2025 AAHA One Health Guidelines: Navigating Cross-Disciplinary Partnerships.

A vision of a One Health system for Australia: on the need to rethink our health system.

In East Africa, a region with many endemic and emerging zoonoses, and in countries such as Ethiopia in particular, One Health (OH) approaches are increasingly seen as effective ways, to mitigate the risk of zoonoses at the interface between human, animal and the environment. The OH approach promotes interdisciplinary cooperation and collaboration between researchers and practitioners from the disciplines of human, animal and environmental health. Moreover, it advocates for the establishment of a public health sector model which recognises the imperative to holistically address diseases that occur in the human, animal and environmental health arena.Key informant interviews were conducted with human and animal health practitioners and academic researchers in Ethiopia to collect data on the implementation of the OH approach to manage zoonotic diseases at the human and animal health interface. Participants' observations were undertaken within animal and human health clinics and government laboratories to gather additional data. Environmental health was not considered in this study as it is not yet fully integrated into the OH approach in Ethiopia.The results reveal a lack of interdisciplinary cooperation, collaboration, and coordination between animal and human health practitioners in operationalising the OH framework in Ethiopia. Professionals in academic and non-academic institutions and organisations are interested in implementing the OH approach, however, an organisational “silo” culture constrains collaboration between institutions dealing with animal and human health. Understaffing and underfunding of institutions were also cited as major challenges to the implementation of a OH approach. Lack of interdisciplinary training for animal and human health practitioners hinders collaboration in the management of zoonoses.Policymakers need to go beyond the rhetoric to a genuine focus on reform of health management and implement policies that bridge human, animal and environmental health. There is a need for multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary training in human, animal and environmental health and collaborative research for the management of zoonoses.

