assessment of the occupational and environmental health needs in seven Southeastern European and West-Central Asian countries

Eastern European and Central Asian countries are undergoing rapid socioeconomic and political reforms. Many old industrial facilities are either abandoned, or use outdated technologies that severely impact the environment. Emerging industries have less regulation than in developed countries and environmental and occupational problems seem to be increasing. Under a US National Institutes of Health pilot grant, we developed an interdisciplinary One Health research network in Southeastern Europe and West-Central Asia to identify environmental and occupational problems. From 2012 to 2014, this GeoHealth Hub engaged 11 academic centers and 16 public health institutions in eight different countries: Albania, Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Romania, and the United States with a goal of strengthening environmental and occupational research and training capacities. Employing face-to-face interviews and large group meetings, we conducted an evidenced-based needs and opportunities assessment focused on aquatic health, food safety, and zoonotic diseases. Comprehensive reviews of the published literature yielded priority research areas for each of the seven GeoHealth Hub countries including heavy metal and pesticide contamination, tick-borne diseases, rabies, brucellosis, and inadequate public health surveillance

Evaluation of the certificate in emerging infectious disease research and the certificate in one health training programs, University of Florida

In developing countries, public health professionals and scientists need targeted training and practical skills to respond to global emerging infectious disease threats. The Certificate in Emerging Infectious Disease Research was developed in 2008 to aid such professionals to respond to complex emerging disease problems. The short-course was modified slightly in 2013 and renamed the Certificate in One Health. To evaluate the immediate impact of the short-course, an online survey of 176 past participants from both the courses was conducted. The survey tool assessed the program's process, impact, and outcome measures respectively via assessing the courses' perceived strengths and weaknesses, perceived skills gained, and the participants' current position, publication status, funding status, and educational attainment; 85 [48.3%] participants completed the survey. Reported program strengths included the curriculum, expertise of lecturers, and diversity of the training cohort. The principal reported weakness was the compressed academic schedule. The most frequently reported benefits included: epidemiological and biostatistical skills, followed by One-Health knowledge, and research skills. Twenty-eight percent of the survey respondents reported publishing one or more manuscripts since completing the course and 21% reported receiving research funding. The course appears to have had a positive, immediate impact on the students' self-perceived knowledge and capabilities