One Health in Indigenous Communities: A Critical Review of the Evidence

Ethical bioprospecting and microbial assessments for sustainable solutions to the AMR crisis

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has been declared one of the top 10 global public health challenges of our age by the World Health Organization, and the World Bank describes AMR as a crisis affecting the finance, health, and agriculture sectors and a major threat to the attainment of Sustainable Development Goals. But what is AMR? It is a phenotype that evolves in microbes exposed to antimicrobial molecules and causes dangerous infections. This suggests that scientists and healthcare workers should be on the frontline in the search for sustainable solutions to AMR. Yet AMR is also a societal problem to be understood by everyone. This review aims to explore the need to address the problem of AMR through a coherent, international strategy with buy-in from all sectors of society. As reviewed here, the sustainable solutions to AMR will be driven by better understanding of AMR biology but will require more than this alone to succeed. Some advances on the horizon, such as the use of bacteriophage (phage) to treat AMR infections. However, many of the new technologies and new therapeutics to address AMR require access to biodiversity, where the custodians of that biodiversity-and the traditional knowledge required to access it-are needed as key partners in the scientific, clinical, biotechnological, and international ventures that would treat the problem of AMR and ultimately prevent its further evolution. Many of these advances will be built on microbial assessments to understand the extent of AMR in our environments and bioprospecting to identify microbes that may have beneficial uses. Genuine partnerships for access to this biodiversity and sharing of benefits accrued require a consideration of ethical practice and behavior. Behavior change is needed across all sectors of culturally diverse societies so that rapid deployment of solutions can be implemented for maximum effect against the impacts of AMR.

Comparative review of One Health and Indigenous approaches to wildlife research in Inuit Nunangat

There is increasing interest in One Health and Indigenous methodologies and approaches in wildlife research, but they are not widely used research applications in the Arctic. Both approaches are wide in scope and originate from different knowledge systems but are often compared synonymously. We review the literature of overlap between the term One Health and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (Inuit Indigenous Knowledge) throughout Inuit Nunaat on wildlife research. Three databases (SCOPUS, Web of Science, and BIOSIS) were used to find English language articles and books within the bounds of Inuit Nunaat. While One Health and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit research approaches share synergies, they are fundamentally disparate owing to their differences in epistemology, including views on the natural environment and wildlife management. We describe current examples of One Health being operationalized in Inuit Nunaat and identify potential to address larger and more complex questions about wildlife health, with examples from terrestrial and marine Arctic wildlife. Both Indigenous methodologies and One Health naturally have a human component at their core, which seamlessly lends itself to discussions on wildlife management, as human actions and regulations directly impact environment and wildlife health.

Linkages between Soil Security and One Health: implications for the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals

Soil provides multiple and diverse functions (e.g., the provision of food and the regulation of carbon), which underpin the health of animals, humans, the environment and the planet. However, the world's soils face existential challenges. To this end, the concept of Soil Security was developed, compelled to: "maintain and improve soils worldwide so that they can continue to provide food, fiber and fresh water, contribute to energy and climate sustainability and help to maintain biodiversity and the overall protection of ecosystem goods and services." In parallel, the concept of One Health likewise works across the human-animal-environment interface, highly relevant for the goals of Soil Security. In this review, we evaluated the roles which both the Soil Security and One Health concepts have served in the literature between 2012 and 2023 and explore the potential linkages between both concepts. We outline that both concepts are used in disparate fields, despite considerable overlap in aims and objectives. We highlight the Soil Health concept as a potential connector between Soil Security and One Health. Overall, we argue that both Soil Security and One Health are highly complementary fields of scientific inquiry with solid leverage for translation into policy and practice. However, there is a need to define One Health dimensions, as has been done for Soil Security. As such, we proffer five measurable dimensions for One Health, the "5Cs"-Capacity, Condition, Capital, Connectivity and Codification-to allow for an overall measure of One Health. Finally, we advocate for a biosphere-focused framework to collectively make progress toward the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals and other global existential challenges.

