[Public, private, and public-private partnerships to implement One Health as an action to address antimicrobial resistance in ColombiaParcerias públicas, privadas e público-privadas para a implementação da Saúde Única como uma ação contra a resistência a antimicrobianos na Colômbia]. / Alianzas públicas, privadas y público-privadas para implementar Una Salud como acción contra la resistencia antimicrobiana en Colombia.

This article describes the importance of public-private partnerships (PPPs) and public-private coordination to address antimicrobial resistance (AMR) through the One Health approach. These partnerships are developed between governmental actors, private companies, and social organizations to build agendas, decision-making, and the management of projects of common interest. A case study from Colombia is presented. It describes examples of response from the public sector when the World Health Organization (WHO) reported a colistin resistance alert in 2016; from the animal protein production sector under an industry partnership for the rational use of antimicrobials; and, finally, from a public-private partnership in the swine sector, with governmental institutions and international cooperation, to take action to mitigate the risk of AMR. In Colombia, the establishment of partnerships with organizations representing agricultural producers has generated impactful actions such as strengthening ongoing communication channels between the public and private sectors; characterizing the conditions of the agricultural production chain; establishing mechanisms for consultation and validation of health policies related to AMR; obtaining a baseline of indicator pathogens and identification of possible flows of AMR spread; and, finally, achieving knowledge transfer and capacity-building with national and international experts, with actions to raise awareness about the problem of AMR and its impact on public health. The strategic model developed in Colombia through public-private collaboration can inspire other low- and middle-income countries to optimize their use of resources to obtain results that contribute to the national AMR mitigation plan.

Este artigo descreve a importância das parcerias públicas e das parcerias privadas (PPP) e da articulação público-privada no enfrentamento da resistência a antimicrobianos (RAM) utilizando a abordagem de Saúde Única. Essas parcerias são formadas entre atores governamentais, empresas privadas e organizações sociais para elaborar agendas, tomar decisões e gerir projetos de interesse comum. Este artigo apresenta um estudo de caso da Colômbia, no qual são apresentados exemplos do setor público diante do alerta de resistência à colistina emitido pela Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS) em 2016, a formação de uma aliança intersetorial pelos setores de produção de proteína animal para promover o uso racional de antimicrobianos e, por último, a formação de uma parceria público-privada composta pelo setor suinícola e por instituições governamentais e cooperação internacional para que a implementação de medidas de mitigação do risco de RAM. Na Colômbia, a criação de parcerias com organizações representantes dos setores de produção agropecuária geraram ações de impacto, como o fortalecimento de canais permanentes de comunicação entre os setores público e privado, a caracterização das condições da cadeia de produção agropecuária, o estabelecimento de mecanismos de consulta e validação das políticas de saúde voltadas para a RAM, a obtenção de uma linha de base de patógenos indicadores e identificação de possíveis fluxos de propagação de RAM e, por fim, a transferência de conhecimentos e capacitação envolvendo especialistas nacionais e internacionais, com ações de conscientização sobre o problema e seu impacto na saúde pública. O modelo estratégico desenvolvido na Colômbia por meio da colaboração público-privada pode inspirar outros países de baixa e média renda a obter resultados, pela otimização de recursos, que contribuam para o plano nacional de mitigação da RAM.

Alianzas públicas, privadas y público-privadas para implementar Una Salud como acción contra la resistencia antimicrobiana en Colombia / Public, private, and public-private partnerships to implement One Health as an action to address antimicrobial resistance in Colombia / Parcerias públicas, privadas e público-privadas para a implementação da Saúde Única como uma ação contra a resistência a antimicrobianos na Colômbia

