coordination mechanisms (MCMs), and financial and OH-trained human resources. Key informant interviews provided insights into enablers, barriers, and recommendations to enhance a OH governance. Findings reveal that Mexico has sector-specific governance elements: institutions, surveillance systems and laboratories, laws, and policies. However, the absence of a OH governmental body poses a challenge. Identified barriers include implementation challenges, non-harmonised legal frameworks, and limited intersectoral information exchange. Enablers include formal and ad hoc MCMs, OH-oriented policies, and educational initiatives. Like other middle-income countries in the region, institutionalising a OH governance in Mexico, may require a OH-specific framework and governing body, infrastructure rearrangements, and policy harmonisation. Strengthening coordination mechanisms, training OH professionals, and ensuring data-sharing surveillance systems are essential steps toward successful implementation, with adequate funding being a relevant factor.

One Health Determinants of Escherichia coli Antimicrobial Resistance in Humans in the Community: An Umbrella Review

To date, the scientific literature on health variables for Escherichia coli antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has been investigated throughout several systematic reviews, often with a focus on only one aspect of the One Health variables: human, animal, or environment. The aim of this umbrella review is to conduct a systematic synthesis of existing evidence on Escherichia coli AMR in humans in the community from a One Health perspective. PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched on "antibiotic resistance" and "systematic review" from inception until 25 March 2022 (PROSPERO: CRD42022316431). The methodological quality was assessed, and the importance of identified variables was tabulated across all included reviews. Twenty-three reviews were included in this study, covering 860 primary studies. All reviews were of (critically) low quality. Most reviews focused on humans (20), 3 on animals, and 1 on both human and environmental variables. Antibiotic use, urinary tract infections, diabetes, and international travel were identified as the most important human variables. Poultry farms and swimming in freshwater were identified as potential sources for AMR transmission from the animal and environmental perspectives. This umbrella review highlights a gap in high-quality literature investigating the time between variable exposure, AMR testing, and animal and environmental AMR variables.

An agent-based model for collaborative learning to combat antimicrobial resistance: proof of concept based on broiler production in Senegal

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a substantial global One Health problem. This paper reports on initial, proof-of-concept development of an agent-based model (ABM) as part of wider modelling efforts to support collaborations between groups interested in policy development for animal health and food systems. The model simulates AMR in poultry production in Senegal. It simultaneously addresses current policy issues, builds on existing modelling in the domain and describes AMR in the broiler chicken production cycle as seen by producers and veterinarians. This enables implementation and assessment of producer antimicrobial use and infection prevention and control strategies in terms of immediate economic incentives, potentially helping to advance conversations by addressing national policy priorities. Our model is presented as a flexible tool with promise for extension as part of AMR policy development in Senegal and West Africa, using participatory approaches. This work indicates that ABM can potentially play a useful role in fostering counter-AMR initiatives driven by food system actor behaviour in lower- and middle-income countries more generally.

The Past, Present, and Future of One Health in India: A Narrative Review

Humans have experienced a long-lasting pandemic of COVID-19 going on since the year 2020. Such events have recently increased the demand for a competent disease outbreak response system, more precisely, a One Health platform. The interaction between humans, animals, and ecosystems is inevitable. It is a known fact that the interface between these three entities is important for survival. In rural areas, especially in developing countries, it is a common practice to keep the animal shed in close proximity to their homes. Further, this intricate relationship itself plays a role in the spread and transmission of the disease. The involvement of the human-animal interface in emerging and re-emerging diseases has caused havoc in recent times and might prove challenging to overcome. Over the years, many efforts have been made on international and national platforms to adopt and implement a transdisciplinary, collaborative, intersectoral approach in India. This review highlights the major initiatives taken for the implementation of one health and the challenges faced over the years in our country.

'It doesn't happen how you think, it is very complex!' Reconciling stakeholder priorities, evidence, and processes for zoonoses prioritisation in India

Background

Why do some zoonotic diseases receive priority from health policy decision-makers and planners whereas others receive little attention? By leveraging Shiffman and Smith's political prioritisation framework, our paper advances a political economy of disease prioritisation focusing on four key components: the strength of the actors involved in the prioritisation, the power of the ideas they use to portray the issue, the political contexts in which they operate, and the characteristics of the issue itself (e.g., overall burdens, severity, cost-effective interventions). These components afford a nuanced characterisation of how zoonotic diseases are prioritised for intervention and highlight the associated knowledge gaps affecting prioritisation outcomes. We apply this framework to the case of zoonoses management in India, specifically to identify the factors that shape disease prioritisation decision-making and outcomes.

