None.

Background A key purpose of the International Health Regulations (IHR) is to prevent unwarranted interruptions to trade and travel during large and/or transnational infectious disease outbreaks. Nevertheless, such outbreaks continue to disrupt the travel industry. This aspect of the IHR has received little attention in the academic literature despite its considerable impact on affected States and commercial activity. This article outlines the challenges and gaps in knowledge regarding the relationship between outbreaks and the travel sector and discusses the opportunities for further research and policy work to overcome these challenges. Methodology We conducted a literature review on the relationship between outbreaks and travel restrictions, with a particular focus on the 2014–16 Ebola epidemic in West Africa. This review was complemented by an expert roundtable at Chatham House and further supported by case studies and qualitative interviews. Results Numerous travel stakeholders are affected by, and affect, large-scale infectious disease outbreaks. These stakeholders react in different ways: peer pressure plays an important role for both governments and the travel sector, and the reactions of the media and public influence and are influenced by these stakeholders. While various data sources on travel are available, and World Health Organization is mandated to work with States, there is no recognized coordinating body to disseminate timely, consistent, reliable and authoritative information and best practices to all stakeholders. Conclusion This article highlights the interdependent relationship between various travel stakeholders. The reasons for interruption of travel during the 2014–16 Ebola outbreak were complex, with decisions by States only partly contributing to the cessation. Decisions by non-state actors, particularly the travel industry itself, contributed significantly and were based on a variety of factors. Further research, analysis and policy development are required to mitigate the health and economic consequences of infectious disease outbreaks. Any further research will also need to take account of COVID-19 travel-related issues.

The Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO, https://www.iddo.org) has launched a clinical data platform for the collation, curation, standardisation and reuse of individual participant data (IPD) on treatments for two of the most globally important neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), schistosomiasis (SCH) and soiltransmitted helminthiases (STHs). This initiative aims to harness the power of data-sharing by facilitating collaborative joint analyses of pooled datasets to generate robust evidence on the efficacy and safety of anthelminthic treatment regimens. A crucial component of this endeavour has been the development of a Research Agenda to

IntroductionThe global health field has witnessed the rise, short-term persistence and fall of several movements. One Health, which addresses links between human, animal and environmental health, is currently experiencing a surge in political and financial attention, but there are well-documented barriers to collaboration between stakeholders from different sectors. We examined how stakeholder dynamics and approaches to operationalising One Health have evolved further to recent political and financial support for One Health.MethodsWe conducted a mixed methods study, first by qualitatively investigating views of 25 major policymakers and funders of One Health programmes about factors supporting or impeding systemic changes to strengthen the One Health movement. We then triangulated these findings with a quantitative analysis of the current operations of 100 global One Health Networks.ResultsWe found that recent attention to One Health at high-level political fora has increased power struggles between dominant human and animal health stakeholders, in a context where investment in collaboration building skills is lacking. The injection of funding to support One Health initiatives has been accompanied by a rise in organisations conducting diverse activities under the One Health umbrella, with stakeholders shifting operationalisation in directions most aligned with their own interests, thereby splintering and weakening the movement. While international attention to antimicrobial resistance was identified as a unique opportunity to strengthen the One Health movement, there is a risk that this will further drive a siloed, disease-specific approach and that structural changes required for wider collaboration will be neglected.ConclusionOur analysis indicated several opportunities to capitalise on the current growth in One Health initiatives and funding. In particular, evidence from better monitoring and evaluation of ongoing activities could support the case for future funding and allow development of more precise guidelines on best practices.