Search

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance systems involve multiple stakeholders and multilevel standard operating procedures, which increase in complexity with further integration of the One Health (OH) concept. AMR is a OH challenge. It is crucial for the success of an AMR surveillance system to evaluate its performance in meeting the proposed objectives, while complying with resource restrictions. The OH-EpiCap tool was created to evaluate the degree of compliance of hazard surveillance activities with essential OH concepts across there dimensions: organization, operational activities, and impact of the OH surveillance system.To present feedback on the application of the OH-EpiCap from a user’s perspective, the tool was used to evaluate nine national AMR surveillance systems, each with different monitoring contexts and objectives. The OH-EpiCap tool was assessed using the updated CoEvalAMR methodology. This methodology evaluates the content themes and functional aspects of the tool in a standardized way, while it also captures the user’s subjective experiences in using the tool via a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) approach.The results of the evaluation of the OH-EpiCap are presented and discussed. The OH-EpiCap is an easy-to-use tool, which can facilitate a fast macro-overview of the application of the OH concept to a surveillance activity, when used by specialists in the matter, serving as a basis for the discussion of possible adaptations of AMR surveillance activities, or targeting areas that may be further investigated using other pre-established tools.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an increasingly important challenge within global health, and growing action is being taken by countries across the world. The UK Government established a national AMR Strategy in 2013, encompassing human and animal health. An evaluation of the implementation of the Strategy was commissioned, to feed into a refresh of the Strategy in 2018. This article addresses the implementation of the parts of the Strategy related to food sourced from animals. It is based on 15 semi-structured interviews with policy officials and professionals from UK and international agencies. Four themes comprise the findings from thematic analysis. (1) The UK's advocacy and leadership at the global level to encourage international action, which was praised. However, the UK's actions were limited in permeating complex international food supply chains. (2) Integrating a One Health approach, adopted in the Strategy, which had successfully facilitated bringing together human and animal health sectors, but still lacked input from environmental agencies and integration of the role of environmental factors in understanding and tackling AMR. (3) Changes in antimicrobial use and attempts to reduce AMR brought about by the Strategy, including the disparity in variations of actions and progress between livestock sectors, the pros and cons of antimicrobial usage reduction targets—felt to be best when adapted for each livestock species sector, the preference for voluntary sector-led approaches to reduction in antimicrobial use, and the need for changes in production systems and animal husbandry. (4) The challenges relating to costs, drivers and incentives identified to reduce antimicrobial use, and how research, data and surveillance systems support continued action. In particular, the need for adequate investment and financial incentives to enable changes in production and husbandry to take a more preventative approach, the importance of working with different actors throughout the food chain in each livestock sector, and the need for adequate and consistent surveillance data to measure antimicrobial use and continued research to understand AMR. The findings have implications for how to implement further changes at both farm and policy level, how to implement harmonized surveillance whilst maintaining sectoral autonomy, the need for a whole food chain approach, and greater integration of research, actions and actors working on environmental factors of AMR.

Global food production systems are currently under scrutiny, in particular the health, nutrition, and environmental impacts of livestock-derived food (LDF). Despite South Africa’s recent socio­economic transformation and increased per-capita LDF consumption, the triple burden of malnutri­tion persists. Policy responses to such complex problems often fail because of linear thinking with short-term goals. However, a systems approach helps identify root causes, feedback mechanisms, potential unintended consequences, and opportu­nities for integrated, durable solutions. Participa­tion in the systems-thinking process improves stakeholder understanding and buy-in. Our par­ticipatory workshop facilitated the development of a systems map for South African LDF, identifying key system elements, linkages, and nexus points. The latter included climate change, land access and management, livestock management and produc­tivity, farming systems, food safety, policy articula­tion, agricultural knowledge, and income. Based on these findings, and an overview of related litera­ture, we produced a conceptual system dynamics model of the LDF system. We identified key vari­ables and causal relationships, vicious and virtuous loops, system archetypes, conceptual stock and flows, and links to Sustainable Development Goals. The LDF system is complex and dynamic, with a dominance of commercial enterprises across agriculture and food retail, presenting barriers for small and medium-scale individuals. Other key elements relate to population growth and urbaniza­tion, land access, deregulation of international trade, climate change vulnerability, feed production limitations, and food safety. Our work provides a unique reference for policymakers, identifying the need for deep structural change, highlighting the possible unintended consequences, and thereby mitigating the risk of system destabilization.

