One health thinking for health interventions is increasingly being used to capture previously unseen stakeholders and impacts across people, animals and the environment. The Network for One Health Evaluation (NEOH) proposes a systems-based framework to quantitatively assess integration and highlight the added value (theory of change) that this approach will bring to a project. This case study will retrospectively evaluate the pioneering use of a One Health (OH) approach during an international collaboration (satellite project to tackle production losses due to tick-borne disease in cattle in Southern Zambia in late1980s). The objective of the evaluation is two-fold: retrospective evaluation the OH-ness of the satellite project, and identification of costs and benefits. Data for evaluation was recovered from publications, project documents and witness interviews. A mixed qualitative and quantitative evaluation was undertaken. In this case study, a transdisciplinary approach allowed for the identification of a serious public health risk arising from the unexpected reuse of chemical containers by the local public against advice. Should this pioneering project not have been completed then it is assumed this behaviour could have had a large impact on public wellbeing and ultimately reduced regional productivity and compromised welfare. From the economic evaluation, the costs of implementing this OH approach, helping to avoid harm, were small in comparison to overall project costs. The overall OH Index was 0.34. The satellite project demonstrated good OH operations by managing to incorporate the input across multiple dimensions but was slightly weaker on OH infrastructures (OH Ratio = 1.20). These quantitative results can be used in the initial validation and benchmarking of this novel framework. Limitations of the evaluation were mainly a lack of data due to the length of time since project completion and a lack of formal monitoring of programme impact. In future health strategy development and execution, routine monitoring and evaluation from an OH perspective (by utilising the framework proposed by NEOH), could prove valuable or used as a tool for retrospective evaluation of existing policies

Control of cattle ticks and tick-borne diseases by acaricide in Southern Province of Zambia: a retrospective evaluation of animal health measures according to current One Health concepts / Gabrielle Laing, Maurizio Aragrande, Massimo Canali, Sara Savic, Daniele De Meneghi. - In: FRONTIERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH. - ISSN 2296-2565. - ELETTRONICO. - 6:(2018), pp. 45.1-45.12. [10.3389/fpubh.2018.00045]

Control of cattle ticks and tick-borne diseases by acaricide in Southern Province of Zambia: a retrospective evaluation of animal health measures according to current One Health concepts

Maurizio Aragrande
Conceptualization
;
Massimo Canali
Methodology
;
2018

Abstract

One health thinking for health interventions is increasingly being used to capture previously unseen stakeholders and impacts across people, animals and the environment. The Network for One Health Evaluation (NEOH) proposes a systems-based framework to quantitatively assess integration and highlight the added value (theory of change) that this approach will bring to a project. This case study will retrospectively evaluate the pioneering use of a One Health (OH) approach during an international collaboration (satellite project to tackle production losses due to tick-borne disease in cattle in Southern Zambia in late1980s). The objective of the evaluation is two-fold: retrospective evaluation the OH-ness of the satellite project, and identification of costs and benefits. Data for evaluation was recovered from publications, project documents and witness interviews. A mixed qualitative and quantitative evaluation was undertaken. In this case study, a transdisciplinary approach allowed for the identification of a serious public health risk arising from the unexpected reuse of chemical containers by the local public against advice. Should this pioneering project not have been completed then it is assumed this behaviour could have had a large impact on public wellbeing and ultimately reduced regional productivity and compromised welfare. From the economic evaluation, the costs of implementing this OH approach, helping to avoid harm, were small in comparison to overall project costs. The overall OH Index was 0.34. The satellite project demonstrated good OH operations by managing to incorporate the input across multiple dimensions but was slightly weaker on OH infrastructures (OH Ratio = 1.20). These quantitative results can be used in the initial validation and benchmarking of this novel framework. Limitations of the evaluation were mainly a lack of data due to the length of time since project completion and a lack of formal monitoring of programme impact. In future health strategy development and execution, routine monitoring and evaluation from an OH perspective (by utilising the framework proposed by NEOH), could prove valuable or used as a tool for retrospective evaluation of existing policies
2018
Control of cattle ticks and tick-borne diseases by acaricide in Southern Province of Zambia: a retrospective evaluation of animal health measures according to current One Health concepts / Gabrielle Laing, Maurizio Aragrande, Massimo Canali, Sara Savic, Daniele De Meneghi. - In: FRONTIERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH. - ISSN 2296-2565. - ELETTRONICO. - 6:(2018), pp. 45.1-45.12. [10.3389/fpubh.2018.00045]
Gabrielle Laing, Maurizio Aragrande, Massimo Canali, Sara Savic, Daniele De Meneghi
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Control Cattle Ticks_Frontiers Public Health_fpubh-06-00045.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipo: Versione (PDF) editoriale
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 759.46 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
759.46 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/632522
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 8
  • Scopus 14
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 13
social impact