Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, Otago, New Zealand.
Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, Otago, New Zealand.
Environ Int. 2019 Nov;132:105058. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.105058. Epub 2019 Aug 29.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
生态健康和一体健康是两种旨在理解人类、动物和环境健康之间联系的主要方法。人们越来越呼吁两者趋同。如果希望趋同，就需要更清楚地了解这两种方法的潜在理论假设。这也将支持综合研究，以有效解决人类、动物和环境界面的复杂健康问题。为了更好地理解重叠和一致的领域，我们系统地比较和对比了这两种方法的理论假设。
我们旨在更深入地了解生态健康和一体健康的本体论、认识论和方法论基础，以确定差异和重叠的领域，并考虑两者之间更紧密趋同的程度。
我们对生态健康和一体健康的本体论、认识论和方法论立场的文献进行了范围综述，并根据林肯、林纳姆和古巴的范式框架对这些进行了分析。
生态健康和一体健康都是在人类、动物和生态系统健康界面上的协作、系统为重点的方法。生态健康通常倾向于建构主义倾向的假设。许多人认为这是一体健康的必要愿望。然而，在实践中，一体健康仍然由强调实证主义倾向假设的兽医和医学学科主导。
生态健康和一体健康的愿望在概念层面似乎重叠，并且可能非常值得更紧密的趋同。然而，为了协调重要的理论差异，并更好地指导实践范围，需要进一步就它们的认识论和本体论假设进行共同讨论。批判实在论可能是一个关键的理论交汇点。具有批判实在论基础的系统思维方法（如系统动力学建模）可能是支持趋同实践的有用方法。
