Health promotion and harm reduction attributes in One Health literature: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One Health faces enormous pressure and challenges as it attempts to mitigate dynamic, surprising and complex global events that threaten the health and sustainability of human and animal populations and the biosphere. One Health practitioners and researchers need every advantage to developing working solutions to the world's imminent complex issues. Heath promotion and harm reduction, interrelated approaches that have seen much success over decades of use in global public health, may be important models to consider. Both use an upstream socioecological determinant of health approach to reach beyond the health sector in all health efforts, and encourage active community participation and empowerment to attain and sustain human and ecological health. This scoping review of 411 documents, believed to be the first to relate health promotion and harm reduction to One Health, searched self-declared One Health research literature for evidence of health promotion and harm reduction policies, principles and methodologies. It sought to answer the questions: "What is the scope of practice of One Health in self-declared One Health publications?" and "Are attributes of health promotion and harm reduction found in self-declared One Health-reviewed research literature?" Over half of the papers revealed no health promotion or harm reduction attributes while 7% were well-endowed with these attributes. These 7% of papers focused on deep-seated, complex health issues with systemic knowledge gaps and decision-making issues revolving around specific population vulnerabilities, social inequities and competing stakeholders. Implementing 'on the ground change' was a common theme in the strongest health promotion/harm reduction papers we identified. Alternatively, papers lacking health promotion or harm reduction attributes focused on managing proximate risks, primarily for infectious diseases. The addition of health promotion and harm reduction to One Health practices may help the field rise to the growing expectations for its involvement in complex global issues like pandemics and climate change.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".