Vector-Borne Diseases Stakeholder Mapping in Finland: A One Health Approach
This is a modal window.
Das Video konnte nicht geladen werden, da entweder ein Server- oder Netzwerkfehler auftrat oder das Format nicht unterstützt wird.
Formale Metadaten
| Titel |
| |
| Serientitel | ||
| Anzahl der Teile | 45 | |
| Autor | ||
| Lizenz | CC-Namensnennung 3.0 Deutschland: Sie dürfen das Werk bzw. den Inhalt zu jedem legalen Zweck nutzen, verändern und in unveränderter oder veränderter Form vervielfältigen, verbreiten und öffentlich zugänglich machen, sofern Sie den Namen des Autors/Rechteinhabers in der von ihm festgelegten Weise nennen. | |
| Identifikatoren | 10.5446/60688 (DOI) | |
| Herausgeber | ||
| Erscheinungsjahr | ||
| Sprache | ||
| Produzent | ||
| Produktionsjahr | 2023 | |
| Produktionsort | Wageningen |
Inhaltliche Metadaten
| Fachgebiet | ||
| Genre | ||
| Abstract |
| |
| Schlagwörter |
MOOD Science Webinars28 / 45
9
13
24
25
26
35
36
38
40
42
43
44
00:00
Computeranimation
00:50
Computeranimation
07:53
Computeranimation
14:55
ComputeranimationBesprechung/Interview
17:03
Besprechung/Interview
Transkript: Englisch(automatisch erzeugt)
00:10
Hello, my name is Anina Köptinen and I'm currently a visiting researcher at THL and today I'll be talking about my research regarding vector-borne diseases and One Health stakeholders in Finland and I'll go through the aims and briefly the materials and methods of the research
00:30
research and then concentrate on their results. And as with Henne's project, I also got a lot of results. So I'll just go briefly through the main points.
00:42
So the topic of the study was vector-borne diseases, stakeholder mapping in Finland, a One Health approach. So the aims of this research were to map the current and missing stakeholder and actor interactions related to vector-borne diseases and their management in Finland
01:02
within a One Health context and by stakeholders and actors, I mean all the different persons and organisations with a vested interest in vector-borne diseases and One Health in Finland. It was also my aim to discuss and reflect on the future of a possible One Health inspired vector-borne
01:23
disease network in Finland and what the chances and means and the possible challenges of establishing one in Finland would be. The more specific research questions were, one, what and whom are the current key stakeholders and actors related to vector-borne disease research,
01:45
management, surveillance, control and prevention in Finland and to what extent are these stakeholders interdisciplinary, multisectoral and multileveled. Two, what kind of connections and interactions take place between different stakeholders
02:02
in Finland and to how and whom is knowledge and data shared to and what are the main challenges for collaboration between the key stakeholders. And then thirdly, what kind of stakeholder collaboration do the different VBD stakeholders wish for in the future and what are the needs for a multidisciplinary vector-borne disease expert network in Finland.
02:30
So briefly about the materials and methods of the research. The research was a qualitative semi-structured interview based research. It took place between June 21 and December 2022
02:45
and the data collection phase happened between October 21 and December 21. The use methods for collecting the sample pool were firstly convenience sampling, followed by snowball sampling. And I interviewed 10 experts,
03:05
three face-to-face and seven remotely and the average duration of each interview was 56 minutes. I had an interview guide with four different themes and this interview guide I produced based on a previous stakeholder mapping study
03:23
of tick and tick-borne disease management in southern France. This was Ayanasartman's master's thesis in 2020. And then from this interview guide I modified the guide to better meet my research objectives and also the particularities related to vector-borne diseases in Finland. And the analysis phase of the research
03:51
was done by using content analysis and an RD analysis method. So the information collected during the interviews, so the four themes of the interview guide,
04:05
were firstly we were interested in the professional domain, the expertise and knowledge of these interview stakeholders, the partnerships and collaborations between actors and stakeholders in Finland,
04:22
their participation and a need for a network among VBD experts in Finland and fourthly also we were interested in integrated approaches to health and more specifically the One Health approach. So we
04:41
questioned the stakeholders' knowledge and experiences on these approaches. So back to the results. So in total 139 potential direct and indirect vector-borne disease and One Health stakeholders from various sectors and levels were identified
05:02
and these stakeholders were categorized into five different sectors, which were healthcare, research, expertise, agencies, ministries and policymakers and other collaborating actors. And then each of these sectors was then further divided into sub-sectors.
05:22
And since there were several stakeholders identified, which had actual minimal influence or role in the system in Finland, a group of 20 key stakeholders was further identified from the transcripts. And if a stakeholder was mentioned in half or more of the individual interviews,
05:45
it was regarded as a key stakeholder and that's how I got the figure 20. The key stakeholders represented the following fields. So research, healthcare, expertise, agencies and other collaborating actors and interestingly
06:04
no actor under the category of ministries and policymakers was identified as a key stakeholder in this research. Instead, the field of research had the biggest representation among these key stakeholders and
06:21
some of the actors identified were, for example, three different Finnish universities, several researchers, international research projects and one national research network, the VEC limit. So the identified key stakeholders were also categorized by their domain in One Health.