Political attention to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has never been greater. Governments worldwide are concerned that AMR threatens to undo modern medical achievements with the spectre of a post antibiotic era in which commonplace infections, once eminently treatable, become nontreatable causes of serious morbidity and mortality 1. With suggestions that AMR and multi-drug resistant organisms are as important as climate change and could cast the world back into the dark ages of medicine, ranking alongside terrorism as matters of national risk 2, 3, the political landscape on this subject has been clearly set. Concerns about AMR and its health impact are, of course, not new and began at almost the same time as the introduction of antimicrobials. In 1945, just after the introduction of penicillin as a therapeutic agent in humans and animals, Fleming warned in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech that misuse of antimicrobials could result in bacterial resistance. This prediction rapidly became true with the discovery of each new class of antimicrobial quickly followed by the appearance of resistance to it. By the 1960s there was widespread realisation, and acceptance in the scientific community and lay press, that antimicrobial use (and misuse) resulted in rapid selection for resistance against all classes of antimicrobials. What is new, and has changed the political and regulatory landscape for AMR completely, is the realisation that science is not able to out-pace the microbes. There have been no completely new classes of antimicrobials discovered and brought to market since the 1980s, perhaps not surprising given the relatively small range of bacterial targets and the rapid rate of antimicrobial discovery during the ‘golden age’ from the mid 1940s onwards 4. Although there are some rays of hope, for example the recently reported new compound ‘teixobactin’ 5, the pipeline for new antimicrobials is practically dry. In other words, the solutions to AMR must come from within the medical, veterinary and animal industry sectors by addressing the underlying causes of, and changing the therapeutic approaches to, infectious disease. The political and scientific view that antimicrobials can no longer be regarded as the panacea or ‘magic bullet’ capable of eradicating infectious disease is widely accepted, and it is now clear that the human and animal health care sectors need to respond accordingly. A major challenge for the politicians is that there are still significant gaps in the surveillance data required to fully understand the drivers of AMR in both humans and animals 6, 7 and, critically, to measure the effects of interventional measures to reduce AMR. It is therefore not surprising that scientific opinion continues to be divided on practically every key question about AMR except that it is now a serious global problem causing significant economic loss with welfare, morbidity and mortality impacts in humans and animals. Antimicrobial resistance is a natural phenomenon: bacteria produce antimicrobial substances as part of their repertoire to compete in the struggle for colonisation, space and nutrients. Resistance therefore existed long before the introduction of antimicrobial drugs: the effect of using antimicrobials has been to accelerate AMR through classical selective pressure. That this has happened in both veterinary and human populations of bacteria is not disputed; the evidence for interconnection of AMR in these two populations is, however, inconclusive and is the subject of continuing political and scientific debate with contradictory evidence produced by both sides 8-10. It does appear that antimicrobial use in animals increases AMR in animal bacteria and that treating people with antimicrobials increases AMR in human bacteria. However, current scientific evidence does not allow definitive assessment of whether reducing antimicrobial use in animals has reduced AMR in medical pathogens. The extent to which AMR in populations of animal bacteria threatens public health therefore remains uncertain. The evidence for resistance in animal bacteria acting as genetic reservoirs of resistance for transfer to bacteria of public health importance is also inconclusive. Even for zoonotic bacteria such as Salmonella typhimurium DT104, the links between animal and human bacterial populations have become less clear with the application of sophisticated molecular typing bacterial methods and population genetics adding new complexity to the AMR debate 11. However, the lack of conclusive evidence notwithstanding, the prevailing political and regulatory opinion continues to be that antimicrobial use, and associated AMR, in animals is a driver of AMR in medical pathogens and that controlling veterinary prescription of antimicrobials will help safeguard public health. The ongoing political and public health scrutiny of veterinary use of antimicrobials is not surprising and the assumption that veterinary antimicrobial use contributes to, or is perhaps even directly the cause of, AMR in human medicine is understandable. The fact that the classes of antimicrobials used in veterinary and human medicine are the same 12; that food-borne and other zoonotic infections provide an opportunity for transfer of resistant bacteria from animals to humans; that populations of pathogenic and nonpathogenic animal bacteria may act as genetic reservoirs of resistance for important medical pathogens, with close contact between people and companion animals, in addition to food products, providing opportunity for genetic exchange; and, perhaps most importantly from a political perspective, that in many countries around the world the total quantity (gross weight) of antimicrobials used