Managing the risk of Hendra virus spillover in Australia using ecological approaches: A report on three community juries

Organising for One Health in a developing country

Globally, zoonotic diseases pose an enormous and growing public health challenge, and developing countries like India are at the epicentre of it. Although there is general recognition of this reality, governments around the world have struggled to organise appropriately to respond to it. The widely held view is that organising for One Health requires effective cross-sectoral collaboration, but the prerequisites to enable such collaboration appear almost unattainable. Perhaps an entirely different approach is needed, which is over and above effective collaborations between competing government ministries. The approach would have to recognise that while any organisational response will need to be able to address identified zoonotic diseases and respond effectively to them in times of crises, it would also be required to have the ability to shape the response to megatrends such as climate change, deforestation, and the underlying development models of the country. The paper analyses the success and failures associated with the way in which India, Bangladesh, Kenya, and Rwanda have organised for One Health. It also studies the underlying pathways through which zoonotic spillovers take place, and epidemics gather momentum. Based on these critical analyses, the paper concludes that attempts to build single overarching units to address these challenges have only been partially effective. Given the scale and complexity of the challenge, it recommends that, even at the risk of duplication and the very real possibility that unaddressed gaps will remain, an approach, which builds multiple sharply focused units, would have a greater chance of success.

Communication Interventions and Assessment of Drivers for Hendra Virus Vaccination Uptake

Hendra virus disease (HeVD) is an emerging zoonosis in Australia, resulting from the transmission of Hendra virus (HeV) to horses from Pteropus bats. Vaccine uptake for horses is low despite the high case fatality rate of HeVD in both horses and people. We reviewed evidence-based communication interventions to promote and improve HeV vaccine uptake for horses by horse owners and conducted a preliminary evaluation of potential drivers for HeV vaccine uptake using the Behavioural and Social Drivers of Vaccination (BeSD) framework developed by the World Health Organization. Six records were eligible for review following a comprehensive search and review strategy of peer-reviewed literature, but evidence-based communication interventions to promote and improve HeV vaccine uptake for horses were lacking. An evaluation of potential drivers for HeV vaccine uptake using the BeSD framework indicated that horse owners' perceptions, beliefs, social processes, and practical issues are similar to those experienced by parents making decisions about childhood vaccines, although the overall motivation to vaccinate is lower amongst horse owners. Some aspects of HeV vaccine uptake are not accounted for in the BeSD framework (for example, alternative mitigation strategies such as covered feeding stations or the zoonotic risk of HeV). Overall, problems associated with HeV vaccine uptake appear well-documented. We, therefore, propose to move from a problems-focused to a solutions-focused approach to reduce the risk of HeV for humans and horses. Following our findings, we suggest that the BeSD framework could be modified and used to develop and evaluate communication interventions to promote and improve HeV vaccine uptake by horse owners, which could have a global application to promote vaccine uptake for other zoonotic diseases in animals, such as rabies.

Serological Evidence for Henipa-like and Filo-like Viruses in Trinidad Bats

Bat-borne zoonotic pathogens belonging to the family Paramxyoviridae, including Nipah and Hendra viruses, and the family Filoviridae, including Ebola and Marburg viruses, can cause severe disease and high mortality rates on spillover into human populations. Surveillance efforts for henipaviruses and filoviruses have been largely restricted to the Old World; however, recent studies suggest a potentially broader distribution for henipaviruses and filoviruses than previously recognized. In the current study, we screened for henipaviruses and filoviruses in New World bats collected across 4 locations in Trinidad near the coast of Venezuela. Bat tissue samples were screened using previously established reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction assays. Serum were screened using a multiplex immunoassay to detect antibodies reactive with the envelope glycoprotein of viruses in the genus Henipavirus and the family Filoviridae. Serum samples were also screened by means of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for antibodies reactive with Nipah G and F glycoproteins. Of 84 serum samples, 28 were reactive with ≥1 henipavirus glycoprotein by ≥1 serological method, and 6 serum samples were reactive against ≥1 filovirus glycoproteins. These data provide evidence of potential circulation of viruses related to the henipaviruses and filoviruses in New World bats.

Priority allocation of pandemic influenza vaccines in Australia - Recommendations of 3 community juries

BACKGROUND

Pandemic planning has historically been oriented to respond to an influenza virus, with vaccination strategy being a key focus. As the current COVID-19 pandemic plays out, the Australian government is closely monitoring progress towards development of SARS-CoV2 vaccines as a definitive intervention. However, as in any pandemic, initial supply will likely be exceeded by demand due to limited manufacturing output.

