Climate change significantly impacts our planet’s health, ecosystems, plants, animals and humans, increasing extreme weather events and the incidence and prevalence of infectious diseases, including zoonotic diseases. We reviewed the environmental changes affecting human, animal and planetary health and conducted a bibliometric analysis from 2012 to 22 that included these components. We identified 448 publications published on the topic throughout that period. Then, we reflected on the Research Directions question: How can we improve and facilitate multi-sectoral collaboration in warning and response systems for infectious diseases and natural hazards to account for their drivers, interdependencies and cascading impacts? The bibliometric analysis of planetary health has shown increasing interest among researchers since 2017, peaking in 2022. Lancet Planetary Health was the journal with more published articles; The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine was the best-placed institution, and The United States led in topic-related publications. On the other hand, the climatic and pandemic global environmental crises demand fostered surveillance, which should concentrate on the drivers of disease, giving signals that account for human and animal health and environmental degradation. In response to global crises, higher education curricula should integrate One Health and Planetary Health approaches to achieve transdisciplinary thinking, allowing transcend knowledge, research and observation into action.

Integrated wildlife monitoring (IWM) combines infection dynamics and the ecology of wildlife populations, including aspects defining the host community network. Developing and implementing IWM is a worldwide priority that faces major constraints and biases that should be considered and addressed when implementing these systems. We identify eleven main limitations in the establishment of IWM, which could be summarized into funding constraints and lack of harmonization and information exchange. The solutions proposed to overcome these limitations and biases comprise: (i) selecting indicator host species through network analysis, (ii) identifying key pathogens to investigate and monitor, potentially including nonspecific health markers, (iii) improve and standardize harmonized methodologies that can be applied worldwide as well as communication among stakeholders across and within countries, and (iv) the integration of new noninvasive technologies (e.g., camera trapping (CT) and environmental nucleic acid detection) and new tools that are under ongoing research (e.g., artificial intelligence to speed-up CT analyses, microfluidic polymerase chain reaction to overcome sample volume constraints, or filter paper samples to facilitate sample transport). Achieving and optimizing IWM is a must that allows identifying the drivers of epidemics and predicting trends and changes in disease and population dynamics before a pathogen crosses the interspecific barriers.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a pressing global health issue with serious implications for health, food security, and livelihoods. Collective action, from local to global, that draws on the One Health (OH) approach to facilitate collaboration between the human, animal, and environmental sectors is required to inform initiatives to mitigate AMR. For AMR surveillance, this involves applying an intersectoral, multistakeholder perspective to guide the co-creation of knowledge and policy around the collection, analysis, and application of surveillance data to detect, monitor, and prevent AMR health threats. Currently, there is little available evidence on how to operationalize a OH approach to support integrated AMR surveillance systems, or on how the governance of such systems facilitates intersectoral action on AMR. We conducted a scoping review of the literature to identify the governance domains most relevant to applying the OH approach to the design and evaluation of AMR surveillance systems. We found that governance is a crucial component of the development of surveillance systems equipped to tackle complex, structural issues such as AMR. The governance domains identified include participation, coordination and collaboration, management, sustainability, accountability and transparency, and equity. These domains are relevant throughout all stages of policy design, implementation, and evaluation of AMR surveillance systems. Equity is both a domain and an essential component of the other domains. All the domains are interdependent and co-constitutive, so that progress in one domain can accelerate progress in another. The conceptual framework presented in this article can inform the design and evaluation of OH AMR governance systems and other complex health challenges that have similar barriers and facilitators to OH governance. The qualitative evaluation questions developed for each domain facilitate assessment of the breadth (the range of actors involved in governance) and depth (how meaningful their engagement is) for each domain relevant to OH governance. Finally, the prioritization of formal, sustainable, and democratic governance of AMR can help to facilitate achievement of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and promote conservation of the use of antimicrobials for future generations.

The question posed is how deep-time perspectives contribute to tackling contemporary One Health challenges, improving understanding and disease mitigation. Using evidence from the field of paleopathology, it is possible to explore this question and highlight key learning points from the past to focus the minds of those making healthcare policy decisions today. In previous centuries urbanization led to poorer health for a wide range of indicators, including life expectancy, sanitation and intestinal parasites, airway disorders such as maxillary sinusitis, metabolic diseases such as rickets, and even conditions resulting from clothing fashions such as bunions. Modern concerns regarding the quality of urban air and rivers show we have still to incorporate these lessons. When we consider major infectious diseases affecting past societies such as bubonic plague, tuberculosis and leprosy, interaction between humans and wild mammal reservoirs was key. Wild red squirrels in Britain today remain infected by the medieval strain of leprosy that affected people 1,500 years ago. It is clear that the One Health focus on the interaction between humans, animals and their environment is important. Eradicating zoonotic infectious diseases from humans but not these reservoirs leaves the door open to their spread back to people in the future.

