Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36962247›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2022

Co-production of knowledge as part of a OneHealth approach to better control zoonotic diseases.

Festus A Asaaga, Juliette C Young, Prashanth N Srinivas, Tanya Seshadri, Meera A Oommen, Mujeeb Rahman, Shivani K Kiran, Gudadappa S Kasabi, Darshan Narayanaswamy, Stefanie M Schäfer and 7 more

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Identifying hotspots and risk factors for tick-borne encephalitis virus emergence at its range margins to guide interventions, Great Britain.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

17 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Festus A AsaagaUK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2675-9464
Juliette C YoungAgroécologie, INRAE, Institut Agro, Univ. Bourgogne, Univ. Bourgogne Franche-Comté Dijon, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8522-0883
Prashanth N SrinivasInstitute of Public Health, Bangalore, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0968-0826
Tanya SeshadriAshoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Bengaluru, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7357-0472
Meera A OommenAshoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Bengaluru, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3670-5323
Mujeeb RahmanAshoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Bengaluru, India.
Shivani K KiranDepartment of Health and Family Welfare Services, Government of Karnataka, Shivamogga, India.
Gudadappa S KasabiDepartment of Health and Family Welfare Services, Government of Karnataka, Shivamogga, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8946-3842
Darshan NarayanaswamyDepartment of Health and Family Welfare Services, Government of Karnataka, Shivamogga, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3440-7581
Stefanie M SchäferUK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8748-7725
Sarah J BurtheUK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8871-3432
Tom AugustUK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1116-3385
Mark LogieUK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0840-9575
Mudassar M ChandaICAR-National Institute of Veterinary Epidemiology and Disease Informatics, Ramagondanahalli, Yelahanka New Town, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5727-8658
Subhash L HotiICMR-Vector Control Research Centre, Puducherry, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6784-3860
Abi T VanakAshoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Bengaluru, India.
Bethan V PurseUK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, United Kingdom.
UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology · GBAshoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment · INGovernment of Karnataka · INInstitute of Public Health Bengaluru · INInstitut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement · FRNational Institute Of Veterinary Epidemiology And Disease Informatics · INVector Control Research Centre · IN

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/P024335/2Medical Research Council MR/T029846/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is increased global and national attention on the need for effective strategies to control zoonotic diseases. Quick, effective action is, however, hampered by poor evidence-bases and limited coordination between stakeholders from relevant sectors such as public and animal health, wildlife and forestry sectors at different scales, who may not usually work together. The OneHealth approach recognises the value of cross-sectoral evaluation of human, animal and environmental health questions in an integrated, holistic and transdisciplinary manner to reduce disease impacts and/or mitigate risks. Co-production of knowledge is also widely advocated to improve the quality and acceptability of decision-making across sectors and may be particularly important when it comes to zoonoses. This paper brings together OneHealth and knowledge co-production and reflects on lessons learned for future OneHealth co-production processes by describing a process implemented to understand spill-over and identify disease control and mitigation strategies for a zoonotic disease in Southern India (Kyasanur Forest Disease). The co-production process aimed to develop a joint decision-support tool with stakeholders, and we complemented our approach with a simple retrospective theory of change on researcher expectations of the system-level outcomes of the co-production process. Our results highlight that while co-production in OneHealth is a difficult and resource intensive process, requiring regular iterative adjustments and flexibility, the beneficial outcomes justify its adoption. A key future aim should be to improve and evaluate the degree of inter-sectoral collaboration required to achieve the aims of OneHealth. We conclude by providing guidelines based on our experience to help funders and decision-makers support future co-production processes.

Identifiers

PMID36962247
PMCPMC10021618
OpenAlexW4220796625

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read4
identifiers read7
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.