One Health Ethics and the Ethics of Zoonoses: A Silent Call for Global Action

This paper presents a critical review of key issues related to the emergence of new networks for the spread of zoonotic diseases amid the mass extinction of species. Zoonotic and infectious diseases account for approximately 70% of new and existing diseases affecting humans and animals. The initial section argues that the term "zoonoses" should not be confined to single-cause events within veterinary medicine. Instead, zoonoses should be viewed as complex, systemic phenomena shaped by interrelated factors, including environmental, sociocultural, and economic elements, influenced by anthropogenic climate change. The second section presents bioethical principles and potential strategies for those engaged in zoonotic disease prevention. The third section uses the slaughter of animals in disaster settings as a case study to illustrate the need for further clarification of normative and interspecies justice conflicts in One Health ethics. This section concludes with an outlook on "zoonoethics". Section four develops the analysis of the interlinked elements that trigger zoonoses and examines antimicrobial resistance (AMR) from an ethical and political standpoint, concluding with policy recommendations for addressing AMR. Section five offers a critical reflection, integrating contributions from zoonoethics, human ecology, and the ecotheological turn. Finally, section six concludes with a call to action and policy recommendations for an inclusive, intercultural, and gender-sensitive One Health approach.

One Health, One Future: A Unified Approach to a Balanced Ecosystem

In the past few decades, disease spillovers between humans and wildlife have increased in both frequency and severity [...].

Who coined the term "One Health"? Cooperation amid the siloization

This short communication is an effort to describe and elucidate the trajectory of the modern historical concept of "One Health." It is dedicated to the many integrated approaches of health closely related to One Health, while also recognizing the contribution and origination of One Health perspectives/notions from those that have led the way and spearheaded this movement while considering Indigenous cultures across the world. The effects of synergies of those involved in building these integrative approaches are potentially bigger and better lasting than the sum of the individual players. It is only through collaboration, cooperation and diplomacy that we can achieve impactful transformation to benefit health. In this commentary, we aim to appropriately and accurately describe how the current use of "One Health" came to be and who were the main players.

Anthelmintic resistance in soil-transmitted helminths: One-Health considerations

The One-Health approach recognizes the intricate connection between human, animal, and environmental health, and that cooperative effort from various professionals provides comprehensive awareness and potential solutions for issues relating to the health of people, animals, and the environment. This approach has increasingly gained appeal as the standard strategy for tackling emerging infectious diseases, most of which are zoonoses. Treatment with anthelmintics (AHs) without a doubt minimizes the severe consequences of soil-transmitted helminths (STHs); however, evidence of anthelmintic resistance (AR) development to different helminths of practically every animal species and the distinct groups of AHs is overwhelming globally. In this regard, the correlation between the application of anthelmintic drugs in both human and animal populations and the consequent development of anthelmintic resistance in STHs within the context of a One-Health framework is explored. This review provides an overview of the major human and animal STHs, treatment of the STHs, AR development and drug-related factors contributing towards AR, One-Health and STHs, and an outline of some One-Health strategies that may be used in combating AR.

Data analysis of zoonoses notifications in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations in Australia 1996-2021: implications for One Health

Introduction

Zoonoses are a health concern for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia that face elevated risk of disease related to the environment and animals. Internationally, One Health is encouraged to effectively manage zoonoses by taking integrated approaches involving animal, human, and environmental health sectors to improve health outcomes. However, Australia's health systems manage zoonotic diseases in animals and people separately which does not support a One Health approach. For the effective management of zoonoses, a strong evidence base and database regarding the epidemiology of zoonotic pathogens is needed. However, we currently lack this evidence limiting our understanding of the impact of zoonoses on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations.

Methods

As a first step towards building the evidence base, we undertook a descriptive analysis of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander zoonotic notifications in Australia from 1996 to 2021. We presented notifications as annual notification rates per 100,000 population, and percentages of notifications by state, remoteness, sex, and age group.

Results

Salmonellosis and campylobacteriosis were the most notified zoonoses with the highest annual notification rates of 99.75 and 87.46 per 100,000 population, respectively. The north of Australia (Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australia), remote and outer regional areas, and young children (0-4 years of age) had the highest percentages of notifications.

Discussion

To our knowledge, these findings are the first national presentation of the epidemiology of zoonoses within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations. A greater understanding of transmission, prevalence and impact of zoonoses on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (including animal and environmental health factors) is required to inform their effective management through a One Health approach.