METHODS

We convened community juries in three Australian locations in 2019 to assess public acceptability and perceived legitimacy of influenza pandemic vaccination distribution strategies. Preparatory work included literature reviews on pandemic vaccine allocation strategies and on vaccine allocation ethics, and simulation modelling studies. We assumed vaccine would be provided to predefined priority groups. Jurors were then asked to recommend one of two strategies for distributing remaining early doses of vaccine: directly vaccinate people at higher risk of adverse outcomes from influenza; or indirectly protect the general population by vaccinating primary school students, who are most likely to spread infection.

RESULTS

Thirty-four participants of diverse backgrounds and ages were recruited through random digit dialling and topic-blinded social media advertising. Juries heard evidence and arguments supporting different vaccine distribution strategies, and questioned expert presenters. All three community juries supported prioritising school children for influenza vaccination (aiming for indirect protection), one by 10-2 majority and two by consensus. Justifications included that indirect protection benefits more people and is likely to be more publicly acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of an influenza pandemic, informed citizens were not opposed to prioritising groups at higher risks of adverse outcomes, but if resources and epidemiological conditions allow, achieving population benefits should be a strategic priority. These insights may inform future SARS-CoV-2 vaccination strategies.

Perspectives of Vietnamese, Sudanese and South Sudanese immigrants on targeting migrant communities for latent tuberculosis screening and treatment in low-incidence settings: A report on two Victorian community panels

BACKGROUND

Tuberculosis (TB) elimination strategies in Australia require a focus on groups who are at highest risk of TB infection, such as immigrants from high-burden settings. Understanding attitudes to different strategies for latent TB infection (LTBI) screening and treatment is an important element of justifiable elimination strategies.

METHOD

Two community panels were conducted in Melbourne with members of the Vietnamese (n = 11), Sudanese and South Sudanese communities (n = 9). Panellists were provided with expert information about LTBI and different screening and health communication strategies, then deliberated on how best to pursue TB elimination in Australia.

FINDINGS

Both panels unanimously preferred LTBI screening to occur pre-migration rather than in Australia. Participants were concerned that post-migration screening would reach fewer migrants, noted that conducting LTBI screening in Australia could stigmatize participants and that poor awareness of LTBI would hamper participation. If targeted screening was to occur in Australia, the Vietnamese panel preferred 'place-based' communication strategies, whereas the Sudanese and South Sudanese panel emphasized that community leaders should lead communication strategies to minimize stigma. Both groups emphasized the importance of maintaining community trust in Australian health service providers, and the need to ensure targeting did not undermine this trust.

CONCLUSION

Pre-migration screening was preferred. If post-migration screening is necessary, the potential for stigma should be reduced, benefit and risk profile clearly explained and culturally appropriate communication strategies employed. Cultural attitudes to health providers, personal health management and broader social vulnerabilities of targeted groups need to be considered in the design of screening programs.

More philosophical work needed in One Health on ethical frameworks and theory

We thank Zohar Lederman and Benjamin Capps for engaging with our paper on One Health (OH) and ethical frameworks, however we want to take issue with them on three points. First, they appear to misunderstand the distinction we appeal to between ethical theory and ethical frameworks, and so misinterpret what we are trying to achieve in our paper. Second, in spite of what they seem to imply, we agree that an OH approach can obscure differences in values, and that to progress the field there needs to be recognition of competing values and their implications for OH. Finally, we are puzzled by their interest in pursuing a deliberative process, as this seems at odds with other positions they take in their paper, and also opens up many questions that need to be addressed.

Citizens' juries give verdict on whether private practice veterinarians should attend unvaccinated Hendra virus suspect horses

BACKGROUND

Hendra virus (HeV) is endemic in Australian flying foxes, posing a threat to equine and human health. Equine vaccination remains the most effective risk mitigation strategy. Many horses remain unvaccinated - even in higher-risk regions. Debate surrounding the vaccine's use is characterised by conflicting perspectives, misunderstanding and mistrust. Private veterinary practitioners are critical to early identification of public health risk through recognition, sampling and management of suspect-equine-HeV-cases. However, managing such cases can be burdensome, with some veterinarians opting not to attend unvaccinated horses or to abandon equine practice because of risk posed by HeV disease and liability.