Methods

We conducted 26 semi-structured interviews with national, state and district level health policymakers, disease managers and technical experts involved in disease surveillance and control in India.

Results

Our results show pluralistic interpretation of risks, exemplified by a disconnect between state and district level actors on priority diseases. The main factors identified as shaping prioritisation outcomes were related to the nature of the zoonoses problem (the complexity of the zoonotic disease, insufficient awareness and lack of evidence on disease burdens and impacts) as well as political, social, cultural and institutional environments (isolated departmental priorities, limited institutional authority, opaque funding mechanisms), and challenges in organisation leadership for cross-sectoral engagement.

Conclusion

The findings highlight a compartmentalised regulatory system for zoonoses where political, social, cultural, and media factors can influence disease management and prioritisation. A major policy window is the institutionalisation of One Health to increase the political priority for strengthening cross-sectoral engagement to address several challenges, including the creation of effective institutions to reconcile stakeholder priorities and prioritisation processes.

Governing Antibiotic Risks in Australian Agriculture: Sustaining Conflicting Common Goods Through Competing Compliance Mechanisms

The One Health approach to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) requires stakeholders to contribute to cross-sectoral efforts to improve antimicrobial stewardship (AMS). One Health AMR policy implementation is challenging in livestock farming because of the infrastructural role of antibiotics in production systems. Mitigating AMR may require the development of more stringent stewardship obligations and the future limitation of established entitlements. Drawing on Amatai Etzioni’s compliance theory, regulatory analyses and qualitative studies with stakeholder groups we examine the structural and socio-cultural dimension of antibiotic use and AMS compliance in Australian beef and dairy production. We found a disconnect between how antibiotic use is conceptualised by farmers and the way in which AMS policies construe agricultural AMR risks. Under the umbrella of food safety standards and national-level prescribing restrictions, farmers and veterinarians interact around antibiotic use with different operating logics and compliance mechanisms. These parallel regimes service distinct and sometimes competing common goods of food security and antibiotic preservation. Further reforms to mitigate AMR need to account for the value orientations of different groups and the embeddedness of the constraints imposed by existing systems. Advocacy for greater AMR precaution in agriculture should acknowledge and compensate for erosions in competing common goods and the cost of proposed interventions.

Co-creation and priority setting for applied and implementation research in One Health: Improving capacities in public and animal health systems in Kenya

Background

The Kenyan government has successfully been implementing sector specific and multisectoral projects aligned to the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA). For operational readiness and to enhance the effective planning and implementation of Global Health Security Programs (GHSP) at national and subnational level, there is an urgent need for stakeholders' engagement process to seek input in identifying challenges, prioritise activities for field implementation, and identify applied research and development questions, that should be addressed in the next five years.

Methods

The modified Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method was used to identify global health security related priorities for multisectoral implementation in Kenya. Subject matter experts from human, animal and environmental health sectors at national and subnational level contributed to predefined research questions from a number of sources and activities for consideration for implementation using a One Health approach. Sixty-two experts scored the 193 questions based on five pre-defined criteria: 1) feasibility and answerability; 2) potential for burden reduction; 3) potential for a paradigm shift; 4) potential for translation and implementation; and 5) impact on equity. Data resulting from this process was then analysed in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to determine the research priorities and experts' agreements.

Results

Among the priority activities identified for implementation research were; strengthening One Health governance and legal frameworks; integration of ecosystem health into One Health programming; strengthening disease reporting, integrated data collection, information sharing and joint outbreak response; socio-anthropological and gender-based approaches in improving risk and behavioural change communication and community engagement; and one health workforce development. In addition, the potentials to invest in collaborative predictive risk modelling to enhance epidemic intelligence systems, while strengthening the One Health approach in the food safety incident and emergency response plans are feasible.

Interpretation

Successful multisectoral implementation of global health security program in Kenya calls for a whole of society approach that will harness community and private sector knowledge to build preparedness and response capacities while targeting neglected and marginalised populations. This research provides a framework that is worth emulating for cost-effective planning and implementation of overarching One Health programs.

Embed Multisectoral Governance Mechanisms in the Pandemic Instrument for One Health Action

Despite recognition of the health threat posed at the human-animal-environment interface long ago, One Health has yet to be meaningfully integrated into global pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. With the negotiation of the forthcoming pandemic instrument under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) - which is inherently restricted by its own constitutional mandate of human health - One Health risks being sidelined once again. Genuine integration of a One Health approach into this treaty will require the institutionalization of formal One Health coordination mechanisms.