剑桥大学出版社推出的 Research Directions: One Health 期刊采用多部门和跨学科协作的方法，在地区、区域、国家和全球层面开展研究，旨在研究人类、动物、植物及其共享环境之间的相互联系，例如疾病预防、检测和管理。核心包括特定的健康领域，例如医学、兽医学、病理学、流行病学和疾病生态学。One Health 是一种新兴的研究范式，旨在将跨自然科学和社会科学的研究专家和专业人士联系起来。Research Directions 系列开放获取系列期刊，希望为学术界和社会提供更多有益洞见。

目前 One Health 已发布8个问题，本篇文章将为您介绍详细内容。

1

在主要的动物生产系统中，可接受的动物福利、疾病、气候和环境脆弱性的极限是什么？我们如何衡量它们？

What are the limits across major animal production systems for tolerable animal welfare, disease, climate and environmental vulnerabilities and how do we measure them?

问题摘要：

Animal agriculture is in the spotlight as commentators and researchers assess its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, emerging infectious disease, environmental degradation, non-communicable food-related diseases and inadequate animal welfare. To date, however, research has largely failed to explore the significant differences between livestock species and the range of production systems under which they are raised. There is an absence of validated classification systems that are based on ontological processes. In many areas of the world, traditional livestock raising practices have survived for thousands of years and continue to date, yet they are under pressure with human population pressure, land and water use. In the 20th century, intensive livestock production systems were hailed as economic successes with environmental externalities largely ignored. Moving forward what constitutes ‘tolerable’ animal agriculture in a changing world facing multiple existential threats? Do the limits vary across geographies, production systems and cultures? If they do, how can these differences be measured? How might these limits contribute to defining associated sustainable and circular bioeconomies?

might these limits contribute to defining associated sustainable and circular bioeconomies?

2

科学家们是否将病原体的动物传染病源头与动物传染病混为一谈，从而对理解、疾病预防和管理造成困难？

Are scientists conflating zoonotic origin of pathogens with zoonosis to the detriment of understanding, disease prevention and management?

问题摘要：

To help setting boundaries to infectious disease aspects of One Health science, there is a need to define clearly meanings for terms commonly used to describe aspects of the science. The One Health High-Level Expert Panel, convened by the International Health Agencies, has now defined One Health https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1010537 providing a basis for examining ontology of key terms frequently used in the subject area, in the past and in the future.

3

One Health 通常把人看作主要受益者。One Health 的政策和实践如何使动物、植物和生态健康成为受人类和环境因素影响的主要焦点？

One Health most often has people as the primary beneficiary. How must One Health policies and practice change to make animal, plant and ecosystem health a primary focus that is influenced by human and environmental factors?

问题摘要：

The bulk of One Heath’s investment and research focuses on how animal or environmental threats impact human health or well-being. One Health has been less attentive to how human and environmental dimensions interact to impact animal health or on the environmental implications of health management at the human-animal interface. There has also been comparatively little investigation on how to create One Health programmes that promote reciprocal care that is neither human first, nor animal first nor environment first, but rather concurrently protects the health of all three. With this question, we invite authors to explore if or how current policies, practices and perspectives have shaped the primacy of human health as a benefactor of One Health and examine what changes need to be made, if any, to broaden the application of One Health approaches and perspectives. We encourage the use of implementation science methods and strategies to develop evidence-based policies and practice and to promote their regular use by researchers, practitioners and policymakers.

4

是否有一个理想的课程和教学法来使优秀的One Health 从业者为实现其日益壮大的目标作出贡献？

Is there an ideal curriculum and pedagogy to achieve an optimal One Health practitioner capable of contributing to the growing expectations for One Health?

问题摘要：

The looming challenges of pandemic recovery, climate change emergencies, species extinction, and growing food insecurity are driving calls for more One Health to “do more.” To address these calls, it is reasonable to anticipate an explosion in One Health training programs. Many One Health educational efforts were originally designed in response to emerging zoonotic diseases. As the scope of practice of One Health grows, the breadth of knowledge, skills, and attitudes to be cultivated through education and training also grows. Many One Health programs created in the early days of One Health could not benefit from the experiences of years of applying One Health in practice that exist today. Few One Health programs have been systematically evaluated to see if or how their structure or curriculum empowers learners to be effective One Health researchers or practitioners. We invite authors to provide evidence-based assessments of the impacts of different means, methods, and targets for training and/or systematic assessments of educational theory to help answer the Question, “is there an ideal curriculum and pedagogy to achieve an optimal One Health practitioner capable of contributing to the growing expectations for One Health?”