OBJECTIVE

Ascertain the perspectives of informed citizens on what obligations (if any) private veterinarians have to attend unvaccinated horses with HeV or HeV-like disease.

METHODS

Three citizens' juries were tasked with considering approaches to managing HeV risk in Australia, including (reported here) roles and obligations of private veterinarians in responding to HeV-suspect-cases.

RESULTS

Jurors acknowledged that HeV management posed an important challenge for private veterinarians. A clear majority (27 of 31 jurors) voted that veterinarians should not be obliged to attend unvaccinated horses. All recognised that greater support for veterinarians should be a priority.

CONCLUSIONS

When informed of HeV risks and strategies for control and management, citizens appreciated the need to support veterinarians performing this critical 'One Health' role for public benefit. The current governance framework within which zoonotic disease recognition and response operates limits the contingency and scope for increasing support and efficacy of these important veterinary public health practices.

Qualitative Research for One Health: From Methodological Principles to Impactful Applications

The One Health concept has inspired a rich vein of applied research and scholarly reflection over the past decade, yet with little influence from qualitative methodologists. With this overview, we describe the underpinning assumptions, purposes, and potential pitfalls of data collection techniques and methods of data analysis in key qualitative research methodologies. Our aim is to enhance One Health collaborations involving qualitative researchers, veterinary epidemiologists, and veterinary economists. There exist several distinct traditions of qualitative research, from which we draw selectively for illustrative purposes. Notwithstanding important distinctions, we emphasize commonalities and the potential for collaborative impact. The most important commonality is a shared focus on contextualizing human behavior and experience–culturally, economically, historically, and socially. We demonstrate that in-depth attention to context can assist veterinary economists and epidemiologists in drawing lessons from the implementation of policies and programs. In other words, qualitative researchers can assist One Health teams in distilling insights from “success stories,” but also from adverse events and unintended consequences. As a result, qualitative researchers can contribute to One Health research and policy discussions by formulating more accurate and contextually-relevant parameters for future quantitative studies. When performed well, qualitative methodologies can help veterinary economists and epidemiologists to develop impactful research questions, to create more accurate and contextually-relevant parameters for quantitative studies, and to develop policy recommendations and interventions that are attuned to the political and socio-cultural context of their implementation. In sketching out the properties and features of influential methodologies, we underscore the value of working with seasoned qualitative researchers to incorporate questions about “what,” “how,” and “why” in mixed-methods research designs.

Beliefs, Attitudes and Self-Efficacy of Australian Veterinary Students Regarding One Health and Zoonosis Management

Simple Summary

The One Health approach provides a model for educating students, trainees and professionals in a systems approach to providing improved patient care and promoting healthy environments that benefit all species. In the present study, we designed an online survey that was communicated to senior veterinary students in a number of Australian veterinary schools. The survey evaluated the willingness of future veterinary graduates to participate positively in zoonoses (diseases transmitted between animals and humans) management through the adoption of the One Health approach in their future career. All respondents were willing to assist physicians in the management of zoonotic cases involving both patients and clients. The veterinary students were equally concerned about ensuring the best care for both animals (patients) and humans (clients). Our results demonstrate that there is strong support for future Australian veterinarians in the field of One Health.

Abstract

This study aimed to explore the beliefs and attitudes of a group of senior veterinary students regarding One Health and to evaluate their levels of confidence in advising the general public on preventative health issues at the human–animal interface. An online survey was communicated to senior veterinary students who were in their last two years of study. The questionnaire covered beliefs and attitudes, issues concerning the animal–human interface and participants’ confidence in diagnosing zoonoses. In total, 175 students from five Australian veterinary schools/colleges completed the online survey. The majority (96%) of students considered it their duty to promote the One Health approach, but only 36% believed there were sufficient practical frameworks for Australian veterinarian graduates to promote One Health. Interestingly, 81% (142/175) of respondents believed that veterinarians were more knowledgeable than physicians in managing zoonotic cases. Of the final-year students (n = 77), only 39% and 36% were confident in their ability to diagnose zoonoses in common companion animals and production animals, respectively. However, the number of those confident to diagnose zoonoses transmitted from wildlife was notably lower (22% (17/77)). Next-generation Australian veterinarians are keen to embrace their role in interprofessional collaboration; however, training efforts are required to reassure future veterinarians on aspects of zoonoses and One Health.