Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39616400›Full record

ArticleOne health outlook2024

Ties that bind: understanding One Health networks and participation for zoonoses prevention and control in India.

Festus A Asaaga, Irfan Shakeer, Aditi Sriram, Kashish Chhotaria, Seshadri Dutta, Darshan Narayanaswamy, Godfred Amankwaa, Mohammed M Chanda, Subhash L Hoti, Juliette C Young and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in One health outlook, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

11 authors.

Festus A AsaagaUK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Maclean Building, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, OX10 8BB, UK. fesasa@ceh.ac.uk.
Irfan ShakeerAshoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Bengaluru, Karnataka, 560054, India.
Aditi SriramOne Health Trust, Obeya Pulse, First Floor, 7/1 Halasur Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka, 560042, India.
Kashish ChhotariaOne Health Trust, Obeya Pulse, First Floor, 7/1 Halasur Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka, 560042, India.
Seshadri DuttaOne Health Trust, Obeya Pulse, First Floor, 7/1 Halasur Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka, 560042, India.
Darshan NarayanaswamyAshoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Bengaluru, Karnataka, 560054, India.
Godfred AmankwaaUK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Maclean Building, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, OX10 8BB, UK.
Mohammed M ChandaICAR-National Institute of Veterinary Epidemiology and Disease Informatics, Ramagondanahalli, Yelahanka New Town, Bengaluru, Karnataka, 560064, India.
Subhash L HotiICMR-Vector Control Research Centre, Medical Complex, Indira Nagar, Puducherry, 605006, India.
Juliette C YoungAgroécologie, INRAE, Institut Agro, Univ. Bourgogne, Univ. Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Dijon, France.
Bethan V PurseUK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Maclean Building, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, OX10 8BB, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCross-sectoral collaborations as exemplified by the One Health approach, are widely endorsed as pragmatic avenues for addressing zoonotic diseases, but operationalisation remain limited in low-and-middle income countries (LMICs). Complexities and competing interests and agendas of key stakeholders and the underlying politico-administrative context can all shape outcomes of collaborative arrangements. Evidence is building that organised collaborations are complex political initiatives where different objectives; individual and institutional agendas need to be reconciled to incentivise collaborations.

methodsDrawing on a qualitative network analysis of published sources on 'One Health' stakeholders supplemented with 26 multi-scale (national-state-district level) key-informant interviews (including policymakers, disease managers and public health experts), this paper characterises the fragmented and complex characteristics of institutional networks involved in zoonoses prevention and control in India.

resultsOur results highlight how the local socio-political and institutional contexts interact to modulate how and when collaborations occur (or not), the associated contingencies and stakeholder innovations in circumventing existing barriers (e.g. competing interests, distrust between actors, departmental bureaucracy) to cross-sector collaborations and zoonoses management. Aside from principal actors negotiating common ground in some instance, they also capitalised on political/institutional pressure to subtly 'manipulate' their subordinates as a way of fostering collaboration, especially in instances when the institutional and political stakes are high.

conclusionAltogether our findings suggest that cross-sectoral collaborations are by-product of political and institutional tinkering as long as individual actors and institutional interests converge and these dynamics must be embraced to embed meaningful and sustainable collaborations in local socio-political and administrative contexts.

Indexed as

Cross-sector collaborationIndiaLow-and middle-income countriesOne healthStakeholder mappingZoonosis

Identifiers

PMID39616400
PMCPMC11608486

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.