RESUMEN En este artículo se describe la importancia de las alianzas públicas y las alianzas privadas (APP) y de la articulación público-privada para hacer frente a la resistencia antimicrobiana (RAM) mediante el enfoque Una Salud. Estas alianzas se tejen entre actores gubernamentales, empresas privadas y organizaciones sociales para la construcción de agendas, la toma de decisiones y la gestión de proyectos de interés común. Se presenta un estudio de caso de Colombia, en el que se describen ejemplos del sector público ante la alerta de resistencia a la colistina que la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) informó en el 2016, los sectores productores de proteína animal bajo una alianza intergremial para el uso racional de los antimicrobianos y, por último, una alianza público-privada del sector porcícola con instituciones gubernamentales y cooperación internacional para lograr la implementación de acciones que mitiguen el riesgo de RAM. En Colombia, el establecimiento de alianzas con las organizaciones que representan a los sectores de productores agropecuarios ha generado acciones de impacto, como estrechar canales de comunicación permanente entre el sector público y el privado, caracterizar las condiciones de la cadena de producción agropecuaria, establecer mecanismos de consulta y validación de las políticas de salud en RAM, obtener una línea base de patógenos indicadores e identificación de los posibles flujos de propagación de RAM y, por último, lograr la transferencia de conocimiento y construcción de capacidades con expertos nacionales e internacionales, con acciones de concienciación de la problemática y su impacto en la salud pública. El modelo estratégico desarrollado en Colombia en colaboración público-privada puede inspirar a otros países de bajos y medianos ingresos para obtener resultados, con la optimización de recursos, que contribuyan al plan nacional de mitigación de la RAM.

ABSTRACT This article describes the importance of public-private partnerships (PPPs) and public-private coordination to address antimicrobial resistance (AMR) through the One Health approach. These partnerships are developed between governmental actors, private companies, and social organizations to build agendas, decision-making, and the management of projects of common interest. A case study from Colombia is presented. It describes examples of response from the public sector when the World Health Organization (WHO) reported a colistin resistance alert in 2016; from the animal protein production sector under an industry partnership for the rational use of antimicrobials; and, finally, from a public-private partnership in the swine sector, with governmental institutions and international cooperation, to take action to mitigate the risk of AMR. In Colombia, the establishment of partnerships with organizations representing agricultural producers has generated impactful actions such as strengthening ongoing communication channels between the public and private sectors; characterizing the conditions of the agricultural production chain; establishing mechanisms for consultation and validation of health policies related to AMR; obtaining a baseline of indicator pathogens and identification of possible flows of AMR spread; and, finally, achieving knowledge transfer and capacity-building with national and international experts, with actions to raise awareness about the problem of AMR and its impact on public health. The strategic model developed in Colombia through public-private collaboration can inspire other low- and middle-income countries to optimize their use of resources to obtain results that contribute to the national AMR mitigation plan.

RESUMO Este artigo descreve a importância das parcerias públicas e das parcerias privadas (PPP) e da articulação público-privada no enfrentamento da resistência a antimicrobianos (RAM) utilizando a abordagem de Saúde Única. Essas parcerias são formadas entre atores governamentais, empresas privadas e organizações sociais para elaborar agendas, tomar decisões e gerir projetos de interesse comum. Este artigo apresenta um estudo de caso da Colômbia, no qual são apresentados exemplos do setor público diante do alerta de resistência à colistina emitido pela Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS) em 2016, a formação de uma aliança intersetorial pelos setores de produção de proteína animal para promover o uso racional de antimicrobianos e, por último, a formação de uma parceria público-privada composta pelo setor suinícola e por instituições governamentais e cooperação internacional para que a implementação de medidas de mitigação do risco de RAM. Na Colômbia, a criação de parcerias com organizações representantes dos setores de produção agropecuária geraram ações de impacto, como o fortalecimento de canais permanentes de comunicação entre os setores público e privado, a caracterização das condições da cadeia de produção agropecuária, o estabelecimento de mecanismos de consulta e validação das políticas de saúde voltadas para a RAM, a obtenção de uma linha de base de patógenos indicadores e identificação de possíveis fluxos de propagação de RAM e, por fim, a transferência de conhecimentos e capacitação envolvendo especialistas nacionais e internacionais, com ações de conscientização sobre o problema e seu impacto na saúde pública. O modelo estratégico desenvolvido na Colômbia por meio da colaboração público-privada pode inspirar outros países de baixa e média renda a obter resultados, pela otimização de recursos, que contribuam para o plano nacional de mitigação da RAM.

