How are large-scale One Health initiatives targeting infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance evaluated? A scoping review
While One Health initiatives are gaining in popularity, it is unclear if and how they are evaluated when implementation at scale is intended. The main purpose of this scoping review was to describe how One Health initiatives targeting infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance at a large scale...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2022-06-01
|
| Series: | One Health |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235277142200012X |
| _version_ | 1828364702746411008 |
|---|---|
| author | Léa Delesalle Margaux L. Sadoine Sarah Mediouni José Denis-Robichaud Kate Zinszer Christina Zarowsky Cécile Aenishaenslin Hélène Carabin |
| author_facet | Léa Delesalle Margaux L. Sadoine Sarah Mediouni José Denis-Robichaud Kate Zinszer Christina Zarowsky Cécile Aenishaenslin Hélène Carabin |
| author_sort | Léa Delesalle |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | While One Health initiatives are gaining in popularity, it is unclear if and how they are evaluated when implementation at scale is intended. The main purpose of this scoping review was to describe how One Health initiatives targeting infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance at a large scale are evaluated. Secondary objectives included identifying the main facilitators and barriers to the implementation and success of these initiatives, and how their impacts were assessed. Twenty-three studies evaluating One Health initiatives were eligible. Most studies included the human (n = 22) and animal (n = 15) sectors; only four included the environment sector. The types of evaluated initiative (non-exclusive) included governance (n = 5), knowledge (n = 6), protection (n = 17), promotion (n = 16), prevention (n = 9), care (n = 8), advocacy (n = 10) and capacity (n = 10). Studies used normative (n = 4) and evaluative (n = 20) approaches to assess the One Health initiatives, the latter including impact (n = 19), implementation (n = 8), and performance (n = 7) analyses. Structural and economic, social, political, communication and coordination-related factors, as well as ontological factors, were identified as both facilitators and barriers for successful One Health initiatives. These results identified a wide range of evaluation methods and indicators used to demonstrate One Health's added values, strengths, and limitations: the inherent complexity of the One Health approach leads to the use of multiple types of evaluation. The strengths and remaining gaps in the evaluation of such initiative highlight the relevance of comprehensive, mixed-method, context-sensitive evaluation frameworks to inform and support the implementation of One Health initiatives by stakeholders in different governance settings. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-14T05:19:50Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-a96e400541404b6093c20c3fec0e1de5 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2352-7714 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-14T05:19:50Z |
| publishDate | 2022-06-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | One Health |
| spelling | doaj.art-a96e400541404b6093c20c3fec0e1de52022-12-22T02:10:14ZengElsevierOne Health2352-77142022-06-0114100380How are large-scale One Health initiatives targeting infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance evaluated? A scoping reviewLéa Delesalle0Margaux L. Sadoine1Sarah Mediouni2José Denis-Robichaud3Kate Zinszer4Christina Zarowsky5Cécile Aenishaenslin6Hélène Carabin7Département de Pathologie et Microbiologie, Faculté de Médecine Vétérinaire de l'Université de Montréal, Canada; Centre de Recherche en Santé Publique (CReSP), Montréal, Canada; Groupe de Recherche en Épidémiologie des Zoonoses et Santé Publique (GREZOSP), St-Hyacinthe, CanadaDépartement de Médecine Sociale et Préventive, École de Santé Publique de l'Université de Montréal, Canada; Centre de Recherche en Santé Publique (CReSP), Montréal, CanadaDépartement de Pathologie et Microbiologie, Faculté de Médecine Vétérinaire de l'Université de Montréal, Canada; Centre de Recherche en Santé Publique (CReSP), Montréal, Canada; Groupe de Recherche en Épidémiologie des Zoonoses et Santé Publique (GREZOSP), St-Hyacinthe, CanadaIndependent researcher, Amqui, CanadaDépartement de Médecine Sociale et Préventive, École de Santé Publique de l'Université de Montréal, Canada; Centre de Recherche en Santé Publique (CReSP), Montréal, CanadaDépartement de Médecine Sociale et Préventive, École de Santé Publique de l'Université de Montréal, Canada; Centre de Recherche en Santé Publique (CReSP), Montréal, CanadaDépartement de Pathologie et Microbiologie, Faculté de Médecine Vétérinaire de l'Université de Montréal, Canada; Centre de Recherche en Santé Publique (CReSP), Montréal, Canada; Groupe de Recherche en Épidémiologie des Zoonoses et Santé Publique (GREZOSP), St-Hyacinthe, CanadaDépartement de Pathologie et