Advancing One human-animal-environment Health for global health security: what does the evidence say?

In this Series paper, we review the contributions of One Health approaches (ie, at the human-animal-environment interface) to improve global health security across a range of health hazards and we summarise contemporary evidence of incremental benefits of a One Health approach. We assessed how One Health approaches were reported to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN, the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH, formerly OIE), and WHO, within the monitoring and assessment frameworks, including WHO International Health Regulations (2005) and WOAH Performance of Veterinary Services. We reviewed One Health theoretical foundations, methods, and case studies. Examples from joint health services and infrastructure, surveillance-response systems, surveillance of antimicrobial resistance, food safety and security, environmental hazards, water and sanitation, and zoonoses control clearly show incremental benefits of One Health approaches. One Health approaches appear to be most effective and sustainable in the prevention, preparedness, and early detection and investigation of evolving risks and hazards; the evidence base for their application is strongest in the control of endemic and neglected tropical diseases. For benefits to be maximised and extended, improved One Health operationalisation is needed by strengthening multisectoral coordination mechanisms at national, regional, and global levels.

The Relative Importance of Vulnerability and Efficiency in COVID-19 Contact Tracing Programmes: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Objectives: This study aims to assess the trade-offs between vulnerability and efficiency attributes of contact tracing programmes based on preferences of COVID-19 contact tracing practitioners, researchers and other relevant stakeholders at the global level. Methods: We conducted an online discrete choice experiment (DCE). Respondents were recruited globally to explore preferences according to country income level and the prevailing epidemiology of COVID-19 in the local setting. The DCE attributes represented efficiency (timeliness, completeness, number of contacts), vulnerability (vulnerable population), cooperation and privacy. A mixed-logit model and latent class analysis were used. Results: The number of respondents was 181. Timeliness was the most important attribute regardless of country income level and COVID-19 epidemiological condition. Vulnerability of contacts was the second most important attribute for low-to-lower-middle-income countries and third for upper-middle-to-high income countries. When normalised against conditional relative importance of timeliness, conditional relative importance of vulnerability ranged from 0.38 to 0.42. Conclusion: Vulnerability and efficiency criteria were both considered to be important attributes of contact tracing programmes. However, the relative values placed on these criteria varied significantly between epidemiological and economic context.

Public health research priorities for WHO on COVID-19 in the South-East Asia Region: results of a prioritization survey.

BACKGROUND: Effectively addressing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the new pathogen requires continuous generation of evidence to inform decision-making. Despite an unprecedented amount of research occurring globally, the need to identify gaps in knowledge and prioritize a research agenda that is linked to public health action is indisputable. The WHO South-East Asia Region (SEAR) is likely to have region-specific research needs. METHODS: We aimed to identify a priority research agenda for guiding the regional and national response to the COVID-19 pandemic in SEAR countries. An online, anonymous research prioritization exercise using recent WHO guidance was conducted among the technical staff of WHO's country and regional offices engaged with the national COVID-19 response during October 2020. They were each asked to contribute up to five priority research ideas across seven thematic areas. These research ideas were reviewed, consolidated and scored by a core group on six parameters: regional specificity, relevance to the COVID-19 response, feasibility within regional research capacity, time to availability for decision-making, likely impact on practice, and promoting equity and gender responsiveness. The total scores for individual suggestions were organized in descending order, and ideas in the upper tertile were considered to be of high priority. RESULTS: A total of 203 priority research ideas were received from 48 respondents, who were primarily research and emergency response focal points in country and regional offices. These were consolidated into 78 research ideas and scored. The final priority research agenda of 27 items covered all thematic areas-health system (n=10), public health interventions (n=6), disease epidemiology (n=5), socioeconomic and equity (n=3), basic sciences (n=1), clinical sciences (n=1) and pandemic preparedness (n=1). CONCLUSIONS: This exercise, a part of WHO's mandate to "shape the research agenda", can help build a research roadmap ensuring efficient use of limited resources. This prioritized research agenda can act as a catalyst for Member States to accelerate research that could impact the COVID-19 response in SEAR.