in veterinary medicine is greater than in human medicine 13, 14, has put antimicrobial use in animals at the centre of the public health AMR debate. When combined with the use of antimicrobials for disease prevention at herd or flock level and, in around half of the world's countries, for growth promotion, it is little wonder that antimicrobial use in animals has resulted in sustained political concern over the contribution that veterinarians and the animal sector in general may be making to the growing crisis of antimicrobial resistance in humans, with frequent calls for restriction or even banning of veterinary use of antimicrobials. Despite numerous political recommendations that coordinated, overarching surveillance of AMR is implemented at national and international level 15, 16 there are still relatively few examples of harmonised and integrated surveillance in humans and animals that allow comparison of data. Examples include The National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) in the USA, Canadian Integrated Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance (CIPARS) in Canada, Japanese Veterinary Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (JVARM) in Japan and several European schemes including Danish Integrated Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring and Research Programme (DANMAP) (Denmark), NORM-VET (Norway), Swedish Veterinary Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring (SVARM) (Sweden) and NethMap/Monitoring of Antimicrobial Resistance and Antibiotic usage in Animals in the Netherlands (MARAN) (the Netherlands). At EU level, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) monitor AMR in the food chain and food-borne zoonotic pathogens, but not in companion animals. In the absence of sufficient scientific evidence about AMR, in particular the key question of the impact of veterinary antimicrobial use on public health, politicians around the world have faced difficult decisions. In the absence of scientific certainty politicians have adopted the ‘precautionary principle’, allowing preventive action to be taken when there is a possibility of harm but where the scientific evidence is not sufficiently complete to allow full assessment. The result in Europe is a continuing European political focus on banning or restricting veterinary antimicrobial use, especially in the agricultural sector, and reducing the total quantities of antimicrobials used in animals. In the political and regulatory environment in the USA, the precautionary principle has been applied somewhat differently with less political appetite for banning or restricting antimicrobials 9. The first active political engagement with antimicrobial resistance occurred in 1968 in response to growing concerns over multidrug resistant Salmonella in humans and animals, with the establishment of an independent advisory committee by the UK Government chaired by Professor Michael Swann. The Swann Report 17, published in 1969, recommended restriction of the use of antimicrobials as growth promoters, which took 45 years to fully implement in Europe, and establishment of overarching monitoring of AMR in humans and animals, which has still not been implemented globally. Almost 50 years on, this report continues to set the political stage in relation to veterinary antimicrobial use and possible impacts on human health. We would do well not to lose sight of the lessons learned in the decades following its publication, specifically that sensible recommendations based on competent assessment of the available, even if incomplete, scientific evidence should not be sidelined pending collection of conclusive evidence; instead the two should progress in parallel with continuous monitoring and refinement as evidence is gathered. The global political thrust in relation to AMR in the human and animal health sectors continues to be that overuse of antimicrobials is the cause of the problem and that reducing their use is the solution. In Europe, most political effort since 1969 has been directed at the food animal sector through reducing the use of antimicrobials as growth promoters and, more recently, reducing total antimicrobial use. It was not until 2006 that a EU-wide ban on antimicrobial growth promoters was eventually implemented, completing a political process that had started four decades previously with the banning of tetracycline, penicillin and streptomycin for growth promotion in 1974, followed by complete bans of antimicrobial growth promoters in Sweden and Denmark in 1988 and 1994. Denmark also implemented restrictions on veterinary dispensing of antimicrobials; decoupling veterinary prescription of antimicrobials from supply remains on the European political agenda and, if implemented, would have significant impact on veterinary practice business models in many countries. Monitoring, and reducing, antimicrobial use has become a key global political driver. The European Medicines Agency monitors the sales of antimicrobial agents for food producing animals and horses across Europe 18 providing benchmarks against which political targets for reduction are set. In some countries governmental targets for reduction in the sales of veterinary antimicrobials have been agreed with stakeholders. For example, the Netherlands decreased sales of antimicrobials by 49% between 2010 and 2012 with further reduction targets agreed; antimicrobial sales in Scandinavia have been progressively reduced through a series of government–stakeholder agreed targets 18. Nevertheless, the estimated consumption of antimicrobials (corrected for estimated biomass) in animals continues to be greater than in humans across Europe as a whole 6. It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that