RESUMEN
Funding and financing for One Health initiatives at country level remain challenging as investments commonly require demonstrated evidence of economic value or returns. The objectives of this review were to i) identify, critically analyse and summarise quantitative evidence of the net economic value of One Health initiatives; ii) document methodologies commonly used in the scientific literature; and iii) describe common challenges and any evidence gaps. Scientific databases were searched for published literature following the PRISMA guidelines and an online survey and workshop with subject matter experts were used to identify relevant grey literature. Studies were included if they reported on quantitative costs and benefits (monetary and non-monetary) and were measured across at least two sectors. Relevant publications were analysed and plotted against the six action tracks of the Quadripartite One Health Joint Plan of Action to help classify the initiatives. Ninety-seven studies were included. Eighty studies involved only two sectors and 78 reported a positive economic value or return. Of those studies that reported a positive return, 49 did not compare with a sectoral counterfactual, 28 studies demonstrated an added value of using a cross-sectoral approach, and 6 studies demonstrated an added value of One Health communication, collaboration, coordination, and capacity building. Included studies most frequently related to endemic zoonotic, neglected tropical and vector-borne diseases, followed by health of the environment and food safety. However, diversity in economic analysis methodology between studies included resulted in difficulty to compare or combine findings. While there is a growing body of evidence of the value of One Health initiatives, a substantial part of the evidence still focuses on "traditional" One Health topics, particularly zoonoses. Developing a standardised and practical approach for One Health economic evaluation will facilitate assessment of the added value and gather evidence for One Health to be invested in and endorsed by multiple sectors.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Strengthening the surveillance of zoonotic diseases emergence in the wild meat value chains is a critical component of the prevention of future health crises. Community hunters could act as first-line observers in zoonotic pathogens surveillance systems in wildlife, by reporting early signs of the possible presence of a disease in the game animals they observe and manipulate on a regular basis. METHODS: An experimental game was developed and implemented in a forested area of Gabon, in central Africa. Our objective was to improve our understanding of community hunters' decision-making when finding signs of zoonotic diseases in game animals: would they report or dissimulate these findings to a health agency? 88 hunters, divided into 9 groups of 5 to 13 participants, participated in the game, which was run over 21 rounds. In each round the players participated in a simulated hunting trip during which they had a chance of capturing a wild animal displaying clinical signs of a zoonotic disease. When signs were visible, players had to decide whether to sell/consume the animal or to report it. The last option implied a lowered revenue from the hunt but an increased probability of early detection of zoonotic diseases with benefits for the entire group of hunters. RESULTS: The results showed that false alerts-i.e. a suspect case not caused by a zoonotic disease-led to a decrease in the number of reports in the next round (Odds Ratio [OR]: 0.46, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.36-0.8, p < 0.01). Hunters who had an agricultural activity in addition to hunting reported suspect cases more often than others (OR: 2.05, 95% CI: 1.09-3.88, p < 0.03). The number of suspect case reports increased with the rank of the game round (Incremental OR: 1.11, CI: 1.06-1.17, p < 0.01) suggesting an increase in participants' inclination to report throughout the game. CONCLUSION: Using experimental games presents an added value for improving the understanding of people's decisions to participate in health surveillance systems.