ArticleOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2026
Adapting the One Health zoonotic disease prioritization tool for subnational One Health implementation through comparative analysis of disease severity and governance-driven approaches.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Zoonotic and environmentally driven health threats increasingly emerge at the human-animal-environment interface, highlighting the need for prevention-oriented and community-centered One Health approaches. This study adapted the OHZDP tool developed by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S. CDC) for subnational use in Thailand, integrating environmental and social science perspectives and expanding community participation to ensure context-specific and operationally relevant prioritization. Methods: A comparative mixed-methods case study was conducted in two Thai provinces-Ubon Ratchathani and Nan-using multisectoral, four-day participatory workshops in 2025. Approximately seventy participants per province represented human, animal, environmental health, local governance, and civil society sectors. Health hazards were identified using an all-hazards approach. Six decision criteria were weighted through multisectoral consensus, and hazards were scored using a structured multi-criteria framework, complemented by qualitative deliberation to generate consensus-based prioritization. Results: Prioritization outcomes differed between provinces due to variations in criteria weighting. Ubon Ratchathani emphasized biomedical severity and cross-sectoral impact, prioritizing emerging infectious diseases, rabies, non-communicable diseases, and other high-mortality infections, reflecting a catastrophic risk preparedness profile. In contrast, Nan prioritized governance capacity and policy feasibility, resulting in rankings dominated by environmental and governance-dependent hazards, including PM2.5 air pollution, open waste burning, stray dog management, agricultural chemical exposure, and climate-related disasters. Conclusions: Community-led adaptation of prioritization tools strengthens subnational One Health action. Integrating governance, environmental, and social determinants into biomedical frameworks enhances multisectoral engagement, supports prevention-focused implementation, strengthens early warning systems, and builds community resilience against zoonotic disease emergence.
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.