↓ Skip to main content

Brucellosis Control in Malta and Serbia: A One Health Evaluation

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
Brucellosis Control in Malta and Serbia: A One Health Evaluation
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2018.00147
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sandra C. Buttigieg, Sara Savic, Daniel Cauchi, Elaine Lautier, Massimo Canali, Maurizio Aragrande

Abstract

Brucellosis, also known as "undulant fever" or "Malta fever", is a zoonotic infection caused by microorganisms belonging to Brucella, a genus of gram-negative coccobacilli that behave as facultative intracellular pathogens of ruminants, swine and other animals. Brucellosis is a threat to public health, hence identifying the optimal way of preventing disease spread is important. Under certain circumstances, integrated, multidisciplinary "One Health" (OH) initiatives provide added value compared to unidisciplinary or conventional health initiatives. Conceptualizing and conducting evaluations of OH approaches may help facilitate decisions on resource allocation. This article historically describes and compares Malta's 1995-1997 with Serbia's 2004-2006 brucellosis control programmes and quantitatively assesses the extent to which they were compliant with a OH approach. For both case studies, we describe the OH initiative and the system within which it operates. Characteristic OH operations (i.e., thinking, planning, working) and supporting infrastructures (to allow sharing, learning and systemic organization) were evaluated. We scored the different aspects of these programmes, with values ranging from zero to one (1 = strong integration of OH). Malta demonstrated a higher OH index (0.54) and ratio (1.37) than Serbia (0.49 and 1.14 respectively). We conclude that context and timing are key to determining how, when and why a One Health approach should be applied. The adoption of a true OH approach that involved systemic organization, leadership clarity and transdisciplinary communication, collaboration, and co-ordination was essential to Malta's successful eradication of brucellosis after several failed attempts. In contrast, contextual factors in Serbia permitted the successful adoption of a primarily sectorial approach for short term control of brucellosis. However, while a fully-fledged transdisciplinary OH approach was not initially required, it is likely to be key to maintenance of brucellosis control in the medium and long term. Through these two case studies, we demonstrate that One Health initiatives should be applied at the right place, at the right time, with the right people and using the appropriate conditions/infrastructure. Lastly, OH evaluations should include economic assessments to identify optimal of resources in these situations, thereby justifying funding and political support required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 22%
Researcher 12 14%
Other 6 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 5%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 28 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 16 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 29 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 10 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,430,522
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#1,094
of 6,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,691
of 327,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#35
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,385 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 327,912 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.