Emerging zoonoses with pandemic potential are a stated priority for the global health security agenda, but endemic zoonoses also have a major societal impact in low-resource settings. Although many endemic zoonoses can be treated, timely diagnosis and appropriate clinical management of human cases is often challenging. Preventive ‘One Health’ interventions, e.g. interventions in animal populations that generate human health benefits, may provide a useful approach to overcoming some of these challenges. Effective strategies, such as animal vaccination, already exist for the prevention, control and elimination of many endemic zoonoses, including rabies, and several livestock zoonoses (e.g. brucellosis, leptospirosis, Q fever) that are important causes of human febrile illness and livestock productivity losses in low- and middle-income countries. We make the case that, for these diseases, One Health interventions have the potential to be more effective and generate more equitable benefits for human health and livelihoods, particularly in rural areas, than approaches that rely exclusively on treatment of human cases. We hypothesize that applying One Health interventions to tackle these health challenges will help to build trust, community engagement and cross-sectoral collaboration, which will in turn strengthen the capacity of fragile health systems to respond to the threat of emerging zoonoses and other future health challenges. One Health interventions thus have the potential to align the ongoing needs of disadvantaged communities with the concerns of the broader global community, providing a pragmatic and equitable approach to meeting the global goals for sustainable development and supporting the global health security agenda. This article is part of the themed issue ‘One Health for a changing world: zoonoses, ecosystems and human well-being’.

Many serious emerging zoonotic infections have recently arisen from bats, including Ebola, Marburg, SARS-coronavirus, Hendra, Nipah, and a number of rabies and rabies-related viruses, consistent with the overall observation that wildlife are an important source of emerging zoonoses for the human population. Mechanisms underlying the recognized association between ecosystem health and human health remain poorly understood and responding appropriately to the ecological, social and economic conditions that facilitate disease emergence and transmission represents a substantial societal challenge. In the context of disease emergence from wildlife, wildlife and habitat should be conserved, which in turn will preserve vital ecosystem structure and function, which has broader implications for human wellbeing and environmental sustainability, while simultaneously minimizing the spillover of pathogens from wild animals into human beings. In this review, we propose a novel framework for the holistic and interdisciplinary investigation of zoonotic disease emergence and its drivers, using the spillover of bat pathogens as a case study. This study has been developed to gain a detailed interdisciplinary understanding, and it combines cutting-edge perspectives from both natural and social sciences, linked to policy impacts on public health, land use and conservation.

Gender is often neglected in health systems, yet health systems are not gender neutral. Within health systems research, gender analysis seeks to understand how gender power relations create inequities in access to resources, the distribution of labour and roles, social norms and values, and decision-making. This paper synthesises findings from nine studies focusing on four health systems domains, namely human resources, service delivery, governance and financing. It provides examples of how a gendered and/or intersectional gender approach can be applied by researchers in a range of low- and middle-income settings (Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Uganda, India, China, Nigeria and Tanzania) to issues across the health system and demonstrates that these types of analysis can uncover new and novel ways of viewing seemingly intractable problems. The research used a combination of mixed, quantitative, qualitative and participatory methods, demonstrating the applicability of diverse research methods for gender and intersectional analysis. Within each study, the researchers adapted and applied a variety of gender and intersectional tools to assist with data collection and analysis, including different gender frameworks. Some researchers used participatory tools, such as photovoice and life histories, to prompt deeper and more personal reflections on gender norms from respondents, whereas others used conventional qualitative methods (in-depth interviews, focus group discussion). Findings from across the studies were reviewed and key themes were extracted and summarised. Five core themes that cut across the different projects were identified and are reported in this paper as follows: the intersection of gender with other social stratifiers; the importance of male involvement; the influence of gendered social norms on health system structures and processes; reliance on (often female) unpaid carers within the health system; and the role of gender within policy and practice. These themes indicate the relevance of and need for gender analysis within health systems research. The implications of the diverse examples of gender and health systems research highlighted indicate that policy-makers, health practitioners and others interested in enhancing health system research and delivery have solid grounds to advance their enquiry and that one-size-fits-all heath interventions that ignore gender and intersectionality dimensions require caution. It is essential that we build upon these insights in our efforts and commitment to move towards greater equity both locally and globally.

Background: Globally, the rapid growth of technology and its use as a development solution has generated much interest in digital health. In line with global trends, Bangladesh is also integrating technology into its health system to address disparities. Strong political endorsement and uptake of digital platforms by the government has influenced the rapid proliferation of such initiatives in the country. This paper aims to examine the implications of digital health on access to health care in Bangladesh, considering who uses electronic devices to access health information and services and why. Objective: This study aims to understand how access to health care and related information through electronic means (digital health) is affected by sociodemographic determinants (ie, age, gender, education, socioeconomic status, and personal and household ownership of mobile phones) in a semiurban community in Bangladesh. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of 854 households (between October 2013 and February 2014) and 20 focus group discussions (between February 2017 and March 2017) were conducted to understand (1) who owns electronic devices; (2) who, among the owners, uses these to access health information and services and why; (3) the awareness of electronic sources of health information; and (4) the role of intermediaries (family members or peers who helped to look for health information using electronic devices). Results: A total of 90.3% (771/854) of households (471/854, 55.2% of respondents) owned electronic devices, mostly mobile phones. Among these, 7.2% (34/471) used them to access health information or services. Middle-aged (35-54 years), female, less (or not) educated, and poorer people used these devices the least (α=.05, α is the level of significance). The lack of awareness, discomfort, differences with regular care-seeking habits, lack of understanding and skills, and proximity to a health facility were the main reasons for not using devices to access digital health. Conclusions: Although influenced by sociodemographic traits, access to digital health is not merely related to device ownership and technical skill. Rather, it is a combination of general health literacy, phone ownership, material resources, and technical skill as well as social recognition of health needs and inequity. This study’s findings should serve as a basis for better integrating technology within the health system and ensuring equitable access to health care.

Interdisciplinary research on zoonotic disease has tended to focus on ‘risk’ of disease transmission as a conceptual common denominator. With reference to endemic zoonoses at the livestock–human interface, we argue for considering a broader sweep of disciplinary insights from anthropology and other social sciences in interdisciplinary dialogue, in particular cross-cultural perspectives on human–animal engagement. We consider diverse worldviews where human–animal encounters are perceived of in terms of the kinds of social relations they generate, and the notion of culture is extended to the ‘natural’ world. This has implications for how animals are valued, treated and prioritized. Thinking differently with and about animals and about species' boundaries could enable ways of addressing zoonotic diseases which have closer integration with people's own cultural norms. If we can bring this kind of knowledge into One Health debates, we find ourselves with a multiplicity of worldviews, where bounded categories such as human:animal and nature:culture cannot be assumed. This might in turn influence our scientific ways of seeing our own disciplinary cultures, and generate novel ways of understanding zoonoses and constructing solutions. This article is part of the themed issue ‘One Health for a changing world: zoonoses, ecosystems and human well-being’.

Global risks of zoonotic disease are high on policy agendas. Increasingly, Africa is seen as a ‘hotspot’, with likely disease spillovers from animals to humans. This paper explores the social dynamics of disease exposure, demonstrating how risks are not generalised, but are related to occupation, gender, class and other dimensions of social difference. Through case studies of Lassa Fever in Sierra Leone, Henipah virus in Ghana, Rift Valley Fever in Kenya and Trypanosomiasis in Zimbabwe, the paper proposes a social difference space–time framework to assist the understanding of and response to zoonotic diseases within a ‘One Health’ approach.