Suppr超能文献

南亚和东南亚的“One Health/EcoHealth”能力建设项目:混合方法快速系统评价。

One Health/EcoHealth capacity building programs in South and South East Asia: a mixed method rapid systematic review.

机构信息

Public Health Foundation of India, Plot 47, Sector 44, Institutional Area, Gurgaon, 122 002, India.

出版信息

Hum Resour Health. 2017 Sep 29;15(1):72. doi: 10.1186/s12960-017-0246-8.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Although One Health (OH) or EcoHealth (EH) have been acknowledged to provide comprehensive and holistic approaches to study complex problems, like zoonoses and emerging infectious diseases, there remains multiple challenges in implementing them in a problem-solving paradigm. One of the most commonly encountered barriers, especially in low- and middle-income countries, is limited capacity to undertake OH/EH inquiries. A rapid review was undertaken to conduct a situation analysis of the existing OH/EH capacity building programs, with a focused analysis of those programs with extensive OH engagement, to help map the current efforts in this area.

METHODS

A listing of the OH/EH projects/initiatives implemented in South Asia (SA) and South East Asia (SEA) was done, followed by analysis of documents related to the projects, available from peer-reviewed or grey literature sources. Quantitative data was extracted using a data extraction format, and a free listing of qualitative themes was undertaken.

RESULTS

In SEA, 13 unique OH/EH projects, with 37 capacity building programs, were identified. In contrast, in SA, the numbers were 8 and 11 respectively. In SA, programs were oriented to develop careers in program management, whereas, in SEA, the emphasis was on research. Two thirds of the programs in SEA had extensive OH engagement, whereas only one third of those in SA did. The target for the SEA programs was wider, including a population more representative of OH stakes. SEA program themes reveal utilization of multiple approaches, usually in shorter terms, and are growing towards integration with the traditional curricula. Such convergence of themes was lacking in SA programs. In both regions, the programs were driven by external donor agencies, with minimal local buy-in.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited investment in research capacity building in both SA and SEA. The situation appears to be more stark in SA, whilst SEA has been able to use the systematic investment and support to develop the OH/EH agenda and strategize capacity building in the core competencies. In order to effectively address the disease emergence hotspots in these regions, there needs to be strategic funding decisions targeting capacity building in the core OH/EH competencies especially related to transdisciplinarity, systems thinking, and adaptive management.

摘要

背景

尽管人们已经认识到“One Health”(OH)或“EcoHealth”(EH)能够提供全面综合的方法来研究复杂问题,如人畜共患病和新发传染病,但在将其应用于解决问题的模式时,仍然存在许多挑战。其中最常见的障碍之一,尤其是在中低收入国家,是开展 OH/EH 调查的能力有限。因此,我们进行了一项快速审查,对现有的 OH/EH 能力建设计划进行了情况分析,并重点分析了那些广泛涉及 OH 的计划,以帮助描绘该领域当前的努力。

方法

我们列出了在南亚(SA)和东南亚(SEA)实施的 OH/EH 项目/倡议,然后对来自同行评议或灰色文献来源的与项目相关的文件进行了分析。使用数据提取格式提取了定量数据,并对定性主题进行了自由列表。

结果

在 SEA,我们确定了 13 个独特的 OH/EH 项目,其中有 37 个能力建设计划;相比之下,在 SA,这两个数字分别为 8 和 11。在 SA,项目的方向是培养项目管理方面的职业,而在 SEA,重点则是研究。SEA 中三分之二的计划有广泛的 OH 参与,而 SA 中只有三分之一的计划有。SEA 计划的目标人群更广,包括更能代表 OH 利益的人群。SEA 计划的主题揭示了多种方法的利用,通常是在较短的时间内,并且正在朝着与传统课程的整合方向发展。相比之下,SA 计划则缺乏这种主题的融合。在这两个地区,项目都是由外部捐助机构驱动的,当地的参与度很低。

结论

在 SA 和 SEA,对研究能力建设的投资都很有限。在 SA,情况似乎更为严峻,而 SEA 已经能够利用系统的投资和支持来制定 OH/EH 议程,并在核心能力方面制定能力建设战略。为了有效地应对这些地区的疾病爆发热点,需要做出战略性的资金决策,针对 OH/EH 核心能力的能力建设,特别是与跨学科、系统思维和适应性管理相关的能力建设。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5515/5622563/c71732dfddcf/12960_2017_246_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验