Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40160937›Full record

ReviewOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2025

One Health implementation: A systematic scoping review using the Quadripartite One Health Joint Plan of Action.

Adriana Milazzo, Jingwen Liu, Priyanka Multani, Sandra Steele, Elizabeth Hoon, Anne-Lise Chaber

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Why One Health struggles: A critical analysis.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Adriana MilazzoSchool of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia.
Jingwen LiuSchool of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia.
Priyanka MultaniSchool of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia.
Sandra SteeleMelbourne Veterinary School, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia.
Elizabeth HoonSchool of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia.
Anne-Lise ChaberSchool of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: One Health (OH) recognizes the interconnectedness of humans, animals, and their shared environment and mobilizes multiple sectors to achieve sustainable and optimal health outcomes. We synthesized current OH implementations at global, regional, national, and local community levels using the OH Joint Plan of Action (OH JPA) developed to enhance best practices in OH implementation. Methods: We applied the OH JPA Theory of Change, supported by three pathways mapped out across six action tracks to guide our review. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase and Scopus. Eligibility of studies was based on implementation of OH undertaken across two or more sectors within the human-animal-environment interface. Selection was guided by the PRISMA-ScR. Results: Of the 54 studies, 77 unique programs reported OH implementations, and of these, 42 (54.5 %) involved human and animal sectors only. No studies involved the environment sector and its impact on human-environment or animal-environment. The majority (90.9 %) of programs incorporated at least one aspect of policy, legislation, advocacy and financing (Pathway 1). Capacity development, community engagement, multisectoral coordination, collaboration or communication was identified in 96.1 % of programs (Pathway 2). Data, evidence and knowledge featured in 60 % of OH initiatives (Pathway 3). Conclusion: Pathway 2 was the most engaged pathway building the foundation for OH implementation and action. There is opportunity for further growth concerning community engagement, monitoring and evaluation strategies with enhanced future investment for implementation of community-centric and risk-based solutions. Furthermore, it is important to foster better understanding of environmental issues and to build capacity for the environment sector to be better represented in the implementation of OH.

Indexed as

ImplementationOne HealthOne Health Joint Plan of ActionOperationalizationQuadripartiteTheory of Change

Identifiers

PMID40160937
PMCPMC11953970

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.