One health approach to toxocariasis in Brazilian indigenous populations, their dogs, and soil contamination

Introduction

Although socioeconomic vulnerability and lifestyle factors may contribute to the transmission of Toxocara spp., no study has investigated indigenous populations in Brazil using the One Health approach.

Methods

Accordingly, this study assessed anti-Toxocara spp. antibodies in Brazilian indigenous people and healthcare professionals by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Presence of Toxocara spp. eggs (feces and hair) in dogs as definitive hosts and in soil samples of the indigenous communities were also recovered and molecularly investigated.

Results

Overall, 342/463 (73.9%) indigenous individuals and 46/147 (31.3%) non-indigenous healthcare professionals were seropositive for Toxocara spp. In addition, T. canis eggs were retrieved from 9/194 (4.6%) dog fecal samples and 4/204 (2.0%) dog hair samples, mainly from the Paraná State communities (3/42; 7.1%). Soil contamination was observed only in the Paraná State communities (36/90; 40.0%), with the molecular detection of T. canis. River water consumption was also associated with indigenous seropositivity (Odds ratio, 11.4).

Discussion

Indigenous individuals in Paraná State communities were 2.72-fold more likely to be seropositive than those in São Paulo State, likely due to a lack of sanitary infrastructure. In this scenario, a primarily soil-transmitted disease may also have become waterborne, with embryonated eggs probably spread to water supplies by rain. Full-time healthcare professionals in daily contact with indigenous communities were 9.2-fold more likely to be seropositive than professionals who visited sporadically, suggesting exposure to Toxocara spp. during their work and raising health concerns. In addition, the findings herein showed a significantly higher seroprevalence in indigenous people than in healthcare workers (χ2 = 85.5; p < 0.0001), likely due to overtime exposure to Toxocara spp. In conclusion, Brazilian indigenous communities are highly exposed to toxocariasis, with poor infrastructure and contact with contaminated river water as associated risk factors and a higher risk of infection in healthcare professionals working full-time in these communities.

One Health and Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities: A One Health Pilot Study

Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities face barriers in accessing animal healthcare and are exposed to disproportionate environmental health exposures leading to increased risk of disease. A One Health approach has been promoted to address public health risks and improve human, animal, and environmental health outcomes in communities. We undertook a pilot One Health study in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in Queensland collecting animal, human, and environmental health data from 82 households. We performed a descriptive analysis and assessed the association between human and environmental health exposures and animal health outcomes. Most households were not crowded (82.9%) but did report a high level of environmental health concerns (86.6%). The majority of households owned cats and dogs (81.7%), with most animals assessed as healthy. There was no association between human and environmental health exposures and animal health outcomes. As most households experienced concerns regarding housing conditions, environmental health programs should prioritise improving household factors. There was also strong support for animal healthcare (including access to medicines and veterinarians, education programs and population management), indicating that a One Health approach is desired by communities.

Toxoplasma gondii exposure in Brazilian indigenous populations, their dogs, environment, and healthcare professionals

Although Toxoplasma gondii exposure has been reported in indigenous populations worldwide, a One Health approach has not been applied to date. This study concurrently assessed T. gondii exposure in indigenous populations, and their dogs, environment, and indigenous or non-indigenous healthcare professionals (HPs). Human and dog serum samples from 9 indigenous communities in Brazil were assessed by indirect immunofluorescence antibody test for anti-T. gondii antibodies. Soil samples (30 per community) were processed with PCR to amplify T. gondii DNA. Associated risk factors and seroprevalence were analyzed using logistic regression models. Human seropositivity and type of water source were assessed by generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with binomial error distribution, and game meat consumption with chi-squared test. Overall, 225/463 (49%) indigenous persons were seropositive for anti-T. gondii antibodies. Of all the HPs, 67/168 (40%) were positive, and included 54/147 (37%) positive non-indigenous HPs. Indigenous persons more likely to be seropositive compared with non-indigenous HPs (OR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.11-2.39). A total of 97/253 (38%) dogs were seropositive and highly associated with seropositive owners (p < 0.001). Based on univariate analysis for indigenous individuals, state location of community (p < 0.001), ethnicity (p < 0.001), consumption of game meat (p < 0.001), type of water source (p < 0.001), and educational level (p = 0.026) were associated with seropositivity. Logistic regression showed that indigenous seropositivity was associated with eating game meat (p = 0.002), drinking water from rivers (p < 0.001), and inversely proportional to the educational level. According to univariate analysis for non-indigenous HP, age (p = 0.005), frequency of visits to the indigenous populations (p < 0.001), consumption of water at the indigenous communities (p < 0.001), and ingestion of raw meat (p = 0.023) were associated with T. gondii seropositivity. Logistic regression revealed living outdoors (p = 0.042), habit of hunting (p = 0.008), and drinking river water (p = 0.007) as risk factors associated to seropositivity in dogs. In addition, indigenous communities lacking water treatment had higher seroprevalence for all groups including indigenous persons (GLMM; z = -7.153; p < 0.001), their dogs (GLMM; z = -2.405; p = 0.0162), and all HPs (GLMM; z = -2.420; p = 0.0155). Human seropositivity was associated with that of their dogs (p < 0.001). A single soil sample, out of 270 (0.37%), was positive for T. gondii by PCR. Our results indicate water source is a risk for human and dog toxoplasmosis in indigenous communities; both share similar exposure. Moreover, quality water access was shown to be crucial to prevent toxoplasmosis in both total and non-indigenous HPs who work in these indigenous communities.

