Promoting the One Health approach can significantly improve human and animal health and the environment

In a recent study published in The Lancetresearchers tracked today’s evidence of how One Health strategies can help protect global health against unprecedented threats, such as those caused by the coronavirus pandemic 2019 (COVID-19).

In addition, they reviewed the implementation and monitoring-accountability of integrated health services to demonstrate the additional benefits of the One Health approach. In addition, he emphasized the urgent need to strengthen cooperation between them, the country, and the world in order to improve the performance of One Health and expand and increase its value.

History

The researchers reviewed and reviewed One Health’s psychological strategies and case studies. It helped them to understand how integrated health services defined the One Health approach at the United Nations (UN) Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). Also, they assessed whether the report followed the monitoring and evaluation (MEF) guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) International Health Regulations and the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) Performance of Veterinary Services. The former name of WOAH was Office International des Epizooties (OIE).

The International Health Regulations (IHR), a global framework that was revised in 2007, mandates all UN member states to develop the skills to prevent, identify and respond to emergencies (PHEs), including the control of zoonoses because they can harm public health, travel, and trade around the world.

A Quadripartite group of international organizations is now working to develop and implement the One Health Joint Plan of Action for 2022 to 2026, based on the legal mandate of the IHR. Similarly, WOAH has developed a monitoring and evaluation tool, the Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS), to evaluate veterinary services.

Unfortunately, both the IHE MEF and the PVS, due to inefficiencies, failed to respond adequately to the COVID-19 pandemic. In other words, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed flaws in the functioning of the entire international security organization. At the same time, it helped to create the ability to deal with the dangers that can be threatened by humans-animals (domestic and wild)-nature. Importantly, it also brought the benefits of integrated solutions such as One Health to the fore.

About this study

In the current study, the researchers reviewed the available literature, following the global security risks set out in the WHO Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management framework, to identify risks that could benefit the most from the One Health approach. It is a series of four reviews, the first of which examines the evidence for the benefits of the One Health approach. The second phase looks at how to map One Health Networks around the world. It also examines the nature of multi-stakeholder cooperation and its scope.

The third part examines the assessment and evaluation tools for assessing PHE planning at the national level and suggests ways to improve them using the One Health integrated approach. In the fourth part, the researchers discuss the main challenges in the One Health regime and propose solutions accordingly.

A brief history of the One Health concept

Calvin Schwabe, a veterinarian, coined the term One Medicine in the 1960s to highlight the connection between human and animal health. Later, the slogan – One World, One Health was created by the Wildlife Conservation Society in 2004. It explained the need to protect the health of people and animals and the integrity of the entire environment under the declaration of the Manhattan Principles, modified by Berlin. Points for 2019.

The Berlin Principles of One Health address current issues, such as climate change and antimicrobial resistance, emphasizing their links to sustainable development. In the medical literature, the term, One Health appeared in 2005 first to emphasize the added value of the relationship between animals and human health, not possible with only disciplinary methods.

In this context, Zinsstag and al. He stressed the need to change the practices of small livestock and animal markets while researching vaccines to reduce interactions between wild animals and livestock, preventing future influenza epidemics.

The benefits of the One Health approach

One Health is a clear way to identify potential risks early and coordinate resources to address long-term consequences. A striking example of these benefits is routine human and livestock vaccination support for nomadic herders in Chad. It saved financial resources as they both shared the cold chain and logistics. Another example is the mass vaccination of livestock against brucellosis in Mongolia.

However, the most interesting example is the Canadian Integrated Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance (CIPARS), which saved technology, was cheap, and most importantly, reduced the time taken to detect antimicrobial resistance. In 2013, this integrated monitoring method showed good results in controlling the use of antimicrobials for Salmonella isolates found in humans and poultry. According to the 2012 World Health Organization (WHO), 23% of people die worldwide due to lack of clean drinking water, sanitation, air, and noise pollution, as well as violations of road safety laws, all things that can be changed.

It shows how effective environmental integration, such as testing and expanding environmental control programs against common infectious diseases, can strengthen global security. Introducing crayfish to rivers that feed on cercariae (the species that can be found) could help combat Lycodosis, a disease that people ignore. Similarly, wild animals can help prevent dengue, as shown in Vietnam.

The end

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the link between population density and the spread of the epidemic and the importance of ventilation management in the management of respiratory diseases and comorbidities. Therefore, research should focus on ways to prevent future epidemics rather than on profit-making vaccines and drug research.

The zoonotic potential of Brucella melitensis is about 100 times more than cow tuberculosis caused by Mycobacterium bovis. Therefore, the control of brucellosis in livestock has a higher benefit-cost ratio of 3: 1 than the control of bovine tuberculosis, ie, less than one. Indeed, the One Health approach is very important in addressing certain risks and risks based on evidence of its effectiveness.

One Health aims to improve global health coverage for all, especially in low-income settings. Greater use of One Health can increase and increase its benefits. Therefore, it should be planned and included in the country’s epidemic prevention plans to help deal with future epidemics.