the concept of overuse as the key driver of AMR may be overly simplistic 19. Antimicrobial resistance is a complex public and animal health issue and there is recognition that integrated strategies across all sectors, backed by political will, stakeholder buy-in and sufficient economic support, are required to control it 1. Although overprescribing of antimicrobials is undoubtedly an important factor, reducing their use in human medicine has not consistently resulted in reduction of resistance for key pathogen–antimicrobial combinations with examples of resistance remaining apparently stable or even increasing despite reduced antimicrobial use. The question of whether phasing out antimicrobials as growth promoters across Europe and the restrictions placed on therapeutic use of antimicrobials in Scandinavia, with associated reductions in quantities used, has resulted in a positive impact on human health continues to be the subject of scientific and political disagreement. Responsible, or ‘prudent’, use of antimicrobials has emerged as a parallel precautionary approach to the control of AMR. Initially, the political focus was on restricting veterinary use of antimicrobials used to treat multidrug resistant human pathogens presenting significant risk to public health. Since 2005 the World Health Organization has published lists of ‘critically important antimicrobials for human medicine’, ranked according their importance with the goal that their use should be restricted in all sectors to preserve their effectiveness 20. This approach has been extended by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) with the publication of a list of antimicrobials of veterinary importance which contains recommendations for restricting the use in food animals of antimicrobials that are critically important for both human and animal health 21. This list includes fluoroquinolones and third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins and forms a rational basis for responsible guidelines worldwide. There are several examples of stakeholder groups at national and international level that have responded to the AMR challenge and shown leadership in producing responsible use guidelines. In the late 1990s the UK veterinary and farming sectors established the RUMA (responsible use of medicines in agriculture) alliance and in 2005 EPRUMA (European platform for responsible use of medicines in animals) was established. Stakeholder groups have now produced a variety of responsible use guidelines for antimicrobials in veterinary practice. Examples include general guidance to veterinary practitioners from the British Veterinary Association (BVA) and the Federation of Veterinarians in Europe (FVE), guidelines on antimicrobial use in companion animal practice from the Federation of European Companion Animal Veterinary Associations (FECAVA), the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA), the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and in equine practice from the British Equine Veterinary Association (BEVA). Widespread adoption of responsible use guidelines in equine practice is an important goal, coupled with accurate recording of use (as, for example, already happens in Scandinavia), that will go some way to addressing political concerns about the prescription of critically important antimicrobials and cascade prescribing by veterinarians, including equine practitioners 22, 23. It is understandable, given the importance of food-borne zoonotic bacteria, that the political lens has thus far been focused mainly on the food animal sector. It is only recently that antimicrobial use in companion animals and horses has received political attention 7, 24 probably because comparatively small quantities (<10% of total quantities sold each year) of antimicrobials are used in these species 18 and because of a public health focus on food-borne pathogens. There are now recommendations that systematic international surveillance of AMR is established for companion animals and horses and a recognition that the close relationship between people and companion animals may provide new opportunities for transfer of resistance to human pathogens 7, 24. Antimicrobial resistance is now a highly important One Health issue with political impact squarely on companion animal and equine veterinary medicine; it is no longer a subject confined to the food animal sector. Antimicrobial resistance is, of course, also important for companion animal and equine health with multidrug resistant pathogens such as meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) causing clinical disease in horses and with evidence of transfer of MRSA between humans and horses 25 and of carriage in horses 26. As would be expected, therapeutic treatment of horses with antimicrobials temporarily increases the prevalence of resistant sentinel Escherichia coli, including multidrug resistance and production of extended spectrum β-lactamases 27, acting as a reminder of the impact of ‘routine’ veterinary therapy on microbial populations. The message is clear that it is time to apply common sense and sound scientific principles to address AMR in equine practice. As a minimum, further surveillance in horses is required, along with universal adoption of responsible use guidelines 28. Irrespective of the scientific uncertainties, AMR is a true One Health issue that is relevant to the equine industry. Whatever the political dimensions of this debate it is essential that the equine veterinary profession and equine industry continue to engage actively with the AMR agenda, promote public and political confidence by demonstrating leadership through responsible use of antimicrobials and monitoring of AMR, and participate in evidence-based practice.

