Ties that bind: understanding One Health networks and participation for zoonoses prevention and control in India.

IF 3.8 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Festus A Asaaga, Irfan Shakeer, Aditi Sriram, Kashish Chhotaria, Seshadri Dutta, Darshan Narayanaswamy, Godfred Amankwaa, Mohammed M Chanda, Subhash L Hoti, Juliette C Young, Bethan V Purse
{"title":"Ties that bind: understanding One Health networks and participation for zoonoses prevention and control in India.","authors":"Festus A Asaaga, Irfan Shakeer, Aditi Sriram, Kashish Chhotaria, Seshadri Dutta, Darshan Narayanaswamy, Godfred Amankwaa, Mohammed M Chanda, Subhash L Hoti, Juliette C Young, Bethan V Purse","doi":"10.1186/s42522-024-00118-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cross-sectoral collaborations as exemplified by the One Health approach, are widely endorsed as pragmatic avenues for addressing zoonotic diseases, but operationalisation remain limited in low-and-middle income countries (LMICs). Complexities and competing interests and agendas of key stakeholders and the underlying politico-administrative context can all shape outcomes of collaborative arrangements. Evidence is building that organised collaborations are complex political initiatives where different objectives; individual and institutional agendas need to be reconciled to incentivise collaborations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Drawing on a qualitative network analysis of published sources on 'One Health' stakeholders supplemented with 26 multi-scale (national-state-district level) key-informant interviews (including policymakers, disease managers and public health experts), this paper characterises the fragmented and complex characteristics of institutional networks involved in zoonoses prevention and control in India.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our results highlight how the local socio-political and institutional contexts interact to modulate how and when collaborations occur (or not), the associated contingencies and stakeholder innovations in circumventing existing barriers (e.g. competing interests, distrust between actors, departmental bureaucracy) to cross-sector collaborations and zoonoses management. Aside from principal actors negotiating common ground in some instance, they also capitalised on political/institutional pressure to subtly 'manipulate' their subordinates as a way of fostering collaboration, especially in instances when the institutional and political stakes are high.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Altogether our findings suggest that cross-sectoral collaborations are by-product of political and institutional tinkering as long as individual actors and institutional interests converge and these dynamics must be embraced to embed meaningful and sustainable collaborations in local socio-political and administrative contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":94348,"journal":{"name":"One health outlook","volume":"6 1","pages":"24"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11608486/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"One health outlook","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42522-024-00118-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cross-sectoral collaborations as exemplified by the One Health approach, are widely endorsed as pragmatic avenues for addressing zoonotic diseases, but operationalisation remain limited in low-and-middle income countries (LMICs). Complexities and competing interests and agendas of key stakeholders and the underlying politico-administrative context can all shape outcomes of collaborative arrangements. Evidence is building that organised collaborations are complex political initiatives where different objectives; individual and institutional agendas need to be reconciled to incentivise collaborations.

Methods: Drawing on a qualitative network analysis of published sources on 'One Health' stakeholders supplemented with 26 multi-scale (national-state-district level) key-informant interviews (including policymakers, disease managers and public health experts), this paper characterises the fragmented and complex characteristics of institutional networks involved in zoonoses prevention and control in India.

Results: Our results highlight how the local socio-political and institutional contexts interact to modulate how and when collaborations occur (or not), the associated contingencies and stakeholder innovations in circumventing existing barriers (e.g. competing interests, distrust between actors, departmental bureaucracy) to cross-sector collaborations and zoonoses management. Aside from principal actors negotiating common ground in some instance, they also capitalised on political/institutional pressure to subtly 'manipulate' their subordinates as a way of fostering collaboration, especially in instances when the institutional and political stakes are high.

Conclusion: Altogether our findings suggest that cross-sectoral collaborations are by-product of political and institutional tinkering as long as individual actors and institutional interests converge and these dynamics must be embraced to embed meaningful and sustainable collaborations in local socio-political and administrative contexts.

纽带:了解“同一个健康”网络和参与印度的人畜共患病预防和控制。
背景:以“一个健康”方法为例的跨部门合作被广泛认可为解决人畜共患疾病的务实途径,但在低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs)的运作仍然有限。关键利益相关者的复杂性、相互竞争的利益和议程以及潜在的政治行政环境都可能影响合作安排的结果。越来越多的证据表明,有组织的合作是复杂的政治举措,其中不同的目标;个人和机构的议程需要协调一致,以激励合作。方法:本文利用对“同一个健康”利益相关者已发表资料的定性网络分析,辅以26个多尺度(国家-州-地区层面)关键信息提供者访谈(包括政策制定者、疾病管理人员和公共卫生专家),描述了印度参与人畜共患病预防和控制的机构网络的碎片化和复杂特征。结果:我们的研究结果强调了当地社会政治和制度背景如何相互作用,以调节合作发生(或不发生)的方式和时间,相关的突发事件和利益相关者在规避现有障碍(例如,利益竞争,行为者之间的不信任,部门官僚主义)方面的创新,以跨部门合作和人畜共患病管理。除了主要参与者在某些情况下协商共同点外,他们还利用政治/制度压力来微妙地“操纵”下属,以此作为促进合作的一种方式,特别是在制度和政治利害关系很高的情况下。结论:总的来说,我们的研究结果表明,只要个人行为者和机构利益融合,跨部门合作就是政治和制度修补的副产品,必须接受这些动态,以便在当地社会政治和行政环境中嵌入有意义和可持续的合作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信