Prevention of exposure to zoonoses in rural Latin America: Social ecological factors in a diverse regional context.

Zoonotic diseases have serious impacts on human health and well-being, but they are often overlooked in rural Latin America. The design of effective preventive interventions is complex and requires an integrative approach from evidence-based information analyzed through robust theoretical frameworks. We conducted a systematized literature review and qualitative framework-guided thematic analysis to identify social ecological factors affecting the prevention and exposure to zoonotic diseases. Although resources for research are limited in Latin America, we found several studies with relevant results. We extracted and interpreted 8 themes as factors affecting the prevention, transmission, and exposure to zoonosis. These themes included knowledge and misconceptions, low risk perception, gaps in knowledge and communication, psychological effect of diseases, culture and traditions, inequality, disarticulated prevention programs, and organizational responsibility. Alongside this, we compiled and present the recommendations for actions to reduce the impact of zoonoses in these populations. The factors and recommendations here presented can be adapted to inform the design and improvement of preventive programs, focused on One Health and aiming to reduce the impact of zoonotic diseases in rural settings.

A Survey on One Health Approach in Colombia and Some Latin American Countries: From a Fragmented Health Organization to an Integrated Health Response to Global Challenges.

The "One Health" (OH) approach has been recognized by world health authorities such as FAO/OIE/WHO, advocating for effective, multi-sectoral, and transdisciplinary collaboration. However, there is a lack of published evidence of the awareness of the OH concept in Colombia and other countries in the Latin American Region. In order to explore existing collaboration amongst the animal health, human-public health, environmental health sectors, and to describe the perception, knowledge, and barriers on OH in Colombia and other countries of Latin America, an online questionnaire-based survey was distributed among key professionals representing the three OH pillars (August 2018-August 2020). Overall, 76 key respondents from 13 countries (Colombia, México, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Perú, Guatemala, Nicaragua Uruguay, and Venezuela) completed the questionnaire. Respondents worked in institutions of animal (59%), public (20%), human (7%), and environmental health (7%); they mainly belonged to higher academic institutions (59%), followed by ministries (11%), and research organizations (9%). Most participants (92%) were familiar with the OH term and 68% were aware of the formal cooperation among sectors in their countries, mostly on zoonoses; in 46% of the cases, such connections were established in the last 5 years. The main reported limiting factors to intersectorality were the lack of commitment of policy-makers, resources, and budget for OH (38%) and the "siloed approach" of sectors and disciplines (34%). Respondents ranked a median score of 3.0 (1-5 scoring) in how good OH activities are implemented in their countries, and a median score of 2.0 in the citizen awareness on OH as regards their countries. The most important OH issues were identified in vector-borne diseases, rabies, wrong and/or improper use of antimicrobials, emerging viral diseases, food-borne diseases, neglected parasitic diseases, deforestation, and ecosystem fragmentation. Although there is a high-perceived importance on conjoint cooperation, OH implementation, and operationalization remain weak, and the environmental component is not well-integrated. We consider that integration and implementation of the OH Approach can support countries to improve their health policies and health governance as well as to advocate the social, economic, and environmental sustainability of the Region.