S nakes on a Plane was poised to be the blockbuster movie of the 2006 summer season.It featured reptiles smuggled onto an airplane as an unusual bioweapon of mass destruction.In a much less dramatic fashion, this absurd scenario plays out every day, when tons of live animals and unprocessed animal products are shipped internationally around the globe, providing many opportunities for rapidly translocating zoonotic pathogens.Episodes of emerging zoonoses are being increasingly recognized around the world.From 1996 to 2004, some 21% of 10,490 reports of animal diseases from 191 countries submitted to the Program for Monitoring Emerging Diseases (ProMED) concerned humans affected by zoonotic disease (1).This zoonoses theme issue of Emerging Infectious Diseases (EID) corroborates this finding, presenting reports of zoonotic disease from all corners of the globe, including the People's Republic of China, Vietnam, Slovakia, Indonesia, the United States, Israel, Bangladesh, the Netherlands, Brazil, Algeria, India, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Italy.As public health and animal health organizations attempt to respond to these emerging and reemerging zoonotic diseases, their ability and skill in forming new strategic partnerships are of paramount importance.

Issues in the Development of a Research and Education Framework for One Health

Creating a framework towards integrated health syndromic surveillance and response in Africa

Toxicology and “One Health”: Opportunities for Multidisciplinary Collaborations

Food production and dietary patterns play a central role in the myriad interactions among human, animal, and environmental health, emphasising the need for a One Health approach, and this study aims to evaluate dietary patterns within this framework. A cross-sectional dietary survey of adults was undertaken (2021) with a sample size of 957 respondents, representative of the population of Ireland. Subsequently, a farm-to-fork life cycle assessment (LCA) was employed to assess nine human health and environmental impacts (fine particulate matter formation, freshwater and marine ecotoxicity and eutrophication, human carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic toxicity and terrestrial acidification and ecotoxicity) across thirteen distinct dietary patterns: total population, rural, urban, omnivore, flexitarian, pescatarian, vegetarian, vegan, 'meat-focused', 'dairy/ovo-focused', 'vegetable-focused', 'seafood-focused', and 'potato-focused', employing the daily weight of consumed food (g/per capita/day) as the functional unit. Results indicate the 'meat-focused' diet exhibited the highest impact for fine particulate matter formation (8.00×10-3kgPM2.5 eq person-1day-1), marine eutrophication (6.60×10-3kgNeq person-1day-1), and terrestrial acidification (0.054kg SO2 eq person-1day-1). The 'seafood-focused' diet had the highest impact on freshwater (0.056kg 1,4-DCB person-1day-1) and marine ecotoxicity (0.069kg 1,4-DCB person-1day-1), freshwater eutrophication (8.36×10-4kg P eq person-1day-1), and human carcinogenic toxicity (0.144kg 1,4-DCB person-1day-1). In comparison, the 'potato-focused' diet exhibited the highest human non-carcinogenic (6.87kg 1,4-DCB person-1day-1) and terrestrial ecotoxicity (2.01kg 1,4-DCB person-1day-1). Transitioning from the "mean" diet to a vegan diet showed the highest percent decrease across all nine impacts (60.4% - 107.3%), followed by the 'vegetable-focused' diet (28.5% - 66.2%). Findings indicate adopting sustainable diets-'vegetable-focused', vegetarian, and vegan-can improve human, environmental, and animal health; however, trade-offs should be considered. Effective consumer communication and policies can enhance awareness of the interconnectedness of diets within the One Health framework, supporting both environmental and health goals.

BackgroundThe recent COVID-19 pandemic and the emergence of infectious diseases at the human-animal interface highlight the global challenge of mitigating zoonotic risks. The One Health approach emphasizes the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health, urging for holistic and interdisciplinary strategies in disease prevention. Despite growing interest, the attention to wildlife in pandemic prevention remains limited. This systematic literature review aims to evaluate recent One Health research on zoonotic diseases and wildlife in terms of study design, interdisciplinary collaboration, and participatory approaches. Key questions addressed include the consideration of One Health domains, disciplinary involvement, and the inclusion of non-academic stakeholders. MethodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, PubMed and Web of Science were searched for primary research papers on zoonotic diseases and wildlife from 2018 to 2023. Eligibility criteria included a focus on wildlife, zoonotic diseases, and adoption of the One Health approach. ResultsA total of 228 primary research papers were retrieved. Out of these, 105 studies were included in the review. Few studies integrated human, animal, and environmental domains simultaneously in data collection (4.8 %) and knowledge generation (29.5 %). While extensive knowledge was generated for animal health (97.1 %) and human health (84.8 %), environmental health (34.3 %) remained underrepresented. Laboratory methods predominated (82.9 %), with limited integration of social science methodologies (19 %). The majority were epidemiological studies (86.7 %), yet analytical design within these was sparse (17.1 %). Participation of non-academic stakeholders was limited (36.2 % included non-academics; 3.8 % encompassed participative approaches). ConclusionsThe synthesis of the domains human, animal and environmental health remained fragmentary in the studies reviewed. Environmental health is underrepresented and the interdisciplinary involvement of social sciences lacks. Neglecting these fields of competence impedes comprehensive understanding of disease dynamics and hampers effective zoonosis prevention strategies. In result, greater inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration, along with participatory approaches, are still needed for advancing One Health research.

