Evaluating One Health: the role of team science in multisectoral collaboration.

In a review of the literature surrounding One Health, cross-boundary collaboration, the science of teams, and interdisciplinary health competencies, many individual disciplines, and in some cases multidisciplinary research teams, have looked at the scholarship of collaboration and arrived at remarkably similar conclusions as to which factors and competencies support effective collaboration. However, conclusions on how to effectively evaluate collaboration are consistently lacking across the literature reviewed. Although important advances have been made recently in the area of evaluating One Health operations and outcomes, there is an opportunity to develop process-based performance measures for One Health collaboration and teamwork. Synthesising work on collaborative performance evaluation across multiple disciplinary and sectoral lanes and levels of collaborative analysis, the authors argue that, in addition to outcome-based One Health evaluation, the evaluation of One Health processes needs to be further refined and 'team' effectiveness needs to be evaluated at all levels of the health system: individual, organisational and network.

À l'occasion d'une revue de la littérature scientifique consacrée à Une seule santé, à la collaboration transversale, à la science des équipes et aux compétences interdisciplinaires en matière de santé, plusieurs équipes de chercheurs, pour la plupart spécialisées dans une seule discipline mais aussi, pour certaines, multidisciplinaires, ont étudié la science du travail en collaboration et sont parvenues à des conclusions étonnamment similaires quant aux facteurs et aux compétences qui soutiennent une collaboration efficace. En revanche, il ressort de cet examen de la littérature qu'aucune conclusion n'y apparaît sur la manière d'évaluer efficacement une telle collaboration. Si des avancées importantes ont été enregistrées dans le domaine de l'évaluation des interventions et des résultats Une seule santé, il y a encore matière à développer des méthodes de mesure des performances basées sur les procédures. Cette synthèse des travaux sur l'évaluation collaborative des performances, qui recouvre de multiples voies disciplinaires et sectorielles et différents niveaux d'analyse collaborative permet aux auteurs de soutenir que les évaluations des processus Une seule santé doivent être élaborées plus finement afin de compléter les évaluations basées sur les résultats, et que l'efficacité des « équipe ¼ doit être évaluée à tous les niveaux du système de santé : individus, organisations et réseaux.

Los autores exponen un estudio recapitulativo de la bibliografía relativa a temas como la noción de Una sola salud, la colaboración transfronteriza, la ciencia del trabajo en equipo o las competencias interdisciplinares en temas de salud, señalando a partir de ahí que buen número de disciplinas y, en ciertos casos, equipos pluridisciplinares de investigación, tras examinar cuanto saben los estudiosos en cuestiones de colaboración, llegaron a conclusiones notablemente similares acerca de la suma de factores y competencias que propician una colaboración eficaz. En la bibliografía examinada, sin embargo, brillan por su ausencia las pistas sobre el modo de evaluar eficazmente la colaboración. Aunque últimamente ha habido avances importantes en cuanto a la evaluación de las actividades emprendidas en clave de Una sola salud y sus resultados, existe la posibilidad de establecer parámetros que midan la eficacia de los procesos de colaboración y de trabajo en equipo encuadrados en la filosofía de Una sola salud. Sintetizando los estudios de evaluación de la eficacia de la colaboración que se han realizado desde múltiples ángulos disciplinares y sectoriales y niveles de análisis colectivo, los autores postulan que, además de la evaluación de los resultados, es preciso perfeccionar aún más la evaluación de los procesos de Una sola salud y evaluar asimismo la eficacia de los «equipos¼ en todos los niveles que configuran un sistema de salud: el individual, el institucional y el de las redes de trabajo.

Summarizing US Wildlife Trade with an Eye Toward Assessing the Risk of Infectious Disease Introduction.

