Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Is the current surge in political and financial attention to One Health solidifying or splintering the movement?
  1. Julia Spencer1,2,
  2. Ellen McRobie1,3,
  3. Osman Dar1,
  4. Afifah Rahman-Shepherd1,
  5. Nadeem Hasan1,
  6. Johanna Hanefeld4,
  7. Mishal Khan5
  1. 1 Centre on Global Health Security, Chatham House, London, UK
  2. 2 London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
  3. 3 Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, UK
  4. 4 Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
  5. 5 Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Mishal Khan; mishal.khan{at}lshtm.ac.uk

Abstract

Introduction The global health field has witnessed the rise, short-term persistence and fall of several movements. One Health, which addresses links between human, animal and environmental health, is currently experiencing a surge in political and financial attention, but there are well-documented barriers to collaboration between stakeholders from different sectors. We examined how stakeholder dynamics and approaches to operationalising One Health have evolved further to recent political and financial support for One Health.

Methods We conducted a mixed methods study, first by qualitatively investigating views of 25 major policymakers and funders of One Health programmes about factors supporting or impeding systemic changes to strengthen the One Health movement. We then triangulated these findings with a quantitative analysis of the current operations of 100 global One Health Networks.

Results We found that recent attention to One Health at high-level political fora has increased power struggles between dominant human and animal health stakeholders, in a context where investment in collaboration building skills is lacking. The injection of funding to support One Health initiatives has been accompanied by a rise in organisations conducting diverse activities under the One Health umbrella, with stakeholders shifting operationalisation in directions most aligned with their own interests, thereby splintering and weakening the movement. While international attention to antimicrobial resistance was identified as a unique opportunity to strengthen the One Health movement, there is a risk that this will further drive a siloed, disease-specific approach and that structural changes required for wider collaboration will be neglected.

Conclusion Our analysis indicated several opportunities to capitalise on the current growth in One Health initiatives and funding. In particular, evidence from better monitoring and evaluation of ongoing activities could support the case for future funding and allow development of more precise guidelines on best practices.

  • one health
  • b> Health Policy

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • JS and EM are joint first authors.

  • Handling editor Peter MacGarr Rabinowitz

  • Contributors MK conceived the study and all authors developed the methods. EM, JS and MK collected and analysed the data. JS, EM and MK wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to sections of the manuscript and revised and approved the final manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Ethics approval Ethical approval for the research was received from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine ethics committee.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement No additional data are available.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.