Participating in eradication: how Guinea worm redefined eradication, and eradication redefined Guinea worm, 1985-2022

Guinea worm disease (dracunculiasis) is a debilitating waterborne disease. Once widespread, it is now on the brink of eradication. However, the Guinea Worm Eradication Programme (GWEP), like guinea worm itself, has been under-studied by historians. The GWEP demonstrates an unusual model of eradication, one focused on primary healthcare (PHC), community participation, health education and behavioural change (safe drinking). The PHC movement collided with a waterborne disease, which required rapid but straightforward treatment to prevent transmission, creating a historical space for the emergence of village-based volunteer health workers, as local actors realigned global health policy on a local level. These Village Volunteers placed eradication in the hands of residents of endemic areas, epitomising the participation-focused nature of the GWEP. This participatory mode of eradication highlights the agency of those in endemic areas, who, through volunteering, safe drinking and community self-help, have been the driving force behind dracunculiasis eradication. In the twenty-first century, guinea worm has become firstly a problem of human mobility, as global health has struggled to contain cases in refugees and nomads, and latterly a zoonotic disease, as guinea worm has shifted hosts to become primarily a parasite of dogs. This demonstrates both the potential of One Health approaches and the need for One Health to adopt from PHC and the GWEP a focus on the health of humans and animals in isolated and impoverished areas. Guinea worm demonstrates how the biological and the historical interact, with the GWEP and guinea worm shaping each other over the course of the eradication programme.

Developing One Health Systems: A Central Role for the One Health Workforce

The health of people, wild and domesticated animals, and natural living systems is syndemically connected, and this interplay is a pillar of the concept of One Health [...].

Evolution and expansion of the One Health approach to promote sustainable and resilient health and well-being: A call to action

One Health is a transdisciplinary approach used to address complex concerns related to human, animal, plant, and ecosystem health. One Health frameworks and operational tools are available to support countries and communities, particularly for the prevention and control of zoonotic diseases and antimicrobial resistance and the protection of food safety. However, One Health has yet to be implemented in a manner that fully considers the complexities and interconnectedness of the diverse influences that have impacts at a larger system level. This lack of consideration can undermine the sustainability of any positive outcomes. To ensure the One Health approach can function effectively within the new global context of converging and escalating health, social, economic, and ecological crises, it must evolve and expand in three overlapping dimensions: (1) Scope: the partners, knowledge, and knowledge systems included, (2) Approach: the techniques, methodologies, and scholarship considered, and (3) Worldview inclusivity: the interweaving of other worldviews together with the mainstream scientific worldview that currently predominates. Diverse partners and knowledge from outside the mainstream health and scientific sectors, including Indigenous peoples and representatives of local communities, and traditionally generated knowledge, must be included. These systems of knowledge can then be braided together with mainstream science to comprise a holistic framework for decision-making. Scholarship and methodologies being applied in other fields and contexts to solve complex challenges and manage uncertainty, such as collaborative governance, social-ecologic systems theory, and complexity science, must be recognized and incorporated. The spectrum of considered worldviews must also expand to authentically integrate the expanded scope and approach into action and sustainable impact. By increasing community and social engagement and by recognizing and entwining different worldviews, the plurality of disciplines, and traditional and scientific ways of knowing to address community concerns in the contexts in which they exist, we can ensure that One Health remains effective and true to its paradigm in our rapidly changing and complex world.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of human and zoonotic dog soil-transmitted helminth infections in Australian Indigenous communities

