Published in PLOS One on 2026-03-02, this study is presented as an attributed evidence briefing. The excerpts below are the original researchers’ words, reproduced under their Creative Commons Attribution licence. Health Signal has selected the abstract and, where needed, opening background paragraphs; the complete methods, results, limitations and references remain in the linked paper.
Original authors: Evan F Griffith, Angela Opondoh, Catherine Kaluwa, Erenius Lochede Nakadio, Kipkorir Rotich, Job Ronoh Kipkemoi, Jonah Levin, Jacob Mutua, Siobhan M Mor, Janetrix Hellen Amuguni, Eric Ogola
Source: PLOS One • DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0338167
Read the complete primary study ↗ · Creative Commons Attribution licence
From the researchers
Abstract
One Health (OH) has gained global recognition as a framework and practice for addressing interconnected health and sustainability challenges, such as emerging infectious diseases, food insecurity and climate change. Yet its operationalization remains limited, in part due to persistent differences in how OH is conceptualized across sectors and knowledge systems, including Indigenous knowledge holders and environmental actors. To address these gaps, we applied a mixed methods approach that combined fuzzy cognitive mapping (FCM) with grounded theory (GT) to examine stakeholder priorities and conceptualization of OH in Turkana County, Kenya. Thirty-six fuzzy cognitive maps were co-developed with community members, frontline workers, health, veterinary, and NGO stakeholders, then aggregated by group and analyzed using network metrics including normalized degree centrality and Jaccard similarity. Results revealed areas of alignment and convergence in OH conceptualization and perspective. Conceptually, the environment group map was the most distinct, while the health and NGO maps were the most similar. Environmental actors emphasized human-driven degradation, while community members described a pluralistic health system and the importance of wild foods, both absent from other group narratives. Shared priorities such as human and livestock health, nutrition, and water resources represent potential entry points for cross-sectoral integration. These findings demonstrate that barriers to OH operationalization are not only structural, but also shaped by differences in knowledge, experience, and problem framing across sectors and society within the socioecological system. Embedding ecosystem services, biodiversity, and traditional knowledge at the core of OH can enhance inclusivity and contextual relevance. Our integrated FCM-GT approach offers a transferable framework for participatory systems research, providing actionable insights for more inclusive and ecologically grounded OH implementation.
Introduction
Over the past few decades, One Health (OH) has gained widespread global recognition as a conceptual framework and practice for addressing interconnected threats to human, other animal, and environmental health [1]. Yet despite its prominence and broad conceptual appeal, operationalizing OH remains difficult, hindered by technical, institutional, and structural barriers, as well as issues of sustainability and competing priorities [2–4]. These limitations have hindered efforts to design integrated policies and generate actionable data across complex socioecological systems (SES), preventing OH from realizing its full potential [5].
A key factor underlying these limitations is the underrepresentation of environment actors in OH policy and practice. While OH reportedly recognizes human, animal, environment interconnectedness [6], environmental stakeholders, such as those involved in natural resource management, water and land governance, and biodiversity conservation, are often excluded from OH policies and initiatives [7–9]. This exclusion limits the ability of OH initiatives to address the ecological determinants of health and undermines efforts to build cross-sectoral responses to complex, interconnected challenges [5].
Reading this evidence
Use the full paper to check the study design, participant selection, comparator and outcome definitions before drawing a practical conclusion. An association does not by itself show cause and effect. A reported performance measure needs its denominator and uncertainty. A finding from a particular facility, sample or time period should retain that scope when it is discussed elsewhere.
This briefing makes the source accessible within the wider research & evidence desk. It does not assess an individual patient or certify a product. When considering relevance to another health system, examine the original authors’ account of context and limitations, then seek local implementation evidence. The related reporting below provides other studies to read alongside this one; it is a topic connection, rather than a claim that their results are directly comparable.
© 2026 Evan F Griffith, Angela Opondoh, Catherine Kaluwa, Erenius Lochede Nakadio, Kipkorir Rotich, Job Ronoh Kipkemoi, Jonah Levin, Jacob Mutua, Siobhan M Mor, Janetrix Hellen Amuguni, Eric Ogola. Excerpts reproduced under CC BY. Selection, formatting and contextual notes by Health Signal. The researchers are the authors of the source study, not members of Health Signal’s staff.
Explore connected evidence
- Evidence brief: Understanding policy alignment in addressing hydrological hazards in the Niger Delta region, Nigeria
- Evidence brief: Navigating cancer: Insights from patient journey mapping
- Evidence brief: Development of a collaborative chronic care model for management of cardiometabolic disease in low- and middle-income countries
