Sarah Harrison1, Lucy Kivuti-Bitok2, Alexandra Macmillan2, Patricia Priest2. 1. Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, Otago, New Zealand. Electronic address: sarah.harrison@otago.ac.nz. 2. Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, Otago, New Zealand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: EcoHealth and One Health are two major approaches broadly aimed at understanding the links between human, animal, and environment health. There have been increasing calls for convergence between the two. If convergence is desired, greater clarity regarding the underlying theoretical assumptions of both approaches is required. This would also support integrated research to effectively address complex health issues at the human, animal and environment interface. To better understand the areas of overlap and alignment, we systematically compared and contrasted the theoretical assumptions of both approaches. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to gain a more in-depth understanding of the ontological, epistemological and methodological underpinnings of EcoHealth and One Health in order to identify areas of difference and overlap, and consider the extent to which closer convergence between the two may be possible. METHODS: We undertook a scoping review of literature about the ontological, epistemological and methodological positions of EcoHealth and One Health, and analyzed these according to Lincoln, Lynham and Guba's paradigm framework. RESULTS: EcoHealth and One Health are both collaborative, systems-focused approaches at the human, animal, and ecosystem health interface. EcoHealth typically leans towards constructivist-leaning assumptions. Many consider this a necessary aspiration for One Health. However, in practice One Health remains dominated by the veterinary and medical disciplines that emphasize positivist-leaning assumptions. DISCUSSION: The aspirations of EcoHealth and One Health appear to overlap at the conceptual level, and may well warrant closer convergence. However, further shared discussions about their epistemological and ontological assumptions are needed to reconcile important theoretical differences, and to better guide scopes of practice. Critical realism may be a crucial theoretical meeting point. Systems thinking methods (with critical realist underpinnings), such as system dynamics modelling, are potentially useful methodologies for supporting convergent practice.
BACKGROUND: EcoHealth and One Health are two major approaches broadly aimed at understanding the links between human, animal, and environment health. There have been increasing calls for convergence between the two. If convergence is desired, greater clarity regarding the underlying theoretical assumptions of both approaches is required. This would also support integrated research to effectively address complex health issues at the human, animal and environment interface. To better understand the areas of overlap and alignment, we systematically compared and contrasted the theoretical assumptions of both approaches. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to gain a more in-depth understanding of the ontological, epistemological and methodological underpinnings of EcoHealth and One Health in order to identify areas of difference and overlap, and consider the extent to which closer convergence between the two may be possible. METHODS: We undertook a scoping review of literature about the ontological, epistemological and methodological positions of EcoHealth and One Health, and analyzed these according to Lincoln, Lynham and Guba's paradigm framework. RESULTS: EcoHealth and One Health are both collaborative, systems-focused approaches at the human, animal, and ecosystem health interface. EcoHealth typically leans towards constructivist-leaning assumptions. Many consider this a necessary aspiration for One Health. However, in practice One Health remains dominated by the veterinary and medical disciplines that emphasize positivist-leaning assumptions. DISCUSSION: The aspirations of EcoHealth and One Health appear to overlap at the conceptual level, and may well warrant closer convergence. However, further shared discussions about their epistemological and ontological assumptions are needed to reconcile important theoretical differences, and to better guide scopes of practice. Critical realism may be a crucial theoretical meeting point. Systems thinking methods (with critical realist underpinnings), such as system dynamics modelling, are potentially useful methodologies for supporting convergent practice.
Authors: Francesco Chiesa; Laura Tomassone; Sara Savic; Alessandro Bellato; Andrei Daniel Mihalca; David Modry; Barbara Häsler; Daniele De Meneghi Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2021-02-17
Authors: Ann Marie Crosse; Margaret M Barry; Mary Jo Lavelle; Jane Sixsmith Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-26 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Virginie Migeot; Jérémy Guihenneuc; Houria El Ouazzani; Marion Albouy; Antoine Dupuis; Sylvie Rabouan Journal: Environ Health Date: 2022-01-29 Impact factor: 5.984
Authors: Martin Hitziger; John Berezowski; Salome Dürr; Laura C Falzon; Monique Léchenne; Kennedy Lushasi; Tigran Markosyan; Céline Mbilo; Kelvin N Momanyi; Ranya Özçelik; Nambiar Prejit; Jakob Zinsstag; Simon R Rüegg Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2021-06-04