scholarly journals IHR-PVS National Bridging Workshops, a tool to operationalize the collaboration between human and animal health while advancing sector-specific goals in countries

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guillaume Belot ◽  
François Caya ◽  
Kaylee Myhre Errecaborde ◽  
Tieble Traore ◽  
Brice Lafia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Animal Health ◽  
Health Sector ◽  
International Health ◽  
Monitoring And Evaluation ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Health Security ◽  
Road Map ◽  
Human Animal ◽  
Environmental Interfaces

AbstractCollaborative, One Health approaches support governments to effectively prevent, detect and respond to emerging health challenges, such as zoonotic diseases, that arise at the human-animal-environmental interfaces. To overcome these challenges, operational and outcome-oriented tools that enable animal health and human health services to work specifically on their collaboration are required. While international capacity and assessment frameworks such as the IHR-MEF (International Health Regulations - Monitoring and Evaluation Framework) and the OIE PVS (Performance of Veterinary Services) Pathway exist, a tool and process that could assess and strengthen the interactions between human and animal health sectors was needed. Through a series of six phased pilots, the IHR-PVS National Bridging Workshop (NBW) method was developed and refined. The NBW process gathers human and animal health stakeholders and follows seven sessions, scheduled across three days. The outputs from each session build towards the next one, following a structured process that goes from gap identification to joint planning of corrective measures. The NBW process allows human and animal health sector representatives to jointly identify actions that support collaboration while advancing evaluation goals identified through the IHR-MEF and the OIE PVS Pathway. By integrating sector-specific and collaborative goals, the NBWs help countries in creating a realistic, concrete and practical joint road map for enhanced compliance to international standards as well as strengthened preparedness and response for health security at the human-animal interface.

scholarly journals IHR-PVS National Bridging Workshops, a tool to operationalize the collaboration between human and animal health while advancing sector-specific goals in countries

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. e0245312
Author(s):  
Guillaume Belot ◽  
François Caya ◽  
Kaylee Myhre Errecaborde ◽  
Tieble Traore ◽  
Brice Lafia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Animal Health ◽  
Health Sector ◽  
International Health ◽  
Monitoring And Evaluation ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Health Security ◽  
Road Map ◽  
Human Animal ◽  
Environmental Interfaces

Collaborative, One Health approaches support governments to effectively prevent, detect and respond to emerging health challenges, such as zoonotic diseases, that arise at the human-animal-environmental interfaces. To overcome these challenges, operational and outcome-oriented tools that enable animal health and human health services to work specifically on their collaboration are required. While international capacity and assessment frameworks such as the IHR-MEF (International Health Regulations—Monitoring and Evaluation Framework) and the OIE PVS (Performance of Veterinary Services) Pathway exist, a tool and process that could assess and strengthen the interactions between human and animal health sectors was needed. Through a series of six phased pilots, the IHR-PVS National Bridging Workshop (NBW) method was developed and refined. The NBW process gathers human and animal health stakeholders and follows seven sessions, scheduled across three days. The outputs from each session build towards the next one, following a structured process that goes from gap identification to joint planning of corrective measures. The NBW process allows human and animal health sector representatives to jointly identify actions that support collaboration while advancing evaluation goals identified through the IHR-MEF and the OIE PVS Pathway. By integrating sector-specific and collaborative goals, the NBWs help countries in creating a realistic, concrete and practical joint road map for enhanced compliance to international standards as well as strengthened preparedness and response for health security at the human-animal interface.

scholarly journals Operationalisation of consensual One Health roadmaps in countries for improved IHR capacities and health security

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
pp. e005275
Author(s):  
Stephane de la Rocque ◽  
Guillaume Belot ◽  
Kaylee Marie Myhre Errecaborde ◽  
Rajesh Sreedharan ◽  
Artem Skrypnyk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Human Health ◽  
One Health ◽  
Animal Health ◽  
International Health ◽  
Monitoring And Evaluation ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
World Health ◽  
Health Security ◽  
Human Animal ◽  
Health Organization

