Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37674686›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

'It doesn't happen how you think, it is very complex!' Reconciling stakeholder priorities, evidence, and processes for zoonoses prioritisation in India.

Festus A Asaaga, Aditi Sriram, Mudassar M Chanda, Subhash L Hoti, Juliette C Young, Bethan V Purse

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Festus A AsaagaUK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Maclean Building, Wallingford, United Kingdom.
Aditi SriramOne Health Trust, Obeya Pulse, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Mudassar M ChandaICAR-National Institute of Veterinary Epidemiology and Disease Informatics, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Subhash L HotiICMR-Vector Control Research Centre, Pondicherry, India.
Juliette C YoungAgroécologie, INRAE, Institut Agro, Univ. Bourgogne, Univ. Bourgogne Franche-Comté Dijon, Dijon, France.
Bethan V PurseUK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Maclean Building, Wallingford, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/S012893/1Medical Research Council MR/S012893/2Medical Research Council MR/T029846/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Why do some zoonotic diseases receive priority from health policy decision-makers and planners whereas others receive little attention? By leveraging Shiffman and Smith's political prioritisation framework, our paper advances a political economy of disease prioritisation focusing on four key components: the strength of the actors involved in the prioritisation, the power of the ideas they use to portray the issue, the political contexts in which they operate, and the characteristics of the issue itself (e.g., overall burdens, severity, cost-effective interventions). These components afford a nuanced characterisation of how zoonotic diseases are prioritised for intervention and highlight the associated knowledge gaps affecting prioritisation outcomes. We apply this framework to the case of zoonoses management in India, specifically to identify the factors that shape disease prioritisation decision-making and outcomes. Methods: We conducted 26 semi-structured interviews with national, state and district level health policymakers, disease managers and technical experts involved in disease surveillance and control in India. Results: Our results show pluralistic interpretation of risks, exemplified by a disconnect between state and district level actors on priority diseases. The main factors identified as shaping prioritisation outcomes were related to the nature of the zoonoses problem (the complexity of the zoonotic disease, insufficient awareness and lack of evidence on disease burdens and impacts) as well as political, social, cultural and institutional environments (isolated departmental priorities, limited institutional authority, opaque funding mechanisms), and challenges in organisation leadership for cross-sectoral engagement. Conclusion: The findings highlight a compartmentalised regulatory system for zoonoses where political, social, cultural, and media factors can influence disease management and prioritisation. A major policy window is the institutionalisation of One Health to increase the political priority for strengthening cross-sectoral engagement to address several challenges, including the creation of effective institutions to reconcile stakeholder priorities and prioritisation processes.

Indexed as

Administrative PersonnelCost of IllnessAnimalsHealth PolicyHumansIndiaZoonosesdisease prioritisationhealth policyIndialow- and middle-income countrieszoonosis

Identifiers

PMID37674686
PMCPMC10477356

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.