One Health practices across key agencies in Sweden - Uncovering barriers to cooperation, communication and coordination.

AIM: This study examined the barriers and opportunities in Sweden for integrating One Health practices. Sweden's long tradition of working with One Health was used as a case to analyse persistent barriers as well as opportunities. METHOD: Thirteen semi-structured interviews with experts from the Swedish Veterinary Agency, Food Agency, Public Health Agency, and Environmental Protection Agency were carried out. A thematic content analysis was conducted on the interviews using inductive coding in NVivo. RESULTS: The study revealed that while collaboration is the general aspiration across the Swedish agencies, barriers persist regarding the understanding of One Health, the integration of the environment sector and awareness of the different terminologies employed within the disciplines. There are legislative challenges and barriers to science to policy translation. Disease outbreak was identified as an opportunity for One Health integration. CONCLUSIONS: A One Health strategy needs to be developed at agency level to define One Health and clarify the roles and responsibilities. To overcome practical challenges, experts need to be aware of different terminologies and practices when collaborating. Further prospects for One Health integration include employing policy entrepreneurs to push One Health onto the political agenda. Preparations for disease outbreaks need to focus on reducing barriers to effectively integrate One Health. Experiences of One Health projects must be disseminated, and to raise awareness, education programmes must integrate One Health into curricula.

Assessing Environmental Factors within the One Health Approach.

Background: One Health is a comprehensive and multisectoral approach to assess and examine the health of animals, humans and the environment. However, while the One Health approach gains increasing momentum, its practical application meets hindrances. This paper investigates the environmental pillar of the One Health approach, using two case studies to highlight the integration of environmental considerations. The first case study pertains to the Danish monitoring and surveillance programme for antimicrobial resistance, DANMAP. The second case illustrates the occurrence of aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) in milk in dairy-producing ruminants in Italian regions. Method: A scientific literature search was conducted in PubMed and Web of Science to locate articles informing the two cases. Grey literature was gathered to describe the cases as well as their contexts. Results: 19 articles and 10 reports were reviewed and informed the two cases. The cases show how the environmental component influences the apparent impacts for human and animal health. The DANMAP highlights the two approaches One Health and farm to fork. The literature provides information on the comprehensiveness of the DANMAP, but highlights some shortcomings in terms of environmental considerations. The AFM1 case, the milk metabolite of the carcinogenic mycotoxin aflatoxin B1, shows that dairy products are heavily impacted by changes of the climate as well as by economic drivers. Conclusions: The two cases show that environmental conditions directly influence the onset and diffusion of hazardous factors. Climate change, treatment of soils, water and standards in slaughterhouses as well as farms can have a great impact on the health of animals, humans and the environment. Hence, it is important to include environmental considerations, for example, via engaging environmental experts and sharing data. Further case studies will help to better define the roles of environment in One Health scenarios.

Translating One Health knowledge across different institutional and political contexts in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Implementing a One Health approach is complex. It demands engaging different sectors and actors in the promotion and protection of human, animal and environmental health. A key challenge for successfully implementing the One Health approach are knowledge translation processes among scientists and policy-makers. METHODS: An online survey reached 104 experts from 23 European countries, working at national agencies or institutes, universities, ministries, non-governmental organisations (World Health Organization, World Organisation for Animal Health), and European Union (EU) agencies. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were conducted to describe experts' perceptions. RESULTS: This study indicated a lack of networks among scientists and between scientists and policy-makers. Relations of scientists and policy-makers were perceived as challenging due to different interests and priorities, leading to difficulties in reaching political attention for One Health topics. It also highlighted a favoured attention to some One Health topics (e.g. antimicrobial resistance) as opposed to others (e.g. environmental issues). Important international actors to push One Health policies forward were the Quadripartite organisations and EU agencies. National actors (government agencies, national research institutes, universities) were on average perceived to be more important than international actors due to their roles and influences. Factors influencing the knowledge translation process were the different languages spoken by scientists as well as politicians, and an equivocal understanding of the One Health approach. CONCLUSION: The study shows the importance of leadership to establish interdisciplinary networks and to problematise One Health issues with clear scope and targets. This will help to link knowledge to needs and capabilities of policy-makers. Establishing strong relationships among national and international actors can encourage networks and raise awareness of the One Health approach to policy-makers. Lastly, promoting research communication skills of scientists can provide a valuable tool to reach policy-makers to enhance attention to One Health topics.

Attention to the Tripartite's one health measures in national action plans on antimicrobial resistance.

