ReviewOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2025
Economic methods and spatial scales in One Health: Results from a scoping review.
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. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: COVID-19 and other zoonoses indicate the close connection between human, animal, and environmental health. This interdependency underscores the need for a comprehensive One Health approach. However, the One Health concept is sometimes reduced to combating zoonoses and antimicrobial resistance, neglecting the spatial and environmental dimensions. This narrow focus overlooks the potential of One Health in geographic contexts, where it can optimize health within regional ecosystems. Therefore, this paper aims to provide an overview of geographic contexts and economic approaches to measuring One Health and the importance of these factors for effective health outcomes. Material and methods: A comprehensive search for economic evidence and the geographical scope of One Health was conducted. The search terms 'One Health', combined with 'region, landscape, area, geography, cost, economics, utility,' were used in Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed. Articles were screened by two blinded reviewers. Year, author, economic method, intervention, outcome, study aim, topic, and geographical area of the articles were recorded. Results: 1214 articles were retrieved and 108 were included in this analysis. The topics focused on: zoonoses (56 %), antimicrobial resistance (14 %), food safety/security (7 %), animal welfare (6 %), and governance (6 %). Most studies were conducted in African countries, the majority of studies (57 %) adopted a regional perspective, while 19 % employed a national and 13 % adopted a multi-country perspective. The most common economic approaches were mixed methods and CEA, regression analysis, as well as index methods. Discussion: The analyzed articles largely focus on zoonoses and current measurement instruments that do not yet align with the requirements of the One Health Joint Plan of Action 2022-26. Integrating geographical considerations promises a more comprehensive and effective approach to One Health challenges. The diversity of identified measurement instruments provides a valuable foundation for developing future, context-sensitive One Health strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.