Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37559823›Full record

ArticleOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2023

Stakeholder attitudes and perspectives on wildlife disease surveillance as a component of a One Health approach in Thailand.

Serena Elise George, Moniek Smink, Nareerat Sangkachai, Anuwat Wiratsudakul, Walasinee Sakcamduang, Sarin Suwanpakdee, Jonathan M Sleeman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. 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
  2. Review
  3. Needs assessment for national wildlife health programs.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Serena Elise GeorgeUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison, School of Veterinary Medicine, 2015 Linden Dr, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
Moniek SminkUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Computer Sciences, 1210 W Dayton St, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
Nareerat SangkachaiThailand National Wildlife Health Center, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Mahidol University, 999 Phuttamonthon 4 Road, Salaya, Nakhon Pathom 73170, Thailand.
Anuwat WiratsudakulThailand National Wildlife Health Center, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Mahidol University, 999 Phuttamonthon 4 Road, Salaya, Nakhon Pathom 73170, Thailand.
Walasinee SakcamduangThailand National Wildlife Health Center, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Mahidol University, 999 Phuttamonthon 4 Road, Salaya, Nakhon Pathom 73170, Thailand.
Sarin SuwanpakdeeThailand National Wildlife Health Center, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Mahidol University, 999 Phuttamonthon 4 Road, Salaya, Nakhon Pathom 73170, Thailand.
Jonathan M SleemanU.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife Health Center, 6006 Schroeder Rd, Madison, WI 53711, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coordinated wildlife disease surveillance (WDS) can help professionals across disciplines effectively safeguard human, animal, and environmental health. The aims of this study were to understand how WDS in Thailand is utilized, valued, and can be improved within a One Health framework. An online questionnaire was distributed to 183 professionals (55.7% response rate) across Thailand working in wildlife, marine animal, livestock, domestic animal, zoo animal, environmental, and public health sectors. Twelve semi-structured interviews with key professionals were then performed. Three-quarters of survey respondents reported using WDS data and information. Sectors agreed upon ranking disease control (76.5% of respondents) as the most beneficial outcome of WDS, while fostering new ideas through collaboration was valued by few participants (2.0%). Accessing data collected by one's own sector was identified as the most challenging (50%) yet least difficult to improve (88.3%). Having legal authority to conduct WDS was the second most frequently identified challenge. Interviewees explained that legal documentation required for cross-institutional collaborations posed a barrier to efficient communication and use of human resources. Survey respondents identified allocation of human resources (75.5%), adequate budget (71.6%), and having a clear communication system between sectors (71.6%) as highest priority areas for improvement to WDS in Thailand. Authorization from administrative officials and support from local community members were identified as challenges during in-person interviews. Future outreach may be directed toward these groups. As 42.9% of marine health professionals had difficulty knowing whom to contact in other sectors and 28.4% of survey respondents indicated that communication with marine health professionals was not applicable to their work, connecting the marine sector with other sectors may be prioritized. This study identifies priorities for addressing current challenges in the establishment of a general WDS system and information management system in Thailand while presenting a model for such evaluation in other regions.

Indexed as

One healthSurveyThailandWildlife disease surveillance

Identifiers

PMID37559823
PMCPMC10407262

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.