The Relative Importance of Vulnerability and Efficiency in COVID-19 Contact Tracing Programmes: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Objectives: This study aims to assess the trade-offs between vulnerability and efficiency attributes of contact tracing programmes based on preferences of COVID-19 contact tracing practitioners, researchers and other relevant stakeholders at the global level. Methods: We conducted an online discrete choice experiment (DCE). Respondents were recruited globally to explore preferences according to country income level and the prevailing epidemiology of COVID-19 in the local setting. The DCE attributes represented efficiency (timeliness, completeness, number of contacts), vulnerability (vulnerable population), cooperation and privacy. A mixed-logit model and latent class analysis were used. Results: The number of respondents was 181. Timeliness was the most important attribute regardless of country income level and COVID-19 epidemiological condition. Vulnerability of contacts was the second most important attribute for low-to-lower-middle-income countries and third for upper-middle-to-high income countries. When normalised against conditional relative importance of timeliness, conditional relative importance of vulnerability ranged from 0.38 to 0.42. Conclusion: Vulnerability and efficiency criteria were both considered to be important attributes of contact tracing programmes. However, the relative values placed on these criteria varied significantly between epidemiological and economic context.

Participation in One Health Networks and Involvement in the COVID-19 Pandemic Response: A Global Study.

The COVID-19 pandemic exemplifies a One Health issue at the intersection of human, animal, and environmental health that requires collaboration across sectors to manage it successfully. The global One Health community includes professionals working in many different fields including human medicine, veterinary medicine, public health, ecosystem health, and, increasingly, social sciences. The aims of this cross-sectional study were to describe the involvement of the global One Health community in COVID-19 pandemic response activities. One Health networks (OHNs) have formed globally to serve professionals with common interests in collaborative approaches. We assessed the potential association between being part of an OHN and involvement in COVID-19 response activities. Data were collected in July-August 2020 using an online questionnaire that addressed work characteristics, perceived connection to OHNs, involvement in COVID-19 pandemic response activities, and barriers and facilitators to the involvement. The sample included 1,050 respondents from 94 countries across a range of organizations and work sectors including, but not restricted to, those typically associated with a One Health approach. Sixty-four percent of survey respondents indicated involvement in pandemic response activities. Being part of an OHN was positively associated with being involved in the COVID-19 response (odds ratio: 1.8, 95% confidence interval: 1.3-2.4). Lack of opportunities was a commonly reported barrier to involvement globally, with lack of funding the largest barrier in the WHO African region. This insight into diverse workforce involvement in the pandemic helps fill a gap in the global health workforce and public health education literature. An expanded understanding of the perceived roles and value of OHNs can inform targeted interventions to improve public health education and workforce capacity to prepare for and respond to public health emergencies.

Contact tracing indicators for COVID-19: Rapid scoping review and conceptual framework.

BACKGROUND: Contact tracing is one of the key interventions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic but its implementation varies widely across countries. There is little guidance on how to monitor contact tracing performance, and no systematic overview of indicators to assess contact tracing systems or conceptual framework for such indicators exists to date. METHODS: We conducted a rapid scoping review using a systematic literature search strategy in the peer-reviewed and grey literature as well as open source online documents. We developed a conceptual framework to map indicators by type (input, process, output, outcome, impact) and thematic area (human resources, financial resources, case investigation, contact identification, contact testing, contact follow up, case isolation, contact quarantine, transmission chain interruption, incidence reduction). RESULTS: We identified a total of 153 contact tracing indicators from 1,555 peer-reviewed studies, 894 studies from grey literature sources, and 15 sources from internet searches. Two-thirds of indicators were process indicators (102; 67%), while 48 (31%) indicators were output indicators. Only three (2%) indicators were input indicators. Indicators covered seven out of ten conceptualized thematic areas, with more than half being related to either case investigation (37; 24%) or contact identification (44; 29%). There were no indicators for the input area "financial resources", the outcome area "transmission chain interruption", and the impact area "incidence reduction". CONCLUSIONS: Almost all identified indicators were either process or output indicators focusing on case investigation, contact identification, case isolation or contact quarantine. We identified important gaps in input, outcome and impact indicators, which constrains evidence-based assessment of contact tracing systems. A universally agreed set of indicators is needed to allow for cross-system comparisons and to improve the performance of contact tracing systems.