Microbiologie, Faculté de Médecine Vétérinaire de l'Université de Montréal, Canada; Département de Médecine Sociale et Préventive, École de Santé Publique de l'Université de Montréal, Canada; Centre de Recherche en Santé Publique (CReSP), Montréal, Canada; Groupe de Recherche en Épidémiologie des Zoonoses et Santé Publique (GREZOSP), St-Hyacinthe, Canada; Corresponding author at: Faculté de Médecine Vétérinaire, 3200 rue Sicotte, Saint-Hyacinthe J2S 2M2, Québec, Canada.While One Health initiatives are gaining in popularity, it is unclear if and how they are evaluated when implementation at scale is intended. The main purpose of this scoping review was to describe how One Health initiatives targeting infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance at a large scale are evaluated. Secondary objectives included identifying the main facilitators and barriers to the implementation and success of these initiatives, and how their impacts were assessed. Twenty-three studies evaluating One Health initiatives were eligible. Most studies included the human (n = 22) and animal (n = 15) sectors; only four included the environment sector. The types of evaluated initiative (non-exclusive) included governance (n = 5), knowledge (n = 6), protection (n = 17), promotion (n = 16), prevention (n = 9), care (n = 8), advocacy (n = 10) and capacity (n = 10). Studies used normative (n = 4) and evaluative (n = 20) approaches to assess the One Health initiatives, the latter including impact (n = 19), implementation (n = 8), and performance (n = 7) analyses. Structural and economic, social, political, communication and coordination-related factors, as well as ontological factors, were identified as both facilitators and barriers for successful One Health initiatives. These results identified a wide range of evaluation methods and indicators used to demonstrate One Health's added values, strengths, and limitations: the inherent complexity of the One Health approach leads to the use of multiple types of evaluation. The strengths and remaining gaps in the evaluation of such initiative highlight the relevance of comprehensive, mixed-method, context-sensitive evaluation frameworks to inform and support the implementation of One Health initiatives by stakeholders in different governance settings.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235277142200012XMultisectoralParticipatoryInfectious diseasesGlobal healthOne healthEvaluation |
| spellingShingle | Léa Delesalle Margaux L. Sadoine Sarah Mediouni José Denis-Robichaud Kate Zinszer Christina Zarowsky Cécile Aenishaenslin Hélène Carabin How are large-scale One Health initiatives targeting infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance evaluated? A scoping review One Health Multisectoral Participatory Infectious diseases Global health One health Evaluation |
| title | How are large-scale One Health initiatives targeting infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance evaluated? A scoping review |
| title_full | How are large-scale One Health initiatives targeting infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance evaluated? A scoping review |
| title_fullStr | How are large-scale One Health initiatives targeting infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance evaluated? A scoping review |
| title_full_unstemmed | How are large-scale One Health initiatives targeting infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance evaluated? A scoping review |
| title_short | How are large-scale One Health initiatives targeting infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance evaluated? A scoping review |
| title_sort | how are large scale one health initiatives targeting infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance evaluated a scoping review |
| topic | Multisectoral Participatory Infectious diseases Global health One health Evaluation |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235277142200012X |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT leadelesalle howarelargescaleonehealthinitiativestargetinginfectiousdiseasesandantimicrobialresistanceevaluatedascopingreview AT margauxlsadoine howarelargescaleonehealthinitiativestargetinginfectiousdiseasesandantimicrobialresistanceevaluatedascopingreview AT sarahmediouni howarelargescaleonehealthinitiativestargetinginfectiousdiseasesandantimicrobialresistanceevaluatedascopingreview AT josedenisrobichaud howarelargescaleonehealthinitiativestargetinginfectiousdiseasesandantimicrobialresistanceevaluatedascopingreview AT katezinszer howarelargescaleonehealthinitiativestargetinginfectiousdiseasesandantimicrobialresistanceevaluatedascopingreview AT christinazarowsky howarelargescaleonehealthinitiativestargetinginfectiousdiseasesandantimicrobialresistanceevaluatedascopingreview AT cecileaenishaenslin howarelargescaleonehealthinitiativestargetinginfectiousdiseasesandantimicrobialresistanceevaluatedascopingreview AT helenecarabin howarelargescaleonehealthinitiativestargetinginfectiousdiseasesandantimicrobialresistanceevaluatedascopingreview |