Adopting One Health approaches is key for addressing interconnected health challenges. Yet, how to best put One Health into practice in research-for-development initiatives aiming to 'deliver impacts' remains unclear. Drawing on the CGIAR Initiative on One Health - a global initiative to address zoonotic diseases, antimicrobial resistance, and food and water safety - we reflect on challenges during program conception and implementation, prompting us to suggest improvements in multisectoral collaboration, coordination, and communication. Our approach involves conducting a researcher-centered process evaluation, comprising individual interviews that are subsequently thematically analyzed and synthesized. The key takeaway is that limited time for planning processes and short program timelines compared to envisioned development impacts may impede research-for-development efforts. Yet, collaborative work can be successful when adequate time and resources are allocated for planning with minimal disruption throughout implementation. Additionally, due to the multifaceted nature of One Health initiatives, it is important to pay attention to co-benefits and trade-offs, where taking action in one aspect may yield advantages and disadvantages in another, aiding to identify sustainable One Health development pathways. Forming close partnerships with national governments and local stakeholders is essential not only to promote sustainability but also to ensure local relevance, enhancing the potential for meaningful impact. Finally, regularly assessing progress toward development goals is critical as development stands as an overarching objective.
Antibiotics have revolutionised medicine in the last century and enabled the prevention of bacterial infections that were previously deemed untreatable. However, in parallel, bacteria have increasingly developed resistance to antibiotics through various mechanisms. When resistant bacteria find their way into terrestrial and aquatic environments, animal and human exposures increase, e.g., via polluted soil, food, and water, and health risks multiply. Understanding the fate and transport of antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARB) and the transfer mechanisms of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) in aquatic environments is critical for evaluating and mitigating the risks of resistant-induced infections. The conceptual understanding of sources and pathways of antibiotics, ARB, and ARGs from society to the water environments is essential for setting the scene and developing an appropriate framework for modelling. Various factors and processes associated with hydrology, ecology, and climate change can significantly affect the fate and transport of ARB and ARGs in natural environments. This article reviews current knowledge, research gaps, and priorities for developing water quality models to assess the fate and transport of ARB and ARGs. The paper also provides inputs on future research needs, especially the need for new predictive models to guide risk assessment on AR transmission and spread in aquatic environments.
There is no consensus regarding the classification of optic neuritis, and precise diagnostic criteria are not available. This reality means that the diagnosis of disorders that have optic neuritis as the first manifestation can be challenging. Accurate diagnosis of optic neuritis at presentation can facilitate the timely treatment of individuals with multiple sclerosis, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, or myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated disease. Epidemiological data show that, cumulatively, optic neuritis is most frequently caused by many conditions other than multiple sclerosis. Worldwide, the cause and management of optic neuritis varies with geographical location, treatment availability, and ethnic background. We have developed diagnostic criteria for optic neuritis and a classification of optic neuritis subgroups. Our diagnostic criteria are based on clinical features that permit a diagnosis of possible optic neuritis; further paraclinical tests, utilising brain, orbital, and retinal imaging, together with antibody and other protein biomarker data, can lead to a diagnosis of definite optic neuritis. Paraclinical tests can also be applied retrospectively on stored samples and historical brain or retinal scans, which will be useful for future validation studies. Our criteria have the potential to reduce the risk of misdiagnosis, provide information on optic neuritis disease course that can guide future treatment trial design, and enable physicians to judge the likelihood of a need for long-term pharmacological management, which might differ according to optic neuritis subgroups.