Background and Aim: The concept of One Health, which aims to establish the association between human, animal, and environmental health, is dedicated to finding solutions to challenges such as the spread of zoonotic diseases. This study focuses on the conservation of freshwater fish and underscores the need for multi-and transdisciplinary approaches that emphasize the objective established by the concept. Materials and Methods: In this context, this study conducted a systematic review, employing criteria for article selection and exclusion, where publications spanning from 1990 to 2022 were analyzed using the electronic databases Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, SciELO, and Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde. Results: Using the keywords “One Health,” “fish,” and “freshwater,” a comprehensive collection of 2392 articles was identified. However, after a meticulous evaluation, only 12 articles fully satisfied the review criteria. These selected articles, published between 2015 and 2022, were primarily concentrated in Asia and Africa. Notably, the focal points of these articles addressed antimicrobial resistance, parasites, and heavy metals, which are challenges associated with consuming contaminated fish. Conclusion: Thus, the One Health approach is the most efficient method for managing environmental risks. By harnessing the collaborative efforts of diverse professionals and experts in the fields of environmental, human, and animal health, this approach serves as a robust framework for addressing challenges involving the triad of human, animal, and environmental spheres. Keywords: animal health, antimicrobial resistance, heavy metals, human health, parasites.

Introduction: The One Health approach offers a promising framework for addressing the intertwined challenges of human health, animal health, and the environment, essential for achieving sustainable development. Understanding the specific insights gained from implementing this approach in Bangladesh will not only contribute to the local context but also provide valuable lessons for other regions facing similar challenges. By promoting collaboration and integration, the One Health approach has the potential to pave the way for a sustainable and resilient future for Bangladesh and contribute to global efforts towards sustainable development. Methods: A literature search was conducted on open access databases like PubMed Central, Scopus, Web of Science, using relevant keywords and search terms. Open access articles, including research papers, review articles, and other publications related to the topic were collected. Each article was critically evaluated, taking into consideration factors such as the quality of the research, the credibility of the authors, and the impact of the publication. Findings: The One Health approach in Bangladesh has led to the establishment of effective surveillance systems, early detection mechanisms, and rapid response strategies for infectious diseases and zoonotic outbreaks. This has greatly contributed to preventing and managing public health crises. Bangladesh has successfully implemented the One Health approach to address health challenges impacting humans and animals. Through collaboration between human and animal health sectors, the country has effectively controlled zoonotic diseases, such as avian influenza and Nipah virus. The integration of veterinary and agricultural sectors has improved food safety by addressing the indiscriminate use of antibiotics in animal husbandry. The One Health approach in Bangladesh aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly Goal 3 (Good Health and Well-being), Goal 2 (Zero Hunger), and Goal 15 (Life on Land). Bangladesh's success exemplifies the importance of recognizing the interdependence of human, animal, and environmental health for sustainable development. Conclusion: The One Health strategy has shown to be an effective foundation for encouraging sustainable development. It acknowledges the linkages between the health of people, animals, and the environment and offers insightful solutions to difficult problems. Bangladesh has achieved considerable success in utilizing the power of One Health to create a healthier population, healthy ecosystems, and a more sustainable future. This achievement has been made possible by cooperation between government organizations, researchers, medical professionals, and local communities. Introduction: The One Health approach offers a promising framework for addressing the intertwined challenges of human health, animal health, and the environment, essential for achieving sustainable development. Understanding the specific insights gained from implementing this approach in Bangladesh will not only contribute to the local context but also provide valuable lessons for other regions facing similar challenges. By promoting collaboration and integration, the One Health approach has the potential to pave the way for a sustainable and resilient future for Bangladesh and contribute to global efforts towards sustainable development. Methods: A literature search was conducted on open access databases like PubMed Central, Scopus, Web of Science, using relevant keywords and search terms. Open access articles, including research papers, review articles, and other publications related to the topic were collected. Each article was critically evaluated, taking into consideration factors such as the quality of the research, the credibility of the authors, and the impact of the publication. Findings: The One Health approach in Bangladesh has led to the establishment of effective surveillance systems, early detection mechanisms, and rapid response strategies for infectious diseases and zoonotic outbreaks. This has greatly contributed to preventing and managing public health crises. Bangladesh has successfully implemented the One Health approach to address health challenges impacting humans and animals. Through collaboration between human and animal health sectors, the country has effectively controlled zoonotic diseases, such as avian influenza and Nipah virus. The integration of veterinary and agricultural sectors has improved food safety by addressing the indiscriminate use of antibiotics in animal husbandry. The One Health approach in Bangladesh aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly Goal 3 (Good Health and Well-being), Goal 2 (Zero Hunger), and Goal 15 (Life on Land). Bangladesh's success exemplifies the importance of recognizing the interdependence of human, animal, and environmental health for sustainable development. Conclusion: The One Health strategy has shown to be an effective foundation for encouraging sustainable development. It acknowledges the linkages between the health of people, animals, and the environment and offers insightful solutions to difficult problems. Bangladesh has achieved considerable success in utilizing the power of One Health to create a healthier population, healthy ecosystems, and a more sustainable future. This achievement has been made possible by cooperation between government organizations, researchers, medical professionals, and local communities.

