ArticleOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2026
Community zoonoses prioritization (CZP): A One Health tool integrating participatory epidemiology and multicriteria decision analysis.
Article in One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Zoonotic diseases impose a major burden on low- and middle-income countries, yet efforts to target limited resources effectively depend on prioritization tools that lack community input or are difficult to adapt to local contexts. The Community Zoonoses Prioritization (CZP) tool was developed to address this gap by combining the inclusivity of Participatory Epidemiology (PE) with the structured analytical logic of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). Methods: This paper introduces the conceptual foundations, procedural steps and analytical approach of the CZP tool, outlining a standardized six-step process for guiding community groups through: (1) health problem mapping; (2) zoonoses listing; (3) selection and weighting of prioritization criteria; (4) scoring via consensus; (5) action planning; and (6) contextual reflection. Sessions employ visual aids, proportional piling, and a scoring matrix to ensure both accessibility and analytical rigor. Implementation of the tool in one district is included to illustrate practical application, data capture, typical outputs, and considerations for aggregating across community groups. Results: Application of the tool demonstrated that the full CZP process can be delivered within a single session and implemented effectively with non-specialist audiences, including those with low literacy levels. The method generated structured outputs-including weighted criteria, disease scores, and ranked lists-that are suitable for analysis, reproducibility assessment, and, where appropriate, aggregation across groups. These observations indicate that the CZP functions as intended in field conditions and yields interpretable, policy-relevant prioritization information. Conclusions: The CZP complements expert-driven frameworks by introducing a robust bottom-up mechanism that can integrate community perspectives into One Health decision making. The tool offers researchers, policymakers, and practitioners a replicable pathway for embedding meaningful community engagement in work plans, supporting more equitable and inclusive One Health interventions.
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.