The COVID-19 pandemic is a devastating reminder that mitigating the threat of emerging zoonotic outbreaks relies on our collective capacity to work across human health, animal health and environment sectors. Despite the critical need for shared approaches, collaborative benchmarks in the International Health Regulations (IHR) Monitoring and Evaluation Framework and more specifically the Joint External Evaluation (JEE) often reveal low levels of performance in collaborative technical areas (TAs), thus identifying a real need to work on the human–animal–environment interface to improve health security. The National Bridging Workshops (NBWs) proposed jointly by the World Organisation of Animal Health and World Health Organization (WHO) provide opportunity for national human health, animal health, environment and other relevant sectors in countries to explore the efficiency and gaps in their coordination for the management of zoonotic diseases. The results, gathered in a prioritised roadmap, support the operationalisation of the recommendations made during JEE for TAs where a multisectoral One Health approach is beneficial. For those collaborative TAs (12 out of 19 in the JEE), more than two-thirds of the recommendations can be implemented through one or multiple activities jointly agreed during NBW. Interestingly, when associated with the WHO Benchmark Tool for IHR, it appears that NBW activities are often associated with lower level of performance than anticipated during the JEE missions, revealing that countries often overestimate their capacities at the human–animal–environment interface. Deeper, more focused and more widely shared discussions between professionals highlight the need for concrete foundations of multisectoral coordination to meet goals for One Health and improved global health security through IHR.

scholarly journals Developing a multisectoral National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS) to implement the International Health Regulations (IHR 2005) in Tanzania

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. e000600 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janneth M Mghamba ◽  
Ambrose O Talisuna ◽  
Ludy Suryantoro ◽  
Grace Elizabeth Saguti ◽  
Martin Muita ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Action Plan ◽  
International Health ◽  
Monitoring And Evaluation ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
World Health ◽  
International Health Regulations ◽  
Member States ◽  
Health Security ◽  
National Action Plan ◽  
Health Regulations

The Ebola outbreak in West Africa precipitated a renewed momentum to ensure global health security through the expedited and full implementation of the International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005) in all WHO member states. The updated IHR (2005) Monitoring and Evaluation Framework was shared with Member States in 2015 with one mandatory component, that is, States Parties annual reporting to the World Health Assembly (WHA) on compliance and three voluntary components: Joint External Evaluation (JEE), After Action Reviews and Simulation Exercises. In February 2016, Tanzania, was the first country globally to volunteer to do a JEE and the first to use the recommendations for priority actions from the JEE to develop a National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS) by February 2017. The JEE demonstrated that within the majority of the 47 indicators within the 19 technical areas, Tanzania had either ‘limited capacity’ or ‘developed capacity’. None had ‘sustainable capacity’. With JEE recommendations for priority actions, recommendations from other relevant assessments and complementary objectives, Tanzania developed the NAPHS through a nationwide consultative and participatory process. The 5-year cost estimate came out to approximately US$86.6 million (22 million for prevent, 50 million for detect, 4.8 million for respond and 9.2 million for other IHR hazards and points of entry). However, with the inclusion of vaccines for zoonotic diseases in animals increases the cost sevenfold. The importance of strong country ownership and committed leadership were identified as instrumental for the development of operationally focused NAPHS that are aligned with broader national plans across multiple sectors. Key lessons learnt by Tanzania can help guide and encourage other countries to translate their JEE priority actions into a realistic costed NAPHS for funding and implementation for IHR (2005).

scholarly journals Evaluating implementation of International Health Regulations core capacities: using the Electronic States Parties Self-Assessment Annual Reporting Tool (e-SPAR) to monitor progress with Joint External Evaluation indicators

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed Razavi ◽  
Samuel Collins ◽  
Anne Wilson ◽  
Ebere Okereke
Keyword(s):  
Technical Assistance ◽  
International Health ◽  
Monitoring And Evaluation ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
International Health Regulations ◽  
Self Assessment ◽  
Health Security ◽  
Annual Reporting ◽  
Health Regulations

Abstract Background The International Health Regulations (IHR) are a legally binding instrument designed to improve Global Health Security by limiting the cross boarder spread of health risks. All 196 signatories to the IHR (2005) are required to report progress towards IHR core capacity implementation through an annual multi-sectoral self-assessment process known as the State Parties Self-Assessment Annual Reporting (SPAR). This mandatory process sits alongside the voluntary, external, peer-reviewed Joint External Evaluations (JEE) as two core components of the IHR monitoring and evaluation framework. JEEs are intended to occur once every 4–5 years following a voluntary request from the member state. This means that interim monitoring of IHR core capacity compliance, can be challenging and additional data sources are required. The outputs of the SPAR process represent one such source. Although the JEE and SPAR tools are intended to be complimentary, there has been no publicly available mapping of JEE indicators to SPAR indicators in order to inform progress on IHR compliance. Results This paper mapped JEE indicators to SPAR indicators and found a high level of correlation suggesting the SPAR process offers a method for countries and technical assistance programmes to monitor progress on IHR compliance and identify gaps in between JEE visits. However, coverage was not complete, and several gaps were identified most notably in antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and vaccinations. Conclusion Enhancing alignment between JEE and SPAR could offer a more consistent and complete way of assessing compliance with IHR.

