↓ Skip to main content

One Health contributions towards more effective and equitable approaches to health in low- and middle-income countries

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
26 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
658 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
One Health contributions towards more effective and equitable approaches to health in low- and middle-income countries
Published in
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, June 2017
DOI 10.1098/rstb.2016.0168
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Emerging zoonoses with pandemic potential are a stated priority for the global health security agenda, but endemic zoonoses also have a major societal impact in low-resource settings. Although many endemic zoonoses can be treated, timely diagnosis and appropriate clinical management of human cases is often challenging. Preventive 'One Health' interventions, e.g. interventions in animal populations that generate human health benefits, may provide a useful approach to overcoming some of these challenges. Effective strategies, such as animal vaccination, already exist for the prevention, control and elimination of many endemic zoonoses, including rabies, and several livestock zoonoses (e.g. brucellosis, leptospirosis, Q fever) that are important causes of human febrile illness and livestock productivity losses in low- and middle-income countries. We make the case that, for these diseases, One Health interventions have the potential to be more effective and generate more equitable benefits for human health and livelihoods, particularly in rural areas, than approaches that rely exclusively on treatment of human cases. We hypothesize that applying One Health interventions to tackle these health challenges will help to build trust, community engagement and cross-sectoral collaboration, which will in turn strengthen the capacity of fragile health systems to respond to the threat of emerging zoonoses and other future health challenges. One Health interventions thus have the potential to align the ongoing needs of disadvantaged communities with the concerns of the broader global community, providing a pragmatic and equitable approach to meeting the global goals for sustainable development and supporting the global health security agenda.This article is part of the themed issue 'One Health for a changing world: zoonoses, ecosystems and human well-being'.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 658 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 658 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 103 16%
Researcher 89 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 65 10%
Student > Bachelor 44 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 4%
Other 99 15%
Unknown 233 35%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 90 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 73 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 49 7%
Social Sciences 49 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 4%
Other 105 16%
Unknown 268 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 January 2023.
All research outputs
#1,256,235
of 34,259,606 outputs
Outputs from Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#1,091
of 7,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,132
of 366,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#21
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,259,606 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,743 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 366,152 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.