One Health Surveillance: A Matrix to Evaluate Multisectoral Collaboration

Abstract

The international community and governmental organizations are actively calling for the implementation of One Health (OH) surveillance systems to target health hazards that involve humans, animals, and their environment. In our view, the main characteristic of a OH surveillance system is the collaboration across institutions and disciplines operating within the different sectors to plan, coordinate, and implement the surveillance process. However, the multisectoral organizational models and possible collaborative modalities implemented throughout the surveillance process are multi-fold and depend on the objective and context of the surveillance. The purpose of this study is to define a matrix to evaluate the quality and appropriateness of multisectoral collaboration through an in-depth analysis of its organization, implementation, and functions. We developed a first list of evaluation attributes based on (i) the characteristics of the organization, implementation, and functionality of multisectoral surveillance systems; and (ii) the existing attributes for the evaluation of health surveillance systems and OH initiatives. These attributes were submitted to two rounds of expert-opinion elicitation for review and validation. The final list of attributes consisted of 23 organizational attributes and 9 functional attributes, to which 3 organizational indexes were added measuring the overall organization of collaboration. We then defined 75 criteria to evaluate the level of satisfaction for the attributes and indexes. The criteria were scored following a four-tiered scoring grid. Graphical representations allowed for an easy overview of the evaluation results for both attributes and indexes. This evaluation matrix is the first to allow an in-depth analysis of collaboration in a multisectoral surveillance system and is the preliminary step toward the creation of a fully standalone tool for the evaluation of collaboration. After its practical application and adaptability to different contexts are field-tested, this tool could be very useful in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of collaboration occurring in a multisectoral surveillance system.

Evaluating the Integration of One Health in Surveillance Systems for Antimicrobial Use and Resistance: A Conceptual Framework

“…Consequently, a review of 12 evaluation tools focusing either on surveillance evaluation or on OH evaluation was conducted between January and December 2019, as a part of the research conducted with the CoEval-AMR Network (Convergence in evaluation frameworks for integrated surveillance of AM resistance and AM use), of which five of the authors are members ( 20 ). The following 12 tools were included: [1] Evaluation of collaboration for surveillance (EcoSurTool) ( 21 ), [2] Network for the Evaluation of OH Framework (NEOH) ( 22 ), [3] OH Assessment for Planning and Performance (OH-APP) ( 23 ), [4] The FAO Assessment Tool for Laboratory and AMR Surveillance Systems (ATLASS) ( 24 ), [5] Outil d'Analyse des Systèmes de Surveillance (OASIS) ( 25 ), [6] SuRveillance EVALuation framework (SERVAL) ( 26 ), [7] SurvTools ( 27 ), [8] Surveillance Evaluation Framework (SurF) ( 28 ), [9] The FAO Progressive Management Pathway for AMR (PMP-AMR) ( 29 ), [10] Joint External Evaluation tool (Second edition) (JEE) ( 30 ), [11] International Health Regulation core capacity monitoring framework (IHR) ( 31 ), and [12] The OIE Tool for the Evaluation of Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS) ( 32 ) ( Table 4 ). For each tool, the general purpose, scope, process, and output were synthesized by the CoEval-AMR research team and all the evaluation items (questions or criteria) from these tools were extracted, examined, and attributed to one or more ISSE evaluation levels by three different analysts (Aenishaenslin, Mediouni, and Bennani) ( 20 ).…”

One Health Surveillance Codex: promoting the adoption of One Health solutions within and across European countries

“…In order to find suitable approaches to address these barriers, the ORION project team worked towards the establishment of an integrated strategy for the collection, interpretation, sharing and dissemination of surveillance data, surveillance information and surveillance knowledge (doi: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3754468 , [ 9 ]). In this process, the analysis of existing frameworks that describe the organisation of the different organisational levels of collaboration in OHS systems [ 2 , 4 , 10 ] helped us to identify three non-exclusive strategies that could be followed to promote OH implementation in routine surveillance practice: surveillance could be continued as before, independently in each sector, but result dissemination should take into account the information needs of other sectors; surveillance activities could be performed jointly by different sectors at specific steps along the surveillance pathway; new surveillance processes could be designed jointly as an integrated OH activity that supports the joint as well as sector-specific objectives, needs and actors. …”

“…It is widely accepted that there is a fundamental link between threats posed by zoonotic diseases to humans and the health of domestic animals, wildlife and the environment [ 1 ]. The One Health (OH) concept is an effort to de-compartmentalise the human health, animal health and environmental sectors for more efficient and sustainable governance of complex health issues [ 2 ]. This OH concept also guides the management of risks posed by emerging infectious diseases (EID) where effective global surveillance is considered the essential component for early detection of EIDs [ 1 ].…”

Break Down the Silos: A Conceptual Framework on Multisectoral Approaches to the Prevention and Control of Vector-Borne Diseases

“…Therefore, as the primary users, the decision makers have to be involved in the key processes. Several tools and guidance documents have been developed on both conducting multisectoral monitoring and evaluation [ 32 ] and monitoring and evaluation of multisectoral collaborations [ 33 , 34 ], in which lessons can be learned for planning and implementing MSAs for VBD prevention and control.…”