Title |
A Blueprint to Evaluate One Health
|
---|---|
Published in |
Frontiers in Public Health, February 2017
|
DOI | 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00020 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Simon R. Rüegg, Barry J. McMahon, Barbara Häsler, Roberto Esposito, Liza Rosenbaum Nielsen, Chinwe Ifejika Speranza, Timothy Ehlinger, Marisa Peyre, Maurizio Aragrande, Jakob Zinsstag, Philip Davies, Andrei Daniel Mihalca, Sandra C. Buttigieg, Jonathan Rushton, Luís P. Carmo, Daniele De Meneghi, Massimo Canali, Maria E. Filippitzi, Flavie Luce Goutard, Vlatko Ilieski, Dragan Milićević, Helen O’Shea, Miroslav Radeski, Richard Kock, Anthony Staines, Ann Lindberg |
Abstract |
One Health (OH) positions health professionals as agents for change and provides a platform to manage determinants of health that are often not comprehensively captured in medicine or public health alone. However, due to the organization of societies and disciplines, and the sectoral allocation of resources, the development of transdisciplinary approaches requires effort and perseverance. Therefore, there is a need to provide evidence on the added value of OH for governments, researchers, funding bodies, and stakeholders. This paper outlines a conceptual framework of what OH approaches can encompass and the added values they can provide. The framework was developed during a workshop conducted by the "Network for Evaluation of One Health," an Action funded by the European Cooperation in Science and Technology. By systematically describing the various aspects of OH, we provide the basis for measuring and monitoring the integration of disciplines, sectors, and stakeholders in health initiatives. The framework identifies the social, economic, and environmental drivers leading to integrated approaches to health and illustrates how these evoke characteristic OH operations, i.e., thinking, planning, and working, and require supporting infrastructures to allow learning, sharing, and systemic organization. It also describes the OH outcomes (i.e., sustainability, health and welfare, interspecies equity and stewardship, effectiveness, and efficiency), which are not possible to obtain through sectoral approaches alone, and their alignment with aspects of sustainable development based on society, environment, and economy. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 3 | 11% |
Kenya | 2 | 7% |
Ireland | 2 | 7% |
Australia | 2 | 7% |
Croatia | 1 | 4% |
Argentina | 1 | 4% |
Denmark | 1 | 4% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
Canada | 1 | 4% |
Other | 2 | 7% |
Unknown | 11 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 20 | 74% |
Scientists | 5 | 19% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 4% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Serbia | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 243 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 41 | 17% |
Student > Master | 37 | 15% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 13% |
Other | 19 | 8% |
Student > Bachelor | 12 | 5% |
Other | 52 | 21% |
Unknown | 52 | 21% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 47 | 19% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 32 | 13% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 8% |
Social Sciences | 18 | 7% |
Environmental Science | 16 | 7% |
Other | 49 | 20% |
Unknown | 62 | 25% |