Quantitative Outcomes of a One Health approach to Study Global Health Challenges

Abstract

Having gained momentum in the last decade, the One Health initiative promotes a holistic approach to address complex global health issues. Before recommending its adoption to stakeholders, however, it is paramount to first compile quantitative evidence of the benefit of such an approach. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and summarize primary research that describes monetary and non-monetary outcomes following adoption of a One Health approach. An extensive literature search yielded a total of 42,167 references, of which 85 were included in the final analysis. The top two biotic health issues addressed in these studies were rabies and malaria; the top abiotic health issue was air pollution. Most studies described collaborations between human and animal (n = 42), or human and environmental disciplines (n = 41); commonly reported interventions included vector control and animal vaccination. Monetary outcomes were commonly expressed as cost–benefit or cost–utility ratios; non-monetary outcomes were described using disease frequency or disease burden measurements. The majority of the studies reported positive or partially positive outcomes. This paper illustrates the variety of health challenges that can be addressed using a One Health approach, and provides tangible quantitative measures that can be used to evaluate future implementations of the One Health approach. Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s10393-017-1310-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A Systems Approach to Evaluate One Health Initiatives

“…The description and definition of outcomes and impacts are dependent on the problem the OH initiative is addressing and the associated boundaries of the system, objective, rationale, and consequently the resulting TOC. Given the diversity of OH initiatives, there is no single outcome that summarises OH endeavours, but rather a wide range of different outcomes ( 37 – 39 ). However, at the longer-term impact level, there are commonalities OH endeavours appear to strive for ( 7 ).…”

Accounting for One Health: Insights from the social sciences

“…While Cassidy’s work clearly shows that OH is the product of the evolution of several scientific disciplines, there is still a need to explore the effects of OH on other disciplines, and overall on ways of doing science. A first indication of these effects: in a few years, OH has become a “keyword” of research, used to identify work mobilising integrative, interdisciplinary and holistic approaches to health [ 15 ]. From “watchword” to “keyword”, the formal dimension of OH is, again, something worth exploring to account for its power.…”

“…We find a rather similar phenomenon in the literature, where several authors question the purely rhetorical or purely semantic dimension of OH: is OH something more than a word, a label, an idea? Countless papers provide examples of how the OH principles have been applied [ 15 ], with the aim of proving that OH is not just a word, and that it is a tangible reality. Other articles critically explore the neglected zones [ 50 ] and limits of the OH agenda [ 57 ].…”

The Veterinary Immunological Toolbox: Past, Present, and Future

“…As we enter the third decade of the 21st century, the "One Health" agenda has never been more important. The development of solutions for controlling infectious diseases in livestock, companion animals and wildlife not only has direct benefits for the target species but can reduce disease transmission across species, including zoonotic transmission, thereby reducing the wider global disease burden (45). Close contact between different animal species and between animals and humans is a risk for zoonotic disease, which can be difficult to manage in low and middle income countries (LMICs) (46).…”