A Survey on One Health Approach in Colombia and Some Latin American Countries: From a Fragmented Health Organization to an Integrated Health Response to Global Challenges

The “One Health” (OH) approach has been recognized by world health authorities such as FAO/OIE/WHO, advocating for effective, multi-sectoral, and transdisciplinary collaboration. However, there is a lack of published evidence of the awareness of the OH concept in Colombia and other countries in the Latin American Region. In order to explore existing collaboration amongst the animal health, human-public health, environmental health sectors, and to describe the perception, knowledge, and barriers on OH in Colombia and other countries of Latin America, an online questionnaire-based survey was distributed among key professionals representing the three OH pillars (August 2018–August 2020). Overall, 76 key respondents from 13 countries (Colombia, México, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Perú, Guatemala, Nicaragua Uruguay, and Venezuela) completed the questionnaire. Respondents worked in institutions of animal (59%), public (20%), human (7%), and environmental health (7%); they mainly belonged to higher academic institutions (59%), followed by ministries (11%), and research organizations (9%). Most participants (92%) were familiar with the OH term and 68% were aware of the formal cooperation among sectors in their countries, mostly on zoonoses; in 46% of the cases, such connections were established in the last 5 years. The main reported limiting factors to intersectorality were the lack of commitment of policy-makers, resources, and budget for OH (38%) and the “siloed approach” of sectors and disciplines (34%). Respondents ranked a median score of 3.0 (1–5 scoring) in how good OH activities are implemented in their countries, and a median score of 2.0 in the citizen awareness on OH as regards their countries. The most important OH issues were identified in vector-borne diseases, rabies, wrong and/or improper use of antimicrobials, emerging viral diseases, food-borne diseases, neglected parasitic diseases, deforestation, and ecosystem fragmentation. Although there is a high-perceived importance on conjoint cooperation, OH implementation, and operationalization remain weak, and the environmental component is not well-integrated. We consider that integration and implementation of the OH Approach can support countries to improve their health policies and health governance as well as to advocate the social, economic, and environmental sustainability of the Region

Epidemiología de la rabia canina en colombia

Objetivo Se realizó un estudio epidemiológico ecológico para describir la tendencia de la rabia canina desde 1976-2006 y explorar posibles factores relacionados con su presentación en Colombia, Metodología Las variables fueron recolectadas mediante un cuestionario aplicado a los responsables del programa en cada departamento y  mediante fuentes de información oficiales nacionales. Se calculó la incidencia de la rabia canina entre 2001-2006. Se emplearon razones de tasas de incidencia y pruebas de correlación de Spearman. Resultados La tasa de incidencia de rabia canina estimada es de 0,4 casos de rabia por 100 000 perros-año. El promedio de las coberturas de vacunación nacionales 1994-2005 fluctuó entre  45 % y 63 %. Las principales asociaciones con rabia canina fueron: mayor porcentaje de la población urbana, mayores coberturas de vacunación, ausencia de red de frío propia, no participación del coordinador en el Comité Vigilancia Epidemiológica, ausencia de mapa epidemiológico, ausencia de laboratorio diagnóstico, ausencia de recurso humano adecuado, ausencia de centro de zoonosis, periodicidad del análisis de situación epidemiológica, expulsión de población humana por violencia. Conclusiones La rabia canina se ha controlado exitosamente, sin embargo es importante fortalecer el sistema de vigilancia epidemiológica activa para ratificar el descenso de la enfermedad. Los resultados encontrados permiten referir que en ausencia de las variables significativas encontradas se espera que ocurran casi la mitad de los casos en la población. Se sugiere también que la situación de violencia del país puede estar influyendo en la relación hombre-perro-reservorios silvestres y ocurrencia de la rabia

Developing One Health surveillance systems

The health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the environment are inter-dependent. Global anthropogenic change is a key driver of disease emergence and spread and leads to biodiversity loss and ecosystem function degradation, which are themselves drivers of disease emergence. Pathogen spill-over events and subsequent disease outbreaks, including pandemics, in humans, animals and plants may arise when factors driving disease emergence and spread converge. One Health is an integrated approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize human, animal and ecosystem health. Conventional disease surveillance has been siloed by sectors, with separate systems addressing the health of humans, domestic animals, cultivated plants, wildlife and the environment. One Health surveillance should include integrated surveillance for known and unknown pathogens, but combined with this more traditional disease-based surveillance, it also must include surveillance of drivers of disease emergence to improve prevention and mitigation of spill-over events. Here, we outline such an approach, including the characteristics and components required to overcome barriers and to optimize an integrated One Health surveillance system.</p