ObjectiveThe objective of this study, based on the Triple-S project outputs, was to present the existing synergies between human and animal health syndromic surveillance (SyS) systems in Europe and a proposal to enhance this kind of collaboration.IntroductionThe Triple-S project (Syndromic Surveillance Systems in Europe, www.syndromicsurveillance.eu), co-financed by the European Commission and involving twenty four organizations from fourteen countries was launched in September 2010 with the following objectives 1) performing an inventory of existing or planned SyS systems in Europe both in animal and public health, 2) building a network of experts involved in SyS 3) producing guidelines to implement SyS systems, 4) developing synergies between human and animal health SyS systems. The project is based on a cooperation between human and animal health experts, as supported by the One Health initiative [1].MethodsA network of European experts involved in SyS was identified through the Triple-S inventory of SyS systems. A meeting of human health experts was organized back to back with a similar meeting with animal health experts in Paris, September 12–14, 2011. A joint session human/animal health allowed experts to discuss the interest of synergies between both sides. The objectives were to 1) encourage experience and knowledge transfer, 2) discuss what and how information should be shared between both sides to improve respective performances.ResultsThe results of the inventory of veterinary SyS systems showed that 40% of identified systems already shared or had planned to share information with human health sector. For these systems the collaboration between human and animal health sectors consisted in meetings on a regular basis to discuss the surveillance results.Discussions during the Triple-S meeting highlighted two reasons for enhancing synergies between both sides. First human health and animal health epidemiologists face common statistical and epidemiological issues when dealing with SyS, i.e. use of data collected for other purpose than surveillance; standardization of clinical observations; syndrome definition; anomaly detection; interpretation of unspecific signals; response to alerts. Both sides have thus interest in sharing their experiences and knowledge to improve their respective systems.Second, systems on both sides have similar objectives and target health events potentially threatening both animal and human populations: zoonoses, extreme weather events, environmental / food contamination, bioterrorist attack... For those events, animal population can play the role of sentinel for human population. Regular information flow between human and animal SyS could thus enhance the timeliness and sensitivity of SyS systems for detecting unexpected health events. Moreover, sharing information could help animal and human health experts to interpret and confirm unspecific signals, and confirm the impact of common health threats.All participants of the meeting agreed on the idea to routinely share outputs of the systems but were sceptical about sharing raw data to perform global analysis.ConclusionsEach aspect of the Triple-S project includes both human and animal health and will thus contribute to build natural collaboration between both sides. Such a project has demonstrated that scientific community is more and more willing to collaborate beyond the boundaries of these two health fields.Synergies between human and animal health seem as necessary for syndromic surveillance as it is for traditional surveillance, if not more. They seem especially important for the detection of emerging zoonotic threats but not only. Sharing surveillance outputs from both sides would be the first step of collaboration but deeper synergy, e.g. sharing data and analyse them globally, could also be considered. Triple-S guidelines for implementation of SyS systems in Europe will take into account and promote synergies between human and animal health.