Soil-transmitted helminths (STH) infect 1.5 billion people and countless animals worldwide. In Australian Indigenous communities, STH infections have largely remained endemic despite control efforts, suggesting reservoirs of infection may exist. Dogs fulfil various important cultural, social and occupational roles in Australian Indigenous communities and are populous in these settings. Dogs may also harbour zoonotic STHs capable of producing morbidity and mortality in dogs and humans. This review provides an overview of human and zoonotic STH infections, identifies the Australian Indigenous locations affected and the parasite species and hosts involved. The meta-analysis provides estimates of individual study and pooled true prevalence of STH infections in Australian Indigenous communities and identifies knowledge gaps for further research on zoonotic or anthroponotic potential. A systematic literature search identified 45 eligible studies documenting the presence of Strongyloides stercoralis, Trichuris trichiura, Ancylostoma caninum, Ancylostoma duodenale, Ancylostoma ceylanicum, undifferentiated hookworm, and Ascaris lumbricoides. Of these studies, 26 were also eligible for inclusion in meta-analysis to establish true prevalence in the light of imperfect diagnostic test sensitivity and specificity by Rogan-Gladen and Bayesian methods. These studies revealed pooled true prevalence estimates of 18.9% (95% CI 15.8–22.1) for human and canine S. stercoralis infections and 77.3% (95% CI 63.7–91.0) for canine A. caninum infections indicating continued endemicity, but considerably more heterogenous pooled estimates for canine A. ceylanicum infections, and A. duodenale, undifferentiated hookworm and T. trichiura in humans. This review suggests that the prevalence of STHs in Australian Indigenous communities has likely been underestimated, principally based on imperfect diagnostic tests. Potential misclassification of hookworm species in humans and dogs due to outdated methodology, also obscures this picture. High-quality contemporary studies are required to establish current true prevalence of parasite species in all relevant hosts to guide future policy development and control decisions under a culturally sound One Health framework.

Soil-transmitted helminths include hookworms, threadworms, whipworms and roundworms. These worms may infect different hosts including humans and dogs, and some species are zoonotic, meaning that they are able to transmit between animals and humans. In many Australian Indigenous communities, people remain infected with these worms at high rates compared to other parts of the country despite various control strategies. Resource and health literacy inequalities are primary drivers for these differences. However, the potential for dogs to act as reservoirs for zoonotic worm infections in humans must also be considered. For this reason, it’s important to create a clear picture of the level of infection by location and host. Given that tests used to establish prevalence can produce false positive or negative results, we performed a meta-analysis allowing comparison of true prevalence estimates by location and host, regardless of the test used. This review suggests that threadworm and dog hookworm remain endemic in Australian Indigenous communities, though a gap exists to accurately inform the prevalence of the other worms. It also highlights the need for One Health strategies in research, policy and control where humans, all animal hosts and the environment are considered in a culturally relevant way.

Zoonoses and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population: A One Health scoping review

With limited access to animal health services, and high disease burdens among domesticated animals, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in Australia face higher risk of disease including zoonoses. However, we lack understanding of the contribution of often preventable zoonoses to the health of these communities, which would enable us to enhance public health strategies and improve health outcomes. We conducted a scoping review to identify the current state of evidence on zoonoses in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population. We examined the size, scope and characteristics of the evidence base and analysed the zoonoses detected in the studies within a One Health framework. We identified 18 studies that detected 22 zoonotic pathogens in animals, people, and the environment, with most studies detecting pathogens in a single One Health sector and no studies investigating pathogens in all three sectors. Findings indicate that despite the strong conceptual foundations of One Health throughout the evidence base, evidence is lacking in application of this concept. There is a need to undertake further research that prioritises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership, considers the contribution of human, animal and environmental health factors, and investigates the prevalence and impact of zoonoses in communities through a One Health approach.