Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33958822›Full record

ReviewBulletin of the World Health Organization2021

Gaps in health security related to wildlife and environment affecting pandemic prevention and preparedness, 2007-2020.

Catherine Machalaba, Marcela Uhart, Marie-Pierre Ryser-Degiorgis, William B Karesh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Strengthening biodiversity conservation and One Health through ranger monitoring of wildlife health in protected areas.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Needs assessment for national wildlife health programs.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Catherine MachalabaEcoHealth Alliance, 520 Eighth Avenue, Suite 1200, New York, NY 10018, United States of America (USA).
Marcela UhartOne Health Institute, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, USA.
Marie-Pierre Ryser-DegiorgisCentre for Fish and Wildlife Health, Department of Infectious Diseases and Pathobiology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
William B KareshEcoHealth Alliance, 520 Eighth Avenue, Suite 1200, New York, NY 10018, United States of America (USA).

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo describe and quantify the extent of wildlife and environment sector inclusion in country evaluation and prioritization tools for health security, and to provide practical recommendations for global and national action to improve pandemic prevention and preparedness.

methodsTo assess coverage of wildlife and other environmental aspects, we reviewed major health security reports (including World Organisation for Animal Health Performance of Veterinary Services reports, and World Health Organization Joint External Evaluations and follow-on National Action Plans for Health Security) published by 107 countries and territories. We extracted information on stated coverage gaps, wildlife surveillance systems and priority diseases. We also searched National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans published by 125 countries to assess whether disease surveillance or prevention activities were included.

findingsWe noted that the occurrence frequency of keywords indicative of wildlife, environment, biodiversity and climate factors varied with type of report and between countries. We found that more than half (57.9%, 62/107) of the reporting countries did not provide any evidence of a functional wildlife health surveillance programme. Most countries (83.2%, 89/107) indicated specific gaps in operations, coordination, scope or capacity. Only eight of the 125 countries (6.4%) publishing a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan reported tangible activities related to wildlife health or zoonotic disease.

conclusionOverall, despite their importance for pandemic prevention, wildlife and environmental considerations are neglected in health security priorities and plans. Strengthening wildlife health capacity and operations should be emphasized in One Health efforts to monitor and mitigate known and novel disease risks.

Indexed as

Animals, WildPandemicsAnimalsGlobal HealthWorld Health OrganizationZoonoses

Identifiers

PMID33958822
PMCPMC8061663

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.