The aim of this study was to characterize the role of the USA in the global exchange of wildlife and describe high volume trade with an eye toward prioritizing health risk assessment questions for further analysis. Here we summarize nearly 14 years (2000-2013) of the most comprehensive data available (USFWS LEMIS system), involving 11 billion individual specimens and an additional 977 million kilograms of wildlife. The majority of shipments contained mammals (27%), while the majority of specimens imported were shells (57%) and tropical fish (25%). Most imports were facilitated by the aquatic and pet industry, resulting in one-third of all shipments containing live animals. The importer reported origin of wildlife was 77.7% wild-caught and 17.7% captive-reared. Indonesia was the leading exporter of legal shipments, while Mexico was the leading source reported for illegal shipments. At the specimen level, China was the leading exporter of legal and illegal wildlife imports. The number of annual declared shipments doubled during the period examined, illustrating continually increasing demand, which reinforces the need to scale up capacity for border inspections, risk management protocols and disease surveillance. Most regulatory oversight of wildlife trade is aimed at conservation, rather than prevention of disease introduction.

Risk Prioritization Tool to Identify the Public Health Risks of Wildlife Trade: The Case of Rodents from Latin America.

Wildlife trade (both formal and informal) is a potential driver of disease introduction and emergence. Legislative proposals aim to prevent these risks by banning wildlife imports, and creating 'white lists' of species that are cleared for importation. These approaches pose economic harm to the pet industry, and place substantial burden on importers and/or federal agencies to provide proof of low risk for importation of individual species. As a feasibility study, a risk prioritization tool was developed to rank the pathogens found in rodent species imported from Latin America into the United States with the highest risk of zoonotic consequence in the United States. Four formally traded species and 16 zoonotic pathogens were identified. Risk scores were based on the likelihood of pathogen release and human exposure, and the severity of the disease (consequences). Based on the methodology applied, three pathogens (Mycobacterium microti, Giardia spp. and Francisella tularensis) in one species (Cavia porcellus) were ranked as highest concern. The goal of this study was to present a methodological approach by which preliminary management resources can be allocated to the identified high-concern pathogen-species combinations when warranted. This tool can be expanded to other taxa and geographic locations to inform policy surrounding the wildlife trade.

The spread of pathogens through trade in wildlife.

Discussions on diseases of wildlife have generally focused on two basic models: the effect of disease on wildlife, and the role that wildlife plays in diseases affecting people or domestic animal health, welfare, economics and trade. Traditionally, wildlife professionals and conservationists have focused on the former, while most human/animal health specialists have been concerned largely with the latter. Lately, the (re-)emergence of many high-profile infectious diseases in a world with ever-increasing globalisation has led to a more holistic approach in the assessment and mitigation of health risks involving wildlife (with a concurrent expansion of literature). In this paper, the authors review the role of wildlife in the ecology of infectious disease, the staggering magnitude of the movement of wild animals and products across international borders in trade, the pathways by which they move, and the growing body of risk assessments from a multitude of disciplines. Finally, they highlight existing recommendations and offer solutions for a collaborative way forward.

Disease risk analysis: a tool for primate conservation planning and decision making.

Concern about emerging and re-emerging diseases plays an increasing role in conservation and management of both captive and free-ranging nonhuman primates (NHPs). Managers and policy makers must formulate conservation plans in an arena plagued by uncertainty, complexity, emotion, and politics. The risk analysis paradigm provides a framework that brings together scientists and policy experts to make better decisions for both people and animals. Risk analysis is a multidisciplinary, science-based process that provides an organized and logical approach for incorporating scientific information into policy development in the real world. By blending four specific goal-oriented stages-hazard identification, risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication-one can logically assess the probability that an adverse event, such as the introduction of an emerging disease into a naïve population, will occur. The following is a review of this process as it pertains to NHP conservation and risks associated with infectious diseases.

An enantioselective synthesis of insecticidal 4-alkynyloxazolines.

2-(2,6-Difluorophenyl)-4-phenylalkynyl oxazolines are potent insect growth regulators. An efficient and enantioselective synthesis to these compounds has been developed which relies on a (-)-sparteine mediated hydroxymethylation of the lithium dianion of propargylic amides.