A new global review led by the University of New England argues that the world must stop treating “One Health” as a side project and instead weave it directly into the way health systems are governed, financed and staffed.
Published in Public Health in Practice in April 2026, the study was led by UNE Associate Professor Md. Shahidul Islam with co‑authors Nusrat Jahan and Daniel Teshome Gebeyehu. It is one of the first systematic reviews to look across countries and ask a deceptively simple question: what actually happens when governments try to put One Health into practice inside real health systems?
“One Health is no longer a niche idea,” Associate Professor Islam said. “It is central to how we deal with pandemics, antimicrobial resistance and climate driven disease risks. Our review shows that unless it is built into core health system functions, it will remain fragile and fragmented.”
One Health is no longer a niche idea.
The One Health approach recognises that the health of people, animals and ecosystems is deeply interconnected. It has gained prominence in the wake of outbreaks such as avian influenza, Ebola, SARS and COVID 19, as well as the accelerating crisis of antimicrobial resistance. In 2022, the World Health Organization, FAO, WOAH and UNEP jointly endorsed a unified One Health definition and a global One Health Joint Plan of Action, signalling high level political support.
Associate Professor Islam’s team sifted through 2606 records and identified 17 peer reviewed studies from Africa, Asia, Europe, Australia, Latin America and multi country settings. Using a health systems lens, they found that the same structural problems keep resurfacing regardless of geography or income level.
Across the studies, five recurring system level barriers stood out. Countries struggle with fragmented governance and unclear institutional mandates, leaving veterinary, public health and environmental agencies working in silos. Funding tends to be short term and donor driven, with few dedicated budget lines for One Health. There are not enough professionals trained to work across human, animal and environmental health, and awareness among policymakers remains patchy. Legal and regulatory frameworks lag behind practice, and many systems lack the laboratory and surveillance infrastructure needed to share data across sectors.
Crucially, the review also identifies clear opportunities. Major zoonotic outbreaks and the rising burden of antimicrobial resistance have pushed One Health higher on political agendas. International organisations are providing stronger institutional backing, and universities are beginning to offer interdisciplinary programs and research platforms that give One Health a practical foothold.
“The evidence is consistent,” Associate Professor Islam said. “Where countries embed One Health principles into legislation, governance structures, financing and workforce training, they make more sustained progress. Parallel projects and ad hoc committees are not enough.”
Where countries embed One Health principles into legislation, governance structures, financing and workforce training, they make more sustained progress.
UNE is already applying these insights through its teaching and research. The University’s Master of Public Health (One Health) course positions graduates to work at the human–animal–environment interface, particularly in regional and rural contexts where zoonotic and environmental health risks are close to everyday life.
“Our review underlines the need for public health professionals who can think and act across sectors,” Associate Professor Islam said. “UNE’s One Health public health course is designed to build exactly that kind of interdisciplinary capacity, from policy and governance through to surveillance and community engagement.”
As governments revisit pandemic preparedness, climate adaptation and antimicrobial resistance strategies, the UNE led study offers a clear message. One Health will only fulfil its promise if it is treated as a foundation of health systems, not an optional add on.