The One Health discourse is dominated by the role of animal health as a determinant of human health. This discourse often disregards the intrinsic and ecological value of healthy animals and is thus an inadequate framing for wildlife conservation. Our paper reimagines One Health for conservation purposes based on five premises: (i) health is cumulative; (ii) there are multiple species with different health needs and goals in the same setting; (iii) One Health emphasizes “bundled” relationships unique to a setting, rather than independent and intersecting spheres of health; and One Health should be (iv) equity informed and (v) have a shared goal that can be achieved through intersectoral actions. The reimagined framework is centered on the guiding principle that all actions should ensure no species or generation is prevented from reaching good health by the actions to protect other species or generations. Grounded in the positive outcome of health equity, the framework uses three prompts to guide One Health planning – populations, places and goals. The paper discusses how the framework can be applied for research concerning wood bison herds under imminent threat in Canada.

For reasons of human health and sustainability, there is a growing interest in the potential of integrated nature-based interventions in healthcare. However, it is not clear which quality criteria underlie these interventions. Here, we develop a study protocol for a scoping review to explore potential quality criteria relating to the design, implementation and evaluation of nature-based interventions in healthcare institutions. The literature search will be conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus, focusing on studies published in English between January 2005 and April 2023. The Joanna Briggs Institute Scoping Review methodology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews with extension for scoping reviews will be used. Search terms were developed stepwise and in consultation with the interdisciplinary research team and the project steering group. Two researchers will perform the screening of the papers independently. Using descriptive content analysis, identified quality criteria will be classified according to the applied theoretical frameworks, outcomes, levels (institutional, professional and patient) and the domains of biodiversity, human health or intervention processes. Ultimately, this descriptive work will result in a set of quality indicators and a prototype nature-based intervention quality assessment framework, which will be presented to the project steering group and multi-stakeholder assembly for further refinement.

Several scientific communities and international health organizations promoting an interdependent human-nature health perspective are calling upon healthcare professionals (HCP) to integrate this vision into their practice and become role models. However, rising cases of stress, burnout, and depression, among this group jeopardize this potential and their self-care. Therefore, we conducted an exploratory qualitative study focusing on how HCP relate to their self-care, their relationship with nature and its implementation into their professional practice. Semi-structured interviews with 16 HCP were executed, transcribed and imported into NVivo. Using the six-step framework, we conducted a thematic analysis, followed by two-step member-checking. Three main findings arose. First, participants employ various self-care strategies outside of work whenever possible. Second, their nature experiences can be drawn along a continuum ranging in level of intensity, attitude and reciprocity, which does not seem to be disclosed during consultation. Third, the reflexive interviews may have led to increased awareness and agency on the former topics, which we have termed ‘nature-connected care awareness’. A preliminary framework to stimulate nature-connected care awareness could support HCP in becoming a role model.

Evidence consistently shows that the benefits Nature-based Solutions generate are determined by several individual characteristics such as gender, age, sexuality, ethnicity and disability. As a result, Nature-based Solutions can perpetuate existing inequalities and even create new inequalities partly because diverse minority and marginalized people are underrepresented in the process of designing and implementing Nature-based Solutions. Therefore, some Nature-based Solutions scholars have highlighted the necessity to actively involve diverse minority and marginalized groups into the co-creation processes of Nature-based Solutions and to investigate who benefits from the Nature-based Solution and why. Within the GoGreenRoutes H2020 project a transdisciplinary gender, inclusion and diversity panel was established in order to map existing challenges within the consortium. Concordantly, relevant scientific resources and policy documents were identified. Both were blended during consensus meetings in order to develop a common understanding leading to a theoretical gender, inclusion and diversity framework. This framework consists of five domains: (1) gender equality; (2) LGBTQI + rights; (3) social, cultural and ethnic background; (4) people with disabilities; (5) integration of refugees and immigrants; and (6) intergenerational perspectives. Further, the framework was operationalized through the development of a checklist for researchers and practitioners.