ReviewOne health outlook2025
One health-sustainability intersections: an umbrella systematic review with a new integrated definition of sustainability and a meta-conceptual framework.
Review in One health outlook, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This umbrella systematic review synthesizes existing conceptual approaches to sustainability across human, animal, and environmental health disciplines, framed within the One Health paradigm. The study aims to develop a conceptual framework for analysing sustainability across One Health initiatives, interventions, and programs. The review included 38 studies that met the inclusion criteria, focusing on definitions, conceptual frameworks, and analytical frameworks of sustainability. Deductive thematic synthesis revealed key determinants and characteristics of sustainability, highlighting both similarities and differences across sectors. Across the 38 included reviews, we identified characteristics of sustainability existing along a process-outcomes continuum which we further grouped into fifteen process-focused characteristics, and outputs and outcomes that were categorized across a variety of contexts including acute emergency or humanitarian settings as well as within a stable macroeconomic and social construct. The review identified that sustainability has over time become more well defined and evaluated within the human health sector, with fewer review studies addressing it for animal and environmental health. Multisectoral studies often integrate the Brundtland Commission’s definition of sustainability, emphasizing social, economic, and environmental dimensions. The findings also highlight the importance of equity, resilience, and systems thinking in sustainability assessments. The analysis in our review underscores the need for a more holistic and integrated approach to sustainability that considers the interconnectedness of human, animals and ecosystems and that addresses the co-benefits and trade-offs across sectors. In our synthesis these concepts were coded from included reviews and mapped onto both the integrated definition and the meta-conceptual framework, ensuring they were structurally embedded into the proposed approach. A new integrated definition of sustainability is proposed, emphasizing quality-assured systems, services and interventions that are just and equitable, while being socially, economically, and environmentally viable, adaptable over time, and optimised for health benefits across humans, animals, and ecosystems without compromising future generations’ well-being. The accompanying evidence derived meta-conceptual framework serves as a normative guide for analysing sustainability in One Health contexts, adaptable across varying scales and health challenges. It is intended for use by policymakers, implementers and evaluators working on multisectoral programmes in human, animal and environmental health, particularly where a trade-off or co-benefit analysis is needed and where integrated approaches are being developed or scaled. Our study offers a robust evidence-based foundation for designing, assessing and implementing sustainable practices across One Health initiatives. Future research should focus on validating and further refining this framework through empirical studies across sectors and diverse One Health contexts. Particular attention should be given to addressing the gaps in sustainability assessments within the animal and environmental health sectors. As global health challenges continue to evolve, fostering a shared understanding of sustainability and promoting cross-sectoral collaboration will be essential for developing resilient and effective health interventions. In an era marked by increasing environmental pressures and shifting geopolitical landscapes, the principles of sustainability and One Health are more relevant than ever. This review contributes to the ongoing discourse on sustainability, providing a roadmap for stakeholders to navigate the complexities of multisectoral collaboration and ensure lasting impacts on global health and well-being across ecosystems.
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.