↓ Skip to main content

A Systems Approach to Evaluate One Health Initiatives

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
40 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
107 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
327 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 Systems Approach to Evaluate One Health Initiatives
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2018.00023
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon R. Rüegg, Liza Rosenbaum Nielsen, Sandra C. Buttigieg, Mijalche Santa, Maurizio Aragrande, Massimo Canali, Timothy Ehlinger, Ilias Chantziaras, Elena Boriani, Miroslav Radeski, Mieghan Bruce, Kevin Queenan, Barbara Häsler

Abstract

Challenges calling for integrated approaches to health, such as the One Health (OH) approach, typically arise from the intertwined spheres of humans, animals, and ecosystems constituting their environment. Initiatives addressing such wicked problems commonly consist of complex structures and dynamics. As a result of the EU COST Action (TD 1404) "Network for Evaluation of One Health" (NEOH), we propose an evaluation framework anchored in systems theory to address the intrinsic complexity of OH initiatives and regard them as subsystems of the context within which they operate. Typically, they intend to influence a system with a view to improve human, animal, and environmental health. The NEOH evaluation framework consists of four overarching elements, namely: (1) the definition of the initiative and its context, (2) the description of the theory of change with an assessment of expected and unexpected outcomes, (3) the process evaluation of operational and supporting infrastructures (the "OH-ness"), and (4) an assessment of the association(s) between the process evaluation and the outcomes produced. It relies on a mixed methods approach by combining a descriptive and qualitative assessment with a semi-quantitative scoring for the evaluation of the degree and structural balance of "OH-ness" (summarised in an OH-index and OH-ratio, respectively) and conventional metrics for different outcomes in a multi-criteria-decision-analysis. Here, we focus on the methodology for Elements (1) and (3) including ready-to-use Microsoft Excel spreadsheets for the assessment of the "OH-ness". We also provide an overview of Element (2), and refer to the NEOH handbook for further details, also regarding Element (4) (http://neoh.onehealthglobal.net). The presented approach helps researchers, practitioners, and evaluators to conceptualise and conduct evaluations of integrated approaches to health and facilitates comparison and learning across different OH activities thereby facilitating decisions on resource allocation. The application of the framework has been described in eight case studies in the same Frontiers research topic and provides first data on OH-index and OH-ratio, which is an important step towards their validation and the creation of a dataset for future benchmarking, and to demonstrate under which circumstances OH initiatives provide added value compared to disciplinary or conventional health initiatives.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 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 327 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 327 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 56 17%
Researcher 47 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 10%
Other 25 8%
Student > Bachelor 19 6%
Other 56 17%
Unknown 91 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 45 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 43 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 8%
Social Sciences 24 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 4%
Other 65 20%
Unknown 109 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 December 2020.
All research outputs
#1,356,806
of 25,159,758 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#267
of 7,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,665
of 338,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#13
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,159,758 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,889 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 338,456 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.