The One Health concept covers the interrelationship between human, animal and environmental health and requires multistakeholder collaboration across many cultural, disciplinary, institutional and sectoral boundaries. Yet, the implementation of the One Health approach appears hampered by shortcomings in the global framework for health governance. Knowledge integration approaches, at all stages of policy development, could help to address these shortcomings. e identication of key objectives, the resolving of trade-os and the creation of a common vision and a common direction can be supported by multicriteria analyses. Evidence-based decision-making and transformation of observations into narratives detailing how situations emerge and might unfold in the future can be achieved by systems thinking. Finally, transdisciplinary approaches can be used both to improve the eectiveness of existing systems and to develop novel networks for collective action. To strengthen One Health governance, we propose that knowledge integration becomes a key feature of all stages in the development of One-Health-related policies. We suggest several ways in which such integration could be promoted.

The current fragmented framework of health governance for humans, animals and environment, together with the conventional linear approach to solving current health problems, is failing to meet today’s complex health challenges and is proving unsustainable. Advances in healthcare depend increasingly on intensive interventions, technological developments and expensive pharmaceuticals. The disconnect grows between human health, animal health and environmental and ecosystems health. Human development gains have come with often unrecognised negative externalities affecting ecosystems, notably loss of resilience, mostly through biodiversity loss and land degradation. Reduced capacity of the ecosystem to serve humanity threatens to reverse the health gains of the last century. A paradigm shift is urgently required to de-sectoralise human, animal, plant and ecosystem health and to take a more integrated approach to health, One Health (OH). The sustainable development goals (SDGs) offer a framework and unique opportunity for this and we argue the need of an OH approach towards achieving them. Feasibility assessments and outcome evaluations are often constrained by sectoral politics within a national framework, historic possession of expertise, as well as tried and tested metrics. OH calls for a better understanding, acceptance and use of a broader and transdisciplinary set of evaluation approaches and associated metrics, which is a key objective of NEOH. We need to shift our current sectoralised, linear focus to a more visible balanced health investment with more global benefits to all species. This is encapsulated in the movements for OH, EcoHealth, Planetary Health and Ecological Public Health, which are essentially converging towards a paradigm shift for a more integrated approach to health., peer-reviewed

Based on the Codex Alimentarious framework, this study quantitatively assessed the risk of developing salmonellosis through consumption of beef in Lusaka Province of Zambia. Data used to achieve this objective were obtained from reviews of scientific literature, Government reports, and survey results from a questionnaire that was administered to consumers to address information gaps from secondary data. The Swift Quantitative Microbiological Risk Assessment (sQMRA) model was used to analyse the data. The study was driven by a lack of empircally-based risk estimation despite a number of reported cases of salmonellosis in humans.\ud \ud A typology of consumers including all age groups was developed based on their beef consumption habits, distinguishing between those with low home consumption, those with medium levels of home consumption, and those with high levels through restaurant consumption. This study shows that the risk of developing salmonellosis in this population, from consuming beef, was generally low. At ID50 of 9.61 × 103 cfu/g and a retail contamination concentration of 12 cfu/g, the risk of developing salmonellosis through the consumption of beef prepared by consumers with low and medium levels of beef consumption was estimated at 0.06% and 0.08%, respectively, while the risk associated with restaurant consumption was estimated at 0.16% per year.\ud \ud The study concludes that the risk of developing salmonellosis among residents in Lusaka province, as a result of beef consumption, was generally low, mainly due to the methods used for food preparation. Further work is required to broaden the scope of the study and also undertake microbiological evaluation of ready-to-eat beef from both the household and restaurant risk exposure pathways.

Contemporary food systems feed billions, yet many are food insecure and the scale of current technologies and approaches are contributing to inequities and environmental degradation. Food systems therefore offer challenges and opportunities for enhanced policy and practice. ‘Interdisciplinary Food Systems Teaching and Learning’ (IFSTAL) is building a cohort of graduate professionals (‘food system analysts’) equipped with the skills, tools and capability to better understand and manage food system complexity for food security, environment and enterprise.

One Health as a concept has been with us for many years, yet it is only recently that it is actively being discussed as a way of mitigating risks in society. Initiatives in the use of this concept require methods to monitor the benefits gained from an holistic approach to health, yet there is an absence of adequate frameworks to measure One Health benefits. This paper explores the problem with a review of the available literature and an examination of methods used. It concludes that most published work on One Health describes how this concept is valuable without trying to estimate the size of benefit or type of value. A framework for measuring the advantages of a One Health approach is needed and, through the process of an international workshop and the development of a One Health business case, the authors are working towards its development.