scholarly journals Joint external evaluation of the International Health Regulation (2005) capacities: current status and lessons learnt in the WHO African region

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. e001312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ambrose Talisuna ◽  
Ali Ahmed Yahaya ◽  
Soatiana Cathycia Rajatonirina ◽  
Mary Stephen ◽  
Antonio Oke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
International Health ◽  
Monitoring And Evaluation ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
Current Status ◽  
External Evaluation ◽  
African Region ◽  
Health Security ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Joint External Evaluation

The International Health Regulations (IHR, 2005) are an essential vehicle for addressing global health security. Here, we report the IHR capacities in the WHO African from independent joint external evaluation (JEE). The JEE is a voluntary component of the IHR monitoring and evaluation framework. It evaluates IHR capacities in 19 technical areas in four broad themes: ‘Prevent’ (7 technical areas, 15 indicators); ‘Detect’ (4 technical areas, 13 indicators); ‘Respond’ (5 technical areas, 14 indicators), points of entry (PoE) and other IHR hazards (chemical and radiation) (3 technical areas, 6 indicators). The IHR capacity scores are graded from level 1 (no capacity) to level 5 (sustainable capacity). From February 2016 to March 2019, 40 of 47 WHO African region countries (81% coverage) evaluated their IHR capacities using the JEE tool. No country had the required IHR capacities. Under the theme ‘Prevent’, no country scored level 5 for 12 of 15 indicators. Over 80% of them scored level 1 or 2 for most indicators. For ‘Detect’, none scored level 5 for 12 of 13 indicators. However, many scored level 3 or 4 for several indicators. For ‘Respond’, none scored level 5 for 13 of 14 indicators, and less than 10% had a national multihazard public health emergency preparedness and response plan. For PoE and other IHR hazards, most countries scored level 1 or 2 and none scored level 5. Countries in the WHO African region are commended for embracing the JEE to assess their IHR capacities. However, major gaps have been identified. Urgent collective action is needed now to protect the WHO African region from health security threats.

scholarly journals Abuse of Antibiotic Treatment in a one Health Context

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
S M Nazmuz Sakib
Keyword(s):  
Antimicrobial Resistance ◽  
Antibiotic Treatment ◽  
One Health ◽  
Animal Health ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
Chronic Illnesses ◽  
Environmental Sciences ◽  
Health Security ◽  
Human Animal ◽  
The One

A considerable rise in the spread of infectious agents has been documented during the last decade. With the expansion and appearance of zoonoses, epizootics, and epidemics, the threat of pandemics has grown increasingly serious (Destoumieux-Garzón et al., 2018). Antimicrobial resistance, pollution, and the emergence of multifactorial and chronic illnesses have all posed a danger to human and animal health. This brought attention to the growing globalization of health hazards, as well as the role of the human–animal–ecosystem interaction in pathogen development and emergence (Destoumieux-Garzón et al., 2018).In response to trends observed in the recent past a thorough interpretation of disease dynamics and to drive public policy, a deeper understanding of the causes and effects of particular human activities, lifestyles, and behaviors in ecosystems is critical. Health security, as a global benefit, must be understood on a global scale and from a global and crosscutting viewpoint, including human, animal, plant, ecosystem, and biodiversity health (McEwen and Collignon, 2018).This study is aimed at establishing antibiotic treatment abuse in one health context. The study also considers how important it is to consider evolutionary, ecological, and environmental sciences in understanding the emergence and re-emergence of infectious diseases, as well as the challenges of antimicrobial resistance. Finally, the study identifies hurdles that must be overcome as well as goals that must be nurtured in order to effectively implement the "One Health" idea. The paper establishes that for the One Health idea to succeed, curb antibiotic resistance among other challenges, multidisciplinary boundaries that currently exist between veterinary and human medicine and evolutionary, ecological, and environmental sciences must be broken down and medical policies in place re-evaluated.

