↓ Skip to main content

A Comparison of Three Holistic Approaches to Health: One Health, EcoHealth, and Planetary Health

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, September 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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
32 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
173 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
454 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.
Title
A Comparison of Three Holistic Approaches to Health: One Health, EcoHealth, and Planetary Health
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2017.00163
Pubmed ID
Authors

Henrik Lerner, Charlotte Berg

Abstract

Several holistic and interdisciplinary approaches exist to safeguard health. Three of the most influential concepts at the moment, One Health, EcoHealth, and Planetary Health, are analyzed in this paper, revealing similarities and differences at the theoretical conceptual level. These approaches may appear synonymous, as they all promote the underlying assumption of humans and other animals sharing the same planet and the same environmental challenges, infections and infectious agents as well as other aspects of physical-and possibly mental-health. However, we would like to illuminate the differences between these three concepts or approaches, and how the choice of terms may, deliberately or involuntary, signal the focus, and underlying values of the approaches. In this paper, we have chosen some proposed and well-known suggestions of definitions. In our theoretical analysis, we will focus on at least two areas. These are (1) the value of the potential scientific areas which could be included and (2) core values present within the approach. In the first area, our main concern is whether the approaches are interdisciplinary and whether the core scientific areas are assigned equal importance. For the second area, which is rather wide, we analyze core values such as biodiversity, health, and how one values humans, animals, and ecosystems. One Health has been described as either a narrow approach combining public health and veterinary medicine or as a wide approach as in the wide-spread "umbrella" depiction including both scientific fields, core concepts, and interdisciplinary research areas. In both cases, however, safeguarding the health of vertebrates is usually in focus although ecosystems are also included in the model. The EcoHealth approach seems to have more of a biodiversity focus, with an emphasis on all living creatures, implying that parasites, unicellular organisms, and possibly also viruses have a value and should be protected. Planetary Health, on the other hand, has been put forward as a fruitful approach to deal with growing threats in the health area, not least globally. We conclude that there are actually important differences between these three approaches, which should be kept in mind when using any of these terms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 454 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 454 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 67 15%
Student > Master 64 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 48 11%
Student > Bachelor 44 10%
Other 19 4%
Other 84 19%
Unknown 128 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 52 11%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 43 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 42 9%
Environmental Science 37 8%
Social Sciences 33 7%
Other 91 20%
Unknown 156 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 62. 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 20 December 2023.
All research outputs
#688,017
of 25,523,622 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#159
of 8,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,365
of 329,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#4
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,523,622 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,163 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 329,775 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.