Scholarlink

Background <p>Prevention of zoonotic spillover requires an understanding of how human, animal, and environmental interactions shape risk in everyday life. Efforts have focused largely on surveillance and response rather than on primary prevention informed by lived experience. In Southeast Asia—a recognised hotspot for zoonotic emergence—there is limited qualitative evidence describing how spillover risk is shaped by routine practices, environmental change, and structural constraints, and how such evidence can inform the design of One Health education interventions.</p> Methods <p>We conducted a formative qualitative study in Nan Province, northern Thailand, employing shared walks, in-depth interviews, community mapping, and participant and non-participant observation. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and organised using a qualitative One Health Risk Interface Framework encompassing human–animal, human–environment, human-human, animal–animal and animal–environment interfaces.</p> Results <p>Spillover risk and mitigation was produced and experienced through routine food preparation, hunting, farming, and caregiving practices. The human–animal interface includes frequent handling of wildlife and domestic animals, mixed-species environments, and informal meat processing. The human–environment interface is characterised by water scarcity, contamination, deforestation, landslides, and inadequate waste management. The human-human interface describes information and communication issues and how these problems can be addressed. The animal–animal and animal–environment interfaces reflect shifting ecologies driven by land-use change, secondary forests, and agricultural intensification, bringing wildlife, livestock, and people into closer proximity. </p> Conclusion <p>Zoonotic spillover risk in rural Thailand is produced through interconnected behavioural, ecological, and structural processes that cannot be addressed through individual behaviour change alone. An education intervention will need to develop both knowledge and skills within a broader framework of conservation and acknowledgment of structural resource constraints.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Understanding zoonotic spillover interfaces for the design of a One Health education intervention: a qualitative baseline study from rural Thailand

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年8月4日

查看全文
  • Kate Bärnighausen,
  • Monchai Phongsiri,
  • Kyra Lilier,
  • Simaphon Tomklang,
  • Theerayuth Labooth,
  • Thanapat Chaibut,
  • Pongsakon Jaruton,
  • Kotthamon Chanprathad,
  • Sarutaya Suphawatthanaphan,
  • Hans Overgaard,
  • Mark Donald C. Reñosa,
  • Bianca Joyce Sornillo,
  • Jonas Wachinger,
  • Hussein Amin,
  • Mohamed Shelil,
  • Cassia Rocha Pompeu,
  • Uliana Kachnova,
  • Doreen Montag,
  • Vidhya Sasitharan,
  • Till Bärnighausen,
  • Marina Treskova,
  • Patcharin Lapanun

摘要

Background

Prevention of zoonotic spillover requires an understanding of how human, animal, and environmental interactions shape risk in everyday life. Efforts have focused largely on surveillance and response rather than on primary prevention informed by lived experience. In Southeast Asia—a recognised hotspot for zoonotic emergence—there is limited qualitative evidence describing how spillover risk is shaped by routine practices, environmental change, and structural constraints, and how such evidence can inform the design of One Health education interventions.

Methods

We conducted a formative qualitative study in Nan Province, northern Thailand, employing shared walks, in-depth interviews, community mapping, and participant and non-participant observation. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and organised using a qualitative One Health Risk Interface Framework encompassing human–animal, human–environment, human-human, animal–animal and animal–environment interfaces.

Results

Spillover risk and mitigation was produced and experienced through routine food preparation, hunting, farming, and caregiving practices. The human–animal interface includes frequent handling of wildlife and domestic animals, mixed-species environments, and informal meat processing. The human–environment interface is characterised by water scarcity, contamination, deforestation, landslides, and inadequate waste management. The human-human interface describes information and communication issues and how these problems can be addressed. The animal–animal and animal–environment interfaces reflect shifting ecologies driven by land-use change, secondary forests, and agricultural intensification, bringing wildlife, livestock, and people into closer proximity.

Conclusion

Zoonotic spillover risk in rural Thailand is produced through interconnected behavioural, ecological, and structural processes that cannot be addressed through individual behaviour change alone. An education intervention will need to develop both knowledge and skills within a broader framework of conservation and acknowledgment of structural resource constraints.