ABSTRACT
The One Health conceptual framework envisions human, animal, and environmental health as interconnected. This framework has achieved remarkable progress in the control of zoonotic diseases, but it commonly neglects the environmental domain, implicitly prioritizes human life over the life of other beings, and fails to consider the political, cultural, social, historical, and economic contexts that shape the health of multispecies collectives. We have developed a novel theoretical framework, Relational One Health, which expands the boundaries of One Health, clearly defines the environmental domain, and provides an avenue for engagement with critical theory. We present a systematic literature review of One Health frameworks to demonstrate the novelty of Relational One Health, and to orient it with respect to other critically-engaged frameworks for One Health. Our results indicate that while Relational One Health complements several earlier frameworks, these other frameworks are either not intended for research, or for narrow sets of research questions. We then demonstrate the utility of Relational One Health for One Health research through case studies in Brazil, Israel, and Ethiopia. Empirical research which is grounded in theory can speak collectively, increasing the impact of individual studies and the field as a whole. One Health is uniquely poised to address several wicked challenges facing the 21st century—climate change, pandemics, neglected zoonoses, and biodiversity collapse—and a unifying theoretical tradition is key to generating the evidence needed to meet these challenges.
HIGHLIGHTS
One Health views human, animal, and environmental health as interconnected
Biomedical reductionism in One Health has resulted in a focus on human health threats from animals
The environmental domain and more-than-biomedical contexts are commonly ignored in One Health
Relational One Health is a new theoretical framework which addresses these limitations
This theoretical framework is relevant to all One Health research, increasing the field’s impact
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
This article presents a scoping review, thus all relevant data are included in the manuscript itself
