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.

The promises and pitfalls of polysemic ideas: 'One Health' and antimicrobial resistance policy in Australia and the UK.

Recent scholarship posits that ambiguous ('polysemic') ideas are effective for coalition building between diverse stakeholders: their capacity to be interpreted differently attracts different interests. Hence, in search of political solutions to 'wicked' and similarly complex problems, deploying polysemic ideas would be critical to effective policy-making. This paper scopes the policy-making potential of polysemic ideas by examining the impact of an ambiguous concept known as 'One Health' on responses to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Australia and the UK. It offers two primary arguments. Firstly, polysemic ideas can help mobilise broad attention to complex problems: since One Health became associated with AMR, political and administrative attention has grown more intense and coordinated than previously. Secondly, however, a polysemic idea alone may be insufficient to generate effective action: the contrast between Australian and UK AMR policies illustrates that polysemic ideas do not suspend interests, institutions, or ideas that can be readily deployed.

The state of social science research on antimicrobial resistance.

This paper investigates the genealogy of social science research into antimicrobial resistance (AMR) by piecing together the bibliometric characteristics of this branch of research. Drawing on the Web of Science as the primary database, the analysis shows that while academic interest in AMR has increased substantially over the last few years, social science research continues to constitute a negligible share of total academic contributions. More in-depth network analysis of citations and bibliometric couplings suggests how the impact of social science research on the scientific discourse on AMR is both peripheral and spread thin. We conclude that this limited social science engagement is puzzling considering the clear academic and practical demand and the many existing interdisciplinary outlets.

Enlisting the support of trusted sources to tackle policy problems: The case of antimicrobial resistance.

Antimicrobial resistance represents one of the world's most pressing public health problems. Governments around the world have-and will continue to-develop policy proposals to deal with this problem. However, the capacity of government will be constrained by very low levels of trust in government. This stands in contrast to 'medical scientists' who are highly trusted by the public. This article tests to what extent trusted sources can alter attitudes towards a policy proposal to regulate the use of antibiotics. We find that respondents are much more likely to support a policy put forward by 'medical scientists.' This article provides some initial evidence that medical scientists could be used to gain support for policies to tackle pressing policy challenges such as AMR.

Political drivers of epidemic response: foreign healthcare workers and the 2014 Ebola outbreak.

This study demonstrates that countries responded quite differently to calls for healthcare workers (HCWs) during the Ebola epidemic in West Africa in 2014. Using a new dataset on the scale and timing of national pledges and the deployment of HCWs to states experiencing outbreaks of the virus disease (principally, Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone), it shows that few foreign nations deployed HCWs early, some made pledges but then fulfilled them slowly, and most sent no HCWs at all. To aid understanding of such national responses, the paper reviews five theoretical perspectives that offer potentially competing or complementary explanations of foreign government medical assistance for international public health emergencies. The study systematically validates that countries varied greatly in whether and when they addressed HCW deployment needs during the Ebola crisis of 2014, and offers suggestions for a theory-driven inquiry to elucidate the logics of foreign interventions in critical infectious disease epidemics.

Why pandemic response is unique: powerful experts and hands-off political leaders.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to show that 2009 H1N1 "swine" influenza pandemic vaccination policies deviated from predictions established in the theory of political survival, and to propose that pandemic response deviated because it was ruled by bureaucratized experts rather than by elected politicians. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Focussing on the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, the paper employs descriptive statistical analysis of vaccination policies in nine western democracies. To probe the plausibility of the novel explanation, it uses quantitative and qualitative content analyses of media attention and coverage in two deviant cases, the USA and Denmark. FINDINGS: Theories linking political survival to disaster responses find little empirical support in the substantial cross-country variations of vaccination responses during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Rather than following a political logic, the case studies of media coverage in the USA and Denmark demonstrate that the response was bureaucratized in the public health agencies (CDC and DMHA, respectively). Hence, while natural disaster responses appear to follow a political logic, the response to pandemics appears to be more strongly instituted in the hands of bureaucratic experts. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: There is an added value of encompassing bureaucratic dynamics in political theories of disaster response; bureaucratized expertise proved to constitute a strong plausible explanation of the 2009 pandemic vaccination response. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Pandemic preparedness and response depends critically on understanding the lessons of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic; a key lesson supported by this paper is that expert-based agencies rather than political leaders are the pivotal actors. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This paper is the first to pinpoint the limitations of political survival theories of disaster responses with respect to the 2009 pandemic. Further, it is among the few to analyze the causes of variations in cross-country pandemic vaccination policies during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.