Developing One Health surveillance systems

The health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the environment are inter-dependent. Global anthropogenic change is a key driver of disease emergence and spread and leads to biodiversity loss and ecosystem function degradation, which are themselves drivers of disease emergence. Pathogen spill-over events and subsequent disease outbreaks, including pandemics, in humans, animals and plants may arise when factors driving disease emergence and spread converge. One Health is an integrated approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize human, animal and ecosystem health. Conventional disease surveillance has been siloed by sectors, with separate systems addressing the health of humans, domestic animals, cultivated plants, wildlife and the environment. One Health surveillance should include integrated surveillance for known and unknown pathogens, but combined with this more traditional disease-based surveillance, it also must include surveillance of drivers of disease emergence to improve prevention and mitigation of spill-over events. Here, we outline such an approach, including the characteristics and components required to overcome barriers and to optimize an integrated One Health surveillance system

Developing One Health surveillance systems

DATA AVAILABILITY : No data was used for the research described in the article.The health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the environment are inter-dependent. Global anthropogenic change is a key driver of disease emergence and spread and leads to biodiversity loss and ecosystem function degradation, which are themselves drivers of disease emergence. Pathogen spill-over events and subsequent disease outbreaks, including pandemics, in humans, animals and plants may arise when factors driving disease emergence and spread converge. One Health is an integrated approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize human, animal and ecosystem health. Conventional disease surveillance has been siloed by sectors, with separate systems addressing the health of humans, domestic animals, cultivated plants, wildlife and the environment. One Health surveillance should include integrated surveillance for known and unknown pathogens, but combined with this more traditional disease-based surveillance, it also must include surveillance of drivers of disease emergence to improve prevention and mitigation of spill-over events. Here, we outline such an approach, including the characteristics and components required to overcome barriers and to optimize an integrated One Health surveillance system.https://www.elsevier.com/locate/onehlthj2024Medical VirologySDG-03:Good heatlh and well-bein

Prevention of zoonotic spillover : from relying on response to reducing the risk at source

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT : The devastating impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) on human health globally has prompted extensive discussions on how to better prepare for and safeguard against the next pandemic. Zoonotic spillover of pathogens from animals to humans is recognized as the predominant cause of emerging infectious diseases and as the primary cause of recent pandemics. This spillover risk is increased by a range of factors (called drivers) that impact the nature, frequency, and intensity of contact between humans and wild animals. Many of these drivers are related to human impact, for example, deforestation and changes in land use and agricultural practices. While it is clear that the triad of prevention-preparedness-response (P-P-R) is highly relevant, there is much discussion on which of these 3 strategic activities in the field of emerging infectious disease should be prioritized and how to optimally target resources. For this, it is important to understand the scope of the respective activity and the consequences of prioritization. Already, the World Bank Pandemic Fund and forthcoming global Pandemic instrument negotiated by the World Health Organization (WHO) appear primarily focused on the early detection, and reaction to the appearance of human illnesses, often with explicit focus only on action to be taken once pathogen spillover and spread have occurred. Strategies to reduce the probability of spillover events are under-prioritized and underutilized, as highlighted by recent infectious disease crises such as Ebola and Mpox epidemics, and have been lost in overall preparedness discussions and recovery financing. This “more of the same” focus suggests that it is politically more expedient to allocate financial resources to deal with a problem once it has arisen, rather than taking the steps necessary to reduce the risk of it occurring in the first place. It is often claimed that allocating resources to prevent something from happening is politically difficult as the value of prevention is largely “invisible” (prevention paradox) or it will take a long time to show effects. However, there are now several communications highlighting the economic benefits of prevention of spillover. If taken, actions to prevent spillover are estimated at $10 to 31 billion per year globally, as a cumulative investment from preventive actions achievable by specific industries. However, addressing the drivers of pathogen spillover through a One Health approach has significant subsequent economic co-benefits; for example, reducing deforestation is estimated to create$4 billion per year in social benefits from reduced greenhouse gas emissions. COVID-19 has demonstrated the immense burden of a pandemic, including significant mortality resulting in economic recession, with the global economy contracting by 4.4 percent in 2020. The expected economic losses from this pandemic are estimated at nearly $14 trillion up to 2024. These losses parallel those incurred by other infectious disease emergencies, including the 2003 SARS pandemic with an estimated economic loss of$52 billion; the Ebola virus disease outbreak in West Africa in 2014 to 2016 with a GDP loss of $2.8 to 32.6 billion and the comprehensive economic and social burden estimated to be$53.19 billion; and the 2015 to 2016 Zika virus disease outbreak with an estimated loss in the United States, Caribbean, and Latin America of $20 billion. If invested in, prevention strategies would reduce the likelihood of another pandemic substantially and likely generate sufficient return on investment over time while also having the potential to generate substantial co-benefits. Prevention is already valued in other sectors: policymakers and industries have led on prevention in other areas, such as expenditure on counter-terrorism, driving laws and insurance incentives to reduce the frequency of traffic accidents, on the nuclear deterrent, and in some cases on flood prevention and other water management measures, exemplifying a political willingness to spend vast sums of money to preempt a harmful event in certain areas or circumstances, but not on pandemic prevention.https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/am2024Medical VirologySDG-03:Good heatlh and well-bein

The One Health high-level expert panel (OHHLEP)

No abstract available.https://onehealthoutlook.biomedcentral.comhj2024Medical VirologyNon