'It doesn't happen how you think, it is very complex!' Reconciling stakeholder priorities, evidence, and processes for zoonoses prioritisation in India.

Background: Why do some zoonotic diseases receive priority from health policy decision-makers and planners whereas others receive little attention? By leveraging Shiffman and Smith's political prioritisation framework, our paper advances a political economy of disease prioritisation focusing on four key components: the strength of the actors involved in the prioritisation, the power of the ideas they use to portray the issue, the political contexts in which they operate, and the characteristics of the issue itself (e.g., overall burdens, severity, cost-effective interventions). These components afford a nuanced characterisation of how zoonotic diseases are prioritised for intervention and highlight the associated knowledge gaps affecting prioritisation outcomes. We apply this framework to the case of zoonoses management in India, specifically to identify the factors that shape disease prioritisation decision-making and outcomes. Methods: We conducted 26 semi-structured interviews with national, state and district level health policymakers, disease managers and technical experts involved in disease surveillance and control in India. Results: Our results show pluralistic interpretation of risks, exemplified by a disconnect between state and district level actors on priority diseases. The main factors identified as shaping prioritisation outcomes were related to the nature of the zoonoses problem (the complexity of the zoonotic disease, insufficient awareness and lack of evidence on disease burdens and impacts) as well as political, social, cultural and institutional environments (isolated departmental priorities, limited institutional authority, opaque funding mechanisms), and challenges in organisation leadership for cross-sectoral engagement. Conclusion: The findings highlight a compartmentalised regulatory system for zoonoses where political, social, cultural, and media factors can influence disease management and prioritisation. A major policy window is the institutionalisation of One Health to increase the political priority for strengthening cross-sectoral engagement to address several challenges, including the creation of effective institutions to reconcile stakeholder priorities and prioritisation processes.

Co-production of knowledge as part of a OneHealth approach to better control zoonotic diseases.

There is increased global and national attention on the need for effective strategies to control zoonotic diseases. Quick, effective action is, however, hampered by poor evidence-bases and limited coordination between stakeholders from relevant sectors such as public and animal health, wildlife and forestry sectors at different scales, who may not usually work together. The OneHealth approach recognises the value of cross-sectoral evaluation of human, animal and environmental health questions in an integrated, holistic and transdisciplinary manner to reduce disease impacts and/or mitigate risks. Co-production of knowledge is also widely advocated to improve the quality and acceptability of decision-making across sectors and may be particularly important when it comes to zoonoses. This paper brings together OneHealth and knowledge co-production and reflects on lessons learned for future OneHealth co-production processes by describing a process implemented to understand spill-over and identify disease control and mitigation strategies for a zoonotic disease in Southern India (Kyasanur Forest Disease). The co-production process aimed to develop a joint decision-support tool with stakeholders, and we complemented our approach with a simple retrospective theory of change on researcher expectations of the system-level outcomes of the co-production process. Our results highlight that while co-production in OneHealth is a difficult and resource intensive process, requiring regular iterative adjustments and flexibility, the beneficial outcomes justify its adoption. A key future aim should be to improve and evaluate the degree of inter-sectoral collaboration required to achieve the aims of OneHealth. We conclude by providing guidelines based on our experience to help funders and decision-makers support future co-production processes.