5

在设计或实施野生动物疾病监测系统时，实际和实用的局限性如何使我们对野生动物与人或家养物种之间或野生动物宿主种群内的病原体贩运的驱动因素、流行病学和影响的理解出现偏差？

How do the practical and pragmatic limitations in the design or implementation of wildlife disease surveillance systems bias our understanding of the drivers, epidemiology, and impact of pathogen traffic between wildlife and people or domestic species, or within wildlife host populations?

问题摘要：

Decision makers want more information on the presence, distribution, movement, and impacts of pathogens in wild animals to anticipate or assess the risk of pathogen spillover from wildlife to people or domestic animals or to better understand the conservation implications of contagious diseases in wildlife. There are many impediments to designing and implementing a wildlife health surveillance system that fulfils all the expectations for ‘good’ surveillance. There are well-known pragmatic limitations such as the inability to sample targeted populations consistently and regularly in a representative manner, lack of validated tests, and funding limitations that restrict surveillance to periodic surveys. The nature and impact of the biases on data collection, generation, management, quality, analysis, interpretations, and information sharing are poorly studied. We invite authors to address the question in the title.

6

如何将 One Health 方法付诸实施，以便采取行动减少或预防抗菌素耐药性？

How can One Health approaches be operationalized in order to enable action to reduce or prevent AMR?

问题摘要：

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health threat to humanity, animals, plants and the wider environment. The intrinsic complexity and interconnectivity of human, animal and environmental factors has now been globally acknowledged and warrants a One Health approach. International communities launched guidelines to support the development and implementation of comprehensive national One Health (OH) AMR strategies with a particular concern for threatened antibiotics. Yet, AMR National Action Plans have proven difficult to implement because of social and structural obstacles/barriers, which are well-known as OH challenges (Keune, Payyappallimana, Morand and Rüegg 2022) such as overcoming inter-sectorial and interdisciplinary barriers, taking into account structural societal dynamics, implementing transdisciplinary system’s approaches. To enhance necessary transformative system changes, it is vital to operationalize and contextualize One Health AMR approaches for the design, implementation and evaluation of community-based AMR interventions, tailored to the local circumstances.

7

我们如何在 One Health 的视角下，将与自然有关的 "绿色 "保健的推广和评估工作具体化？

How can we operationalize the promotion and evaluation of nature-related ‘green’ health care within a One Health perspective?

问题摘要：

The healthcare sector has proven to be supportive in stimulating health through contact with nature (Robinson and Breed, 2019; Kondo et al., 2020). Despite the positive practice examples, we see several challenges. There is no clear consensus or common understanding on quality assurance and health impact assessment of green care: there still is a wide range of approaches within different health expert communities and contexts, either with or without some form of qualified support such as coaching. As there is no ‘one size’ prescription fit for all, green care needs to be tailored to individual characteristics and circumstances, both of which are dynamic, e.g., in an environmental sense due to climate change, or related to socio-cultural dynamics (Beute et al., 2020a,b; Superior Health Council Belgium 2021). Sustainable health-related nature contact is not always easy to achieve especially when there is no follow-up with either healthcare professionals or other supporting organizations through social prescription. Accessibility of natural areas is often quite unequally distributed, with the more vulnerable often benefitting least, especially in urbanized areas. Another challenge is to achieve a reciprocal health relationship with nature: a stronger connection with nature and caring for nature helps to sustain a positive healthy relationship (O’Brien et al., 2010; Kurt et al., 2018), which may also contribute to nature conservation in a One Health perspective. As such, the healthcare sector can act as ambassadors for ‘One Healthy’ natural environments.

8

营养物质在典型澳大利亚羊肉的可食用部分的分布：一个案例研究。

Distribution of nutrients across the edible components of a modelled typical Australian lamb: A case study .

问题摘要：

Achieving sustainable development is one of the greatest challenges for humanity. This includes producing food in a way that enhances ecosystem, animal and human health, at the farm level and more broadly. To measure the enhancement brought about by animal production systems, producers, livestock industries and governments need a deeper understanding of the nutrient distribution across the edible parts of the animal. This case study examined the nutrient distribution across food products (carcase and co-products (edible offal and slaughter fat)) derived from a typical Australian lamb, using modelling with secondary data. Due to data gaps, some edible offal products were not able to be incorporated into the model (blood, trachea, omasum, abomasum, intestines, feet/tendons and head meat). Co-products accounted for approximately 24% of total edible product (i.e., carcase and co-product) by weight, 18% of the total protein and 37% of the total fat. With regards to micronutrients, the co-products contained 42% of the total iron content and the liver had more vitamin A, folate and vitamin B12 than the carcase and other co-products combined. This case study highlighted the nutritional value of co-products, especially liver, in the context of the whole animal and, the importance of including co-products in assessments of animal production systems.

转自：“剑桥学术”微信公众号

如有侵权，请联系本站删除！