Priorización para el análisis de información en salud pública: red de conocimiento del Observatorio Nacional de Salud / Prioritization for public health information analysis in Colombia: knowledge network at the National Health Observatory

RESUMEN Objetivo Priorizar los grupos de enfermedades, población y métodos de análisis en salud pública según las preferencias de los actores de la red de conocimiento del Observatorio Nacional de Salud. Método Se utilizó el método de análisis conjunto (AC), que consiste en la construcción de un modelo factorial completo tomando una muestra aleatoria de sujetos que deben, según un orden de importancia pre-establecido, identificar las preferencias de los atributos de determinado constructo. Los actores de la red de conocimiento que participaron fueron profesionales de universidades públicas, miembros de EPS, IPS, secretarias de salud departamental, organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro enfocadas en salud, centros de investigación especializados, de alcaldías, y corporaciones. Resultados Los grupos de enfermedades prioritarios fueron: trastornos mentales y del comportamiento (13,8%), enfermedades cardiovasculares y circulatorias (13%), neoplasmas (10%) Diarrea, infecciones respiratorias, meningitis y otras enfermedades infecciosas comunes (6,7%) y deficiencias nutricionales (6,3%). Los criterios de priorización preferidos fueron la carga de enfermedad derivada y la dinámica epidemiológica del alto impacto. La información prioritaria de análisis fue la de determinantes sociales. El grupo poblacional de mayor preferencia fue la población general. Conclusiones Se evidenció que los participantes perciben como prioritarias tanto las enfermedades crónicas como infecciosas concordante con la transición epidemiológica del país. La prioridad más sentida del sistema sanitario colombiano es la construcción de capacidad del recurso humano y el fortalecimiento del sistema de vigilancia en las regiones para la toma de decisiones en salud pública.(AU)

ABSTRACT Objective To prioritize diseases, population and methods of analysis in public health according to the preferences of the stakeholders of the knowledge network of the National Health Observatory. Method The conjoint analysis methodology (AC) was used; it consists on the construction of a complete factorial model taking a random sample of subjects that must identify the preferences of the attributes of a given construct according to a pre-established order of importance. The stakeholders of the knowledge network who participated were professionals from public universities, members of health promotion entities, health provision services, health departments, non-profit health organizations, specialized research centers, mayor's offices, and corporations. Results The groups of priority diseases were mental and behavioral disorders (13.8%), cardiovascular and circulatory diseases (13%), neoplasms (10%), diarrhea, respiratory infections, meningitis and other common infectious diseases (6.7%), and nutritional deficiencies (6.3 %). The preferred prioritization criteria were the burden of disease and high-impact epidemiological dynamics. The analysis of priority information was the analysis of social determinants. The most preferred population was the general population. Conclusions Participants perceive both chronic and infectious diseases as a priority, which is consistent with the epidemiological transition of the country. The priority for the Colombian health system is to strengthen the capacity of human resources and the surveillance system in different areas to have a better decision-making process in relation to public health.(AU)

[Prioritization for public health information analysis in Colombia. Knowledge network at the National Health Observatory]. / Priorización para el análisis de información en salud pública. Red de conocimiento del Observatorio Nacional de Salud.

OBJECTIVE: To prioritize diseases, population and methods of analysis in public health according to the preferences of the stakeholders of the knowledge network of the National Health Observatory. METHOD: The conjoint analysis methodology (AC) was used; it consists on the construction of a complete factorial model taking a random sample of subjects that must identify the preferences of the attributes of a given construct according to a pre-established order of importance. The stakeholders of the knowledge network who participated were professionals from public universities, members of health promotion entities, health provision services, health departments, non-profit health organizations, specialized research centers, mayor's offices, and corporations. RESULTS: The groups of priority diseases were mental and behavioral disorders (13.8%), cardiovascular and circulatory diseases (13%), neoplasms (10%), diarrhea, respiratory infections, meningitis and other common infectious diseases (6.7%), and nutritional deficiencies (6.3 %). The preferred prioritization criteria were the burden of disease and high-impact epidemiological dynamics. The analysis of priority information was the analysis of social determinants. The most preferred population was the general population. CONCLUSIONS: Participants perceive both chronic and infectious diseases as a priority, which is consistent with the epidemiological transition of the country. The priority for the Colombian health system is to strengthen the capacity of human resources and the surveillance system in different areas to have a better decision-making process in relation to public health.

