A global analysis of One Health Networks and the proliferation of One Health collaborations.

There has been a renewed focus on threats to the human-animal-environment interface as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and investments in One Health collaborations are expected to increase. Efforts to monitor the development of One Health Networks (OHNs) are essential to avoid duplication or misalignment of investments. This Series paper shows the global distribution of existing OHNs and assesses their collective characteristics to identify potential deficits in the ways OHNs have formed and to help increase the effectiveness of investments. We searched PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, and relevant conference websites for potential OHNs and identified 184 worldwide for further analysis. We developed four case studies to show important findings from our research and exemplify best practices in One Health operationalisation. Our findings show that, although more OHNs were formed in the past 10 years than in the preceding decade, investment in OHNs has not been equitably distributed; more OHNs are formed and headquartered in Europe than in any other region, and emerging infections and novel pathogens were the priority focus area for most OHNs, with fewer OHNs focusing on other important hazards and pressing threats to health security. We found substantial deficits in the OHNs collaboration model regarding the diversity of stakeholder and sector representation, which we argue impedes effective and equitable OHN formation and contributes to other imbalances in OHN distribution and priorities. These findings are supported by previous evidence that shows the skewed investment in One Health thus far. The increased attention to One Health after the COVID-19 pandemic is an opportunity to focus efforts and resources to areas that need them most. Analyses, such as this Series paper, should be used to establish databases and repositories of OHNs worldwide. Increased attention should then be given to understanding existing resource allocation and distribution patterns, establish more egalitarian networks that encompass the breadth of One Health issues, and serve communities most affected by emerging, re-emerging, or endemic threats at the human-animal-environment interface.

How prepared is the world? Identifying weaknesses in existing assessment frameworks for global health security through a One Health approach.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed faults in the way we assess preparedness and response capacities for public health emergencies. Existing frameworks are limited in scope, and do not sufficiently consider complex social, economic, political, regulatory, and ecological factors. One Health, through its focus on the links among humans, animals, and ecosystems, is a valuable approach through which existing assessment frameworks can be analysed and new ways forward proposed. Although in the past few years advances have been made in assessment tools such as the International Health Regulations Joint External Evaluation, a rapid and radical increase in ambition is required. To sufficiently account for the range of complex systems in which health emergencies occur, assessments should consider how problems are defined across stakeholders and the wider sociopolitical environments in which structures and institutions operate. Current frameworks do little to consider anthropogenic factors in disease emergence or address the full array of health security hazards across the social-ecological system. A complex and interdependent set of challenges threaten human, animal, and ecosystem health, and we cannot afford to overlook important contextual factors, or the determinants of these shared threats. Health security assessment frameworks should therefore ensure that the process undertaken to prioritise and build capacity adheres to core One Health principles and that interventions and outcomes are assessed in terms of added value, trade-offs, and cobenefits across human, animal, and environmental health systems.

Improving National Intelligence for Public Health Preparedness: a methodological approach to finding local multi-sector indicators for health security.

The COVID-19 epidemic is the latest evidence of critical gaps in our collective ability to monitor country-level preparedness for health emergencies. The global frameworks that exist to strengthen core public health capacities lack coverage of several preparedness domains and do not provide mechanisms to interface with local intelligence. We designed and piloted a process, in collaboration with three National Public Health Institutes (NPHIs) in Ethiopia, Nigeria and Pakistan, to identify potential preparedness indicators that exist in a myriad of frameworks and tools in varying local institutions. Following a desk-based systematic search and expert consultations, indicators were extracted from existing national and subnational health security-relevant frameworks and prioritised in a multi-stakeholder two-round Delphi process. Eighty-six indicators in Ethiopia, 87 indicators in Nigeria and 51 indicators in Pakistan were assessed to be valid, relevant and feasible. From these, 14-16 indicators were prioritised in each of the three countries for consideration in monitoring and evaluation tools. Priority indicators consistently included private sector metrics, subnational capacities, availability and capacity for electronic surveillance, measures of timeliness for routine reporting, data quality scores and data related to internally displaced persons and returnees. NPHIs play an increasingly central role in health security and must have access to data needed to identify and respond rapidly to public health threats. Collecting and collating local sources of information may prove essential to addressing gaps; it is a necessary step towards improving preparedness and strengthening international health regulations compliance.

WHO has been reformed: How can it be empowered to lead global public health?

As the COVID-19 pandemic evolved, so did criticisms about the World Health Organization’s (WHO) ability to combat international health crises in the 21st century. Despite the expanding institutional landscape of public health, the WHO remains the de facto global health institution, especially among health professionals. This is due to the agency’s unmatched history of working closely with member states before, after and during health emergencies. It cannot be dismissed that the WHO is the only global entity that was created to coordinate countries and continents during international health crises and provide essential health guidance from the world’s top experts (Clift, 2013). Yet, with all this responsibility, WHO is primarily a normative body with varying levels of influence on countries’ health policy and practice. WHO’s missteps during the COVID-19 response have provoked a considerable backlash that includes calls to reform from some scientific and political leaders, and the formal withdrawal of the United States (Gostin et al., 2020). While this is an unprecedented damning response, WHO criticisms have followed almost every major global public health crisis in the last 20 years (Ebola & Zika (2014–2015);H1NI (2009);SARS (2003)). WHO has responded by undergoing multiple major reforms, most notably in 1998, 2003, 2012, 2015 and 2019 (Brundtland, 1999; Ghebreyesus, 2019).

Using critical information to strengthen pandemic preparedness: the role of national public health agencies.

COVID-19 has demonstrated that most countries' public health systems and capacities are insufficiently prepared to prevent a localised infectious disease outbreak from spreading. Strengthening national preparedness requires National Public Health Institutes (NPHIs), or their equivalent, to overcome practical challenges affecting timely access to, and use of, data that is critical to preparedness. Our situational analysis in collaboration with NPHIs in three countries-Ethiopia, Nigeria and Pakistan-characterises these challenges. Our findings indicate that NPHIs' role necessitates collection and analysis of data from multiple sources that do not routinely share data with public health authorities. Since initiating requests for access to new data sources can be a lengthy process, it is essential that NPHIs are routinely monitoring a broad set of priority indicators that are selected to reflect the country-specific context. NPHIs must also have the authority to be able to request rapid sharing of data from public and private sector organisations during health emergencies and to access additional human and financial resources during disease outbreaks. Finally, timely, transparent and informative communication of synthesised data from NPHIs will facilitate sustained data sharing with NPHIs from external organisations. These actions identified by our analysis will support the availability of robust information systems that allow relevant data to be collected, shared and analysed by NPHIs sufficiently rapidly to inform a timely local response to infectious disease outbreaks in the future.