Several holistic and interdisciplinary approaches exist to safeguard health. Three of the most influential concepts at the moment, One Health, EcoHealth and Planetary Health, are analyzed in this paper, revealing similarities and differences at the theoretical conceptual level. These approaches may appear synonymous, as they all promote the underlying assumption of humans and other animals sharing the same planet and the same environmental challenges, infections and infectious agents as well as other aspects of physical – and possibly mental – health. However, we would like to illuminate the differences between these three concepts or approaches, and how the choice of terms may, deliberately or involuntary, signal the focus and underlying values of the approaches. In this paper we have chosen some proposed and well-known suggestions of definitions. In our theoretical analysis we will focus on at least two areas. These are 1) the value of the potential scientific areas which could be included and 2) core values present within the approach. In the first area our main concern is whether the approaches are interdisciplinary and whether the core scientific areas are assigned equal importance. For the second area, which is rather wide, we analyze core values such as biodiversity, health and how one values humans, animals and ecosystems. One Health has been described as either a narrow approach combining public health and veterinary medicine or as a wide approach as in the wide-spread ‘umbrella’ depiction including both scientific fields, core concepts and interdisciplinary research areas. In both cases, however, safeguarding the health of vertebrates is usually in focus although ecosystems are also included in the model. The EcoHealth approach seems to have more of a biodiversity focus, with an emphasis on all living creatures, implying that parasites, unicellular organisms and possibly also viruses have a value and should be protected. Planetary Health, on the other hand, has been put forward as a fruitful approach to deal with growing threats in the health area, not least globally. We conclude that there are actually important differences between these three approaches, which should be kept in mind when using any of these terms.

The concept of health in One Health and some practical implications for research and education: what is One Health?

Background: An important field of human–animal interactions is animal-assisted interventions (AAIs), which refers to research on human–animal interactions in order to promote or facilitate health or education in humans. Very few studies among the rich literature on AAIs seem to include aspects of animal welfare and/or animal ethics. Also, very few studies on AAIs have a comprehensive human–animal approach that studies animals, humans, and the relations between them at the same time. This paper tries to argue for and present a possible comprehensive human–animal approach to evaluate AAIs. Methods: A combination of the species and role approach proposed by Lerner, the capability approach proposed by Nussbaum, and a modified comprehensive human–animal approach to evaluate AAIs proposed by Lerner and Silfverberg was philosophically analyzed. Results: This paper shows that the combination is the modified role and species version of the capabilities approach, and by following it one could do a comprehensive human–animal approach of an evaluation of AAIs. Conclusion: Although the aim was reached for horses and animal-assisted therapy, further work needs to be done for all species suggested in the IAHAIO (International Association of Human–Animal Interaction Organizations) White Paper as well as for all branches of AAIs in order to establish this comprehensive human–animal approach.