Surveillance of human and animal health is often carried out separately worldwide, which leads to the under-reporting of zoonotic and emerging diseases. Early cross-information between wildlife, domestic animal and public health sectors may reduce both exposure and cost of outbreaks. We have assessed the feasibility of a One Health Surveillance and Response System (OHSRS) in the Adadle district of Ethiopia in the Somali Region (SRS), with regard to integration into the existing regional surveillance-response system in the Somali Region of Ethiopia (SRS). To meet the objectives of a surveillance-response system, we established a One Health Surveillance and Response Unit (OHSRU) at the district level. Community Animal Health Workers, Community Health Workers (CHWs), and both human and animal health district staff and regional experts were trained together on the OHSRS. An inception workshop was held with all relevant stakeholders. To ensure the active engagement of communities in the surveillance response system, a Community-Based Emergency Fund (CBEF) and CAHW cost recovery mechanisms were established. All public and animal health staff of different administration levels were linked together. Human and animal health information was collected and shared effectively among sectors. This approach helped bridging the physical separation between the public and animal health sectors in disease surveillance in the Adadle district. Joint interventions, such as disease outbreak investigations and community awareness were initiated by the OHSRU. We demonstrated that the OHSR was successfully operationalized in Adadle districts and contributed to improving the early detection and response of zoonotic diseases. However, technical barriers, cost-effectiveness, legality of data and ethical safeguarding, along with political commitment should be addressed to effectively operationalize the OHSR in the whole region. Designing the OHSR through the existing surveillance system, engaging communities and other relevant sectors using a participatory process is an important contribution to a sustainable OHSR. One Health Impact Statement In this research work, the public and animal health sectors collaborated in data collection and initiated joint interventions. By integrating the surveillance operational costs for disease outbreak investigation and cost of public health associated with zoonotic diseases can be reduced as One Health surveillance and response lead to early detection and response to zoonotic diseases. As one health is collaborative efforts multispectral, multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary, i.e. involvement of all relevant sectors including community members and different disciplines in the launching workshop of surveillance system helped to define and agree the role of each sectors or partner’s in the One Health approach. This played a curtail role in the success of the approach. Lessons learned from this work can be used for further improvement in One Health approach in different settings.

Most infectious diseases in the world are zoonotic diseases. Zoonotic diseases are now a public health problem that is taking the world's attention because it can cause a pandemic. Zoonotic pandemic diseases can have a very large impact on people's social and economic life. This article is a literature review of the approach of one health concept in addressing the spread of zoonotic diseases in Indonesia. Data collection is carried out through research libraries in the form of scientific journals, books, articles in mass media, and online media. Improving the world of livestock in Indonesia has an impact on humans and the environment. This can increase the risk of transmitting various infectious diseases from animals to humans. The spread of disease occurs quickly and can reach areas not limited by cities, islands, even continents. Zoonotic diseases are closely related to animals and humans, so the planning and control efforts undertaken must involve many people in charge, especially in the animal, human and environmental health sectors. Starting from the joint vigilance, the concept of One Health was born. One health approach needs to involve cross-sectoral and cross-disciplinary by integrating professional concepts in animal health and human health. The concept of one health comprehensively looks at the components related to the process of emergence and spread of zoonotic diseases so that the picture of the disease is more complete and makes it easier to overcome.

Livestock are vital to the health and economic stability of communities worldwide. However, infectious diseases threaten both animal and human health due to losses in livestock, decreased production, and transmission of zoonotic diseases. To manage and mitigate these risks, access to livestock vaccines is critical. This is often gendered, with societal and cultural norms influencing barriers to access. Through a scoping review of 49 publications, we describe the gendered dynamics of livestock vaccination in relation to farmers’ perceptions and knowledge about vaccines, access to vaccines and vaccination programs, and the ways in which roles and responsibilities in relation to cultural norms shape and limit women’s decision making power and empowerment to participate in such initiatives. We find that across communities, women face similar barriers to engaging in livestock vaccination programs, but that local context is critical to understanding and addressing these barriers. Within a broader context of the gendered dynamics of vaccination for both human and animal health, we highlight the need for vaccination programs that identify and address inequitable access to vaccines to support community and animal wellbeing as well as resilience to emerging health threats. One Health impact statement This article examines the gendered dynamics of livestock vaccination, emphasizing the need for a One Health approach to develop more equitable and effective vaccination strategies. By considering the intersection of human, animal, and environmental health, this review highlights structural inequities in vaccine distribution and access, the impact of gender roles on decision making and participation in vaccination programs, and the broader implications for animal health and community wellbeing. Drawing on insights from veterinary medicine, social sciences, and public health, we advocate for inclusive, gender-transformative programs that address the diverse needs of those involved in livestock care and community health.