Search Results
The current fragmented framework of health governance for humans, animals and environment, together with the conventional linear approach to solving current health problems, is failing to meet today’s complex health challenges and is proving unsustainable. Advances in healthcare depend increasingly on intensive interventions, technological developments and expensive pharmaceuticals. The disconnect grows between human health, animal health and environmental and ecosystems health. Human development gains have come with often unrecognised negative externalities affecting ecosystems, notably loss of resilience, mostly through biodiversity loss and land degradation. Reduced capacity of the ecosystem to serve humanity threatens to reverse the health gains of the last century. A paradigm shift is urgently required to de-sectoralise human, animal, plant and ecosystem health and to take a more integrated approach to health, One Health (OH). The sustainable development goals (SDGs) offer a framework and unique opportunity for this and we argue the need of an OH approach towards achieving them. Feasibility assessments and outcome evaluations are often constrained by sectoral politics within a national framework, historic possession of expertise, as well as tried and tested metrics. OH calls for a better understanding, acceptance and use of a broader and transdisciplinary set of evaluation approaches and associated metrics, which is a key objective of NEOH. We need to shift our current sectoralised, linear focus to a more visible balanced health investment with more global benefits to all species. This is encapsulated in the movements for OH, EcoHealth, Planetary Health and Ecological Public Health, which are essentially converging towards a paradigm shift for a more integrated approach to health.
Das Konzept des Rechtsgefühls im engeren Sinne entsteht im 18. Jahrhundert. Es fragt seither nach dem Verhältnis des Menschen zu normativen Ordnungen, nach Verantwortung und Teilhabe und nicht zuletzt nach dem richtigen Urteilen. Der Band folgt diesen historischen und systematischen Suchbewegungen und verbindet sie mit der aktuellen Debatte um »Law and Emotion«. Beiträge aus Rechts-, Literatur-, Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaft erkunden konzeptionelle und funktionale Dimensionen rechtlichen Fühlens: als Teil der Rechtsprechung und Rechtsgenese, als Form politischen und ästhetischen Urteilens und als Modus der Formierung von Subjekt und Gesellschaft. Reflektiert werden so Deutungsmuster und Pro-
blemstellungen, welche die historischen und aktuellen Debatten mit erstaunlicher Persistenz überspannen.
Das Konzept des Rechtsgefühls im engeren Sinne entsteht im 18. Jahrhundert. Es fragt seither nach dem Verhältnis des Menschen zu normativen Ordnungen, nach Verantwortung und Teilhabe und nicht zuletzt nach dem richtigen Urteilen. Der Band folgt diesen historischen und systematischen Suchbewegungen und verbindet sie mit der aktuellen Debatte um »Law and Emotion«. Beiträge aus Rechts-, Literatur-, Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaft erkunden konzeptionelle und funktionale Dimensionen rechtlichen Fühlens: als Teil der Rechtsprechung und Rechtsgenese, als Form politischen und ästhetischen Urteilens und als Modus der Formierung von Subjekt und Gesellschaft. Reflektiert werden so Deutungsmuster und Pro-
blemstellungen, welche die historischen und aktuellen Debatten mit erstaunlicher Persistenz überspannen.
Challenges calling for integrated approaches to health, such as the One Health (OH) approach, typically arise from the intertwined spheres of humans and animals, and the ecosystems constituting their environment. Initiatives addressing such wicked problems commonly consist of complex structures and dynamics. The Network for Evaluation of One Health (NEOH) proposes an evaluation framework anchored in systems theory to address the intrinsic complexity of OH initiatives and regards them as subsystems of the context within which they operate. Typically, they intend to influence a system with a view to improve human, animal, and environmental health. The NEOH evaluation framework consists of four overarching elements, namely: (1) the definition of the OH initiative and its context; (2) the description of its theory of change with an assessment of expected and unexpected outcomes; (3) the process evaluation of operational and supporting infrastructures (the ‘OHness’); and (4) an assessment of the association(s) between the process evaluation and the outcomes produced. It relies on a mixed-methods approach by combining a descriptive and qualitative assessment with a semi-quantitative scoring for the evaluation of the degree and structural balance of ‘OH-ness’ (summarised in an OH-index and OH-ratio, respectively) and conventional metrics for different outcomes in a multi-criteria-decision analysis. We provide the methodology for all elements, including ready-to-use Microsoft Excel spread-sheets for the assessment of the ‘OH-ness’ (Element 3) and further helpful worksheets as electronic supplements. Element 4 connects the results from the assessment of the ‘OH-ness’ to the methods and metrics described in Chapters 4 to 6 in this handbook. Finally, we offer some guidance on how to produce recommendations based on the results. The presented approach helps researchers, practitioners, policy makers and evaluators to conceptualise and conduct evaluations of integrated approaches to health and enables comparison and learning across different OH activities, thereby facilitating decisions on strategy and resource allocation. Examples of the application of this framework have been described in eight case studies, published in a dedicated Frontiers Research Topic (https://www.frontiersin.org/researchtopics/ 5479).