Environmental health: The most neglected part of one health

2021 ◽  
pp. 133-136
Author(s):  
Sonali Dash ◽  
Adya Prakash Rath
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
One Health ◽  
Animal Health ◽  
Health Sector ◽  
Melting Pot ◽  
Health Networks ◽  
Public Health Emergencies ◽  
Interdisciplinary Field ◽  
Health Concept ◽  
Human Animal

One health concept and perspectives have gained momentum in past few years in global health sector. Keeping in view the increased popularity of “one health” American Veterinary & Medical Association has defined it as the emerging interdisciplinary field that inherently collaborates human, animal and environmental aspects to combat emerging global health problems especially related to zoonotic public health emergencies. According to key findings of “One Health Networks (OHNs)” environmental factor is the most neglected part of one health triad that consists of human-animal-environment interface. Currently, human and animal health has been constantly threatened by rise of novel challenges like antimicrobial resistance, environmental pollution, epizootics, pandemics, development of multifactorial chronic ailments etc which needs an interdisciplinary and intersectoral expertise. Ecosystem heath and its adverse effects on human and animal health have gained greatest attention over recent years as it serves as melting pot for all infectious diseases. Despite of achieving global success in the field of “One health” it is still in embryonic stage in our country. So, the success of one health requires breaking down the shackles that still separate human and veterinary medicine from environmental, evolutionary and ecological sciences that will ultimately lead to desired equilibrium and dynamics in maintaining healthy ecosystems.

Health Capacity and Vulnerability in Context of COVID-19 Outbreak: An Analysis of 185 Countries

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 168-174
Author(s):  
Usama Waqar ◽  
Shaheer Ahmed ◽  
Daniyal Ali Khan
Keyword(s):  
Capacity Building ◽  
National Health ◽  
Risk Index ◽  
International Health ◽  
Monitoring And Evaluation ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
Mitigation Measures ◽  
Annual Reporting ◽  
Level 3 ◽  
Health Regulations

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected most countries, afflicting severe damage. Mitigation measures to control the pandemic rely heavily on existing health capacity and vulnerability of each country. The health capacity and vulnerability with respect to COVID-19 outbreak for 185 countries was assessed in this study to identify those where capacity-building needs to be prioritized. Material and methods: The State Parties Annual Reporting data based on WHO International Health Regulations monitoring and evaluation framework was used to extract an indicator for national health capacity. Another indicator for vulnerability was extracted from INFORM epidemic risk index. These metrics were selected after evaluating their complementarity and availability. Results: Among 185 countries, 111 (60%) had health capacities at level 4 and 5 with most of them having vulnerability at level 3 and 4. Twenty-two (11.89%) countries had level 2 health capacity in place coupled with moderate to high vulnerability. Among continents, Europe had best while Africa had worst mean functional capacity and vulnerability scores. Conclusions: The results showed that most countries had sufficient response and reaction capacities to handle the pandemic. However, resources, intensified surveillance, and capacity building should be prioritized in vulnerable countries with ill-equipped national health capacities.

scholarly journals Preparedness and vulnerability of African countries against introductions of 2019-nCoV

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marius Gilbert ◽  
Giulia Pullano ◽  
Francesco Pinotti ◽  
Eugenio Valdano ◽  
Chiara Poletto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Capacity ◽  
International Health ◽  
Monitoring And Evaluation ◽  
Vulnerability Index ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
Moderate Risk ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Variable Capacity ◽  
Novel Coronavirus ◽  
And Control

AbstractBackgroundThe novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) epidemic has spread to 23 countries from China. Local cycles of transmission already occurred in 7 countries following case importation. No African country has reported cases yet. The management and control of 2019-nCoV introductions heavily relies on country’s health capacity. Here we evaluate the preparedness and vulnerability of African countries against their risk of importation of 2019-nCoV.MethodsWe used data on air travel volumes departing from airports in the infected provinces in China and directed to Africa to estimate the risk of introduction per country. We determined the country’s capacity to detect and respond to cases with two indicators: preparedness, using the WHO International Health Regulation Monitoring and Evaluation Framework; and vulnerability, with the Infectious Disease Vulnerability Index. Countries were clustered according to the Chinese regions contributing the most to their risk.FindingsCountries at the highest importation risk (Egypt, Algeria, Republic of South Africa) have moderate to high capacity to respond to outbreaks. Countries at moderate risk (Nigeria, Ethiopia, Sudan, Angola, Tanzania, Ghana, Kenya) have variable capacity and high vulnerability. Three clusters of countries are identified that share the same exposure to the risk originating from the provinces of Guangdong, Fujian, and Beijing, respectively.InterpretationSeveral countries in Africa are stepping up their preparedness to detect and cope with 2019-nCoV importations. Resources and intensified surveillance and capacity capacity should be urgently prioritized towards countries at moderate risk that may be ill-prepared to face the importation and to limit onward transmission.FundingThis study was partially supported by the ANR project DATAREDUX (ANR-19-CE46-0008-03) to VC; the EU grant MOOD (H2020-874850) to MG, CP, MK, PYB, VC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document