OBJETIVO: Priorizar los grupos de enfermedades, población y métodos de análisis en salud pública según las preferencias de los actores de la red de conocimiento del Observatorio Nacional de Salud. MÉTODO: Se utilizó el método de análisis conjunto (AC), que consiste en la construcción de un modelo factorial completo tomando una muestra aleatoria de sujetos que deben, según un orden de importancia pre-establecido, identificar las preferencias de los atributos de determinado constructo. Los actores de la red de conocimiento que participaron fueron profesionales de universidades públicas, miembros de EPS, IPS, secretarias de salud departamental, organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro enfocadas en salud, centros de investigación especializados, de alcaldías, y corporaciones. RESULTADOS: Los grupos de enfermedades prioritarios fueron: trastornos mentales y del comportamiento (13,8%), enfermedades cardiovasculares y circulatorias (13%), neoplasmas (10%) Diarrea, infecciones respiratorias, meningitis y otras enfermedades infecciosas comunes (6,7%) y deficiencias nutricionales (6,3%). Los criterios de priorización preferidos fueron la carga de enfermedad derivada y la dinámica epidemiológica del alto impacto. La información prioritaria de análisis fue la de determinantes sociales. El grupo poblacional de mayor preferencia fue la población general. CONCLUSIONES: Se evidenció que los participantes perciben como prioritarias tanto las enfermedades crónicas como infecciosas concordante con la transición epidemiológica del país. La prioridad más sentida del sistema sanitario colombiano es la construcción de capacidad del recurso humano y el fortalecimiento del sistema de vigilancia en las regiones para la toma de decisiones en salud pública.

Herramientas para la toma de decisiones en salud pública basadas en la evidencia y priorización de enfermedades / Evidence-based public health decision-making tools which can also be used for prioritising disease

RESUMEN En los últimos años se ha promovido el uso de evidencia proveniente de la investigación debido al creciente desarrollo del movimiento de medicina basada en la evidencia y se ha descrito que la transferencia del concepto "Basado en la Evidencia" desde la práctica clínica hacia la práctica de la salud pública no ha sido tan directa como se esperaba. Gran parte de la evidencia disponible para apoyar las recomendaciones en materia de salud pública proviene deestudios quese califican como evidencia de bajao muy baja calidad en la jerarquía medicina basada en la evidencia clásica y en el enfoque de GRADE. El objetivo del presente artículo es presentar dos métodos de calificación de evidencia, sus limitaciones y aplicaciones como herramientas para la toma de decisiones en salud pública.

ABSTRACT he use ofresearch-basedevidence has been promoted during recentyears, due to the increasingdevelopment ofevidence-basedmedicine,andit has been reported that transferringthe concept of "evidence-based" fromclinical to public health practice hasnot beenas straightforwardas expected.Much research-based evidence for supporting publichealth recommendationshas come fromstudies whose evidence has been qualified as beinglow or very lowquality in the medicalhierarchy based onclassicevidence and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE)approach. Thispaper was aimed at presentingtwo methods ofratingevidence, as well as their limitations and applicationsas public health decision-making tools.

[Evidence-based public health decision-making tools which can also be used for prioritising disease]. / Herramientas para la toma de decisiones en salud pública basadas en la evidencia y priorización de enfermedades.

He use of research-based evidence has been promoted during recent years, due to the increasing development of evidence-based medicine,and it has been reported that transferring the concept of "evidence-based" from clinical to public health practice has not been as straight forward as expected.Much research-based evidence for supporting public health recommendations has come from studies whose evidence has been qualified as being low or very low quality in the medical hierarchy based on classic evidence and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE)approach. This paper was aimed at presenting two methods of rating evidence, as well as their limitations and applications as public health decision-making tools.