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.

One health systems strengthening in countries: Tripartite tools and approaches at the human-animal-environment interface.

Unexpected pathogen transmission between animals, humans and their shared environments can impact all aspects of society. The Tripartite organisations-the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH)-have been collaborating for over two decades. The inclusion of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) with the Tripartite, forming the 'Quadripartite' in 2021, creates a new and important avenue to engage environment sectors in the development of additional tools and resources for One Health coordination and improved health security globally. Beginning formally in 2010, the Tripartite set out strategic directions for the coordination of global activities to address health risks at the human-animal-environment interface. This paper highlights the historical background of this collaboration in the specific area of health security, using country examples to demonstrate lessons learnt and the evolution and pairing of Tripartite programmes and processes to jointly develop and deliver capacity strengthening tools to countries and strengthen performance for iterative evaluations. Evaluation frameworks, such as the International Health Regulations (IHR) Monitoring and Evaluation Framework, the WOAH Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS) Pathway and the FAO multisectoral evaluation tools for epidemiology and surveillance, support a shared global vision for health security, ultimately serving to inform decision making and provide a systematic approach for improved One Health capacity strengthening in countries. Supported by the IHR-PVS National Bridging Workshops and the development of the Tripartite Zoonoses Guide and related operational tools, the Tripartite and now Quadripartite, are working alongside countries to address critical gaps at the human-animal-environment interface.

Analyzing self-evaluation capacity scores related to infectious disease control in International Health Regulations during the first year of COVID-19 pandemic.

This study aimed to identify changes in the average score of countries' International Health Regulation (IHR) self-evaluation capacity (e-SPAR) in 2020 compared to 2019, and the factors associated with these changes. We collected the data from the World Health Organization (WHO) website in May 2021, then calculated the significant differences between the e-SPAR score in both years. Next, we conducted a test to identify the association between changes in member states' e-SPAR capacity scores and their COVID-19 case fatality rate (CFR), Human Development Index, Civil Liberties, and Government Effectiveness. The results showed that the average e-SPAR scores in 2020 were significantly higher than in 2019. Among the 154 countries, we included in this study, the scores of 98 countries increased in 2020, of which 37.75% were lower-middle-income countries. Meanwhile, among the 56 countries whose scores did not increase, 26 (46.42%) were high-income countries. The COVID-19 CFR was significantly associated with the changes in e-SPAR scores of 154 countries (p < 0.01), as well as the countries whose scores increased (p < 0.05). In conclusion, we consider e-SPAR to still be a useful tool to facilitate countries in monitoring their International Health Regulation (IHR) core capacity progress, especially in infectious disease control to prepare for future pandemics.