The WHO, FAO, and OIE (the Tripartite) promote One Health (OH) as the guiding frame for national responses to antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Little is known, however, about how much national action plans (NAPs) on AMR actually rely on the OH measures outlined by the Tripartite. The paper investigates attention to OH through a systematic content analysis of 77 AMR NAPs to discern regional and income patterns in the integration of these OH measures. Our findings suggest that (1) AMR NAPs almost universally address the three key sectors of OH, namely, human, animal, and environmental health; (2) AMR NAPs primarily apply OH measures in policies related to human health care, food production, hygiene, and agriculture, whereas the level of attention to OH measures in sanitation, aquaculture, waste management, and water governance is generally low and mainly present in NAPs from low-income countries; (3) AMR NAPs of low-income and lower-middle-income countries' display greater congruence with OH measures than NAPs from upper-middle-income and high-income countries; and (4) the level of OH attention on paper appears to matter little for the extent of multisectoral collaboration in practice.

Lessons from an International Initiative to Set and Share Good Practice on Human Health in Environmental Impact Assessment.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is applied to infrastructure and other large projects. The European Union EIA Directive (2011/92/EU as amended by 2014/52/EU) requires EIAs to consider the effects that a project might have on human health. The International Association for Impact Assessment and the European Public Health Association prepared a reference paper on public health in EIA to enable the health sector to contribute to this international requirement. We present lessons from this joint action. We review literature on policy analysis, impact assessment and Health Impact Assessment (HIA). We use findings from this review and from the consultation on the reference paper to consider how population and human health should be defined; how the health sector can participate in the EIA process; the relationship between EIA and HIA; what counts as evidence; when an effect should be considered 'likely' and 'significant'; how changes in health should be reported; the risks from a business-as-usual coverage of human health in EIA; and finally competencies for conducting an assessment of human health. This article is relevant for health authorities seeking to ensure that infrastructure, and other aspects of development, are not deleterious to, but indeed improve, human health.

The state of One Health research across disciplines and sectors - a bibliometric analysis.

There is a growing interest in One Health, reflected by the rising number of publications relating to One Health literature, but also through zoonotic disease outbreaks becoming more frequent, such as Ebola, Zika virus and COVID-19. This paper uses bibliometric analysis to explore the state of One Health in academic literature, to visualise the characteristics and trends within the field through a network analysis of citation patterns and bibliographic links. The analysis focuses on publication trends, co-citation network of scientific journals, co-citation network of authors, and co-occurrence of keywords. The bibliometric analysis showed an increasing interest for One Health in academic research. However, it revealed some thematic and disciplinary shortcomings, in particular with respect to the inclusion of environmental themes and social science insights pertaining to the implementation of One Health policies. The analysis indicated that there is a need for more applicable approaches to strengthen intersectoral collaboration and knowledge sharing. Silos between the disciplines of human medicine, veterinary medicine and environment still persist. Engaging researchers with different expertise and disciplinary backgrounds will facilitate a more comprehensive perspective where the human-animal-environment interface is not researched as separate entities but as a coherent whole. Further, journals dedicated to One Health or interdisciplinary research provide scholars the possibility to publish multifaceted research. These journals are uniquely positioned to bridge between fields, strengthen interdisciplinary research and create room for social science approaches alongside of medical and natural sciences.

Analysis of Health in Environmental Assessments-A Literature Review and Survey with a Focus on Denmark.

In the European Union, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive (2014/52/EU) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive (2011/92/EU) emphasise the assessment of population and human health. The directives require health to be considered within Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). To date, health is mainly considered in connection with negative environmental factors and in terms of risk assessments. The integration of health in EIA as well as SEA has not been investigated in a Danish context, and this study aims to address the missing knowledge. There is a need for a more comprehensive health assessment within EIA and SEA to comply with the EIA and SEA directives. An integration of health into EIA and SEA will ensure a sound examination of health determinants which can improve decision making and thus comprehensively promote and protect health. To establish the status of the inclusion of the assessment of impacts on health into EIA and SEA, a literature review was performed. In addition, a survey addressed to researchers and practitioners was conducted and analysed through a comparative analysis. The survey examined the needs of practitioners and researchers, focusing on the Danish context, regarding the inclusion of health into EIA and SEA. Enhanced intersectoral cooperation of the health and environmental sectors, more specific guidance documents, and underlying this, stronger political support, were identified among needs for more comprehensive health assessments.