06:45
So human health, animal health, ecology and other. And based on this, the field of human health had the biggest emphasis among the identified stakeholders or key stakeholders. Then animal and environmental health, so ecology were also represented quite well, but
07:09
then compared to other fields such as social sciences and humanities, these were quite severely neglected in the list of identified key stakeholders. So here you can see a results table
07:23
of the key stakeholders in Finland and how they're categorized by the sector and domain in One Health and also the number of interviews each stakeholder was referenced to. And you can also see, I don't know if you can see my
07:44
arrow. Well, if it's too small, I'll just read out some interesting bits. So research has the biggest representation after we have healthcare expertise agencies and then a few other collaborating actors. There are a few individual key researchers identified which were very
08:08
often referenced in the interviews, also joint EU projects. In this case, mood VO was identified or referenced in five of the interviews.
08:22
In healthcare, we have human diagnostic laboratories, infectious diseases, doctors and other clinical physicians and then veterinarians and patients. And in this group only veterinarians represented the domain of one animal health and all others were presenting human health.
08:44
And then expertise agencies identified were the Finnish Institute of Health and Welfare, the Finnish Food Agency, the Authority and the Natural Resources Institute of Finland. And the two other collaborating actors mentioned were the general public and the Finnish media and this
09:07
finding relates to what Henne was talking about previously, how the key stakeholders were discussing the Finnish media's role of informing people about vector-borne diseases.
09:23
Then a bit about the stakeholder interactions. So what we found out was that the vector-borne disease and One Health networks in Finland are currently mostly built upon unofficial personal connection based on individual researchers
09:44
on activity and eagerness to connect with other colleagues in Finland and globally. These collaboration and networks rely heavily on a few Finnish individual key experts which were identified in the previous table.
10:01
And also with research projects with external funding and this results in an uncertainty in the longevity of BBD and One Health collaborations in Finland. It was also interestingly found out that stakeholder collaboration with the private sector, with independent agencies,
10:23
NGOs, professional and scientific associations and other foundations in Finland is currently very limited. The lacks and challenges in collaboration activities between stakeholders can be condensed to these five points. So there's a lack of higher level coordination of vector-borne disease and One Health collaboration activities in Finland.
10:46
There was also a reported lack of collaboration between Finnish governmental agencies and lower level stakeholders. And a general lack of resources was reported, so monetary time and workforce.
11:05
It was also noted that different interests and also renewed governmental agency strategies with had less emphasis in topics related to vector-borne diseases. These affected in collaborating with other stakeholders.
11:24
There was also some problems with data and information flow regarding difficulties in stakeholders receiving, using and transferring adequate data between different stakeholders. And then finally, the questions related to the potential vector-borne disease expert network in Finland.
11:49
All of the 10 interviewed stakeholders supported the forming of an official BBD and One Health network in Finland. They wished that this official network would enhance stakeholder collaboration, information sharing and the data management
12:08
related to vector-borne diseases. And also, it was brought up that there was a need to enhance vector and vector-borne disease surveillance and risk preparedness, especially related to climate
12:24
change and the re-emergence and emergence of vectors and vector-borne diseases in Finland. And the stakeholders interviewed in this research, hoped that this network would have a role in enhancing this. What the interviews proposed in the
12:44
study, they wished for higher level coordination of the potential network, that the network would have adequate resources, and that it would have a broad attendance from different fields and levels. They suggested utilizing current national networks, for example, the back limit network as a base for forming this potential official network.
13:11
They suggested yearly meetings and, in addition, ad hoc meetings, if needed, or if there was something interesting or a risk appeared.
13:22
Also, a platform for vector-borne disease discussion and data sharing for the network was discussed and wished for. Okay, and then the recommendations and some of the real world applications of this study.
13:42
We recommend an establishment of a formal multidisciplinary and multi-level vector-borne disease expert network in Finland. There are greater efforts needed to ensure that currently the neglected fields of study and stakeholders would be included in this future networks, so all fields, human,
14:03
animal and environmental health and especially social sciences and humanities should be presented in the network and also all key governmental institutions and other key stakeholders should have a representation.
14:21
There should be higher level coordination and formal cooperation between stakeholders organized within that network. Consideration should be paid to the formation of a clear and shared agenda within the network and the unified understanding between stakeholders of the One Health approach. Also, adequate resources should
14:43
be made available for research, management, surveillance, control and prevention of vector-borne diseases in Finland. In general, so thank you.
15:06
Yes, what I was wondering, you interviewed 10 stakeholders and, of course, I think they might mention themselves or mention certain institutes more often and some institutes you didn't interview, probably that you did identify as stakeholders, so did you try to correct the number of times stakeholders were mentioned for the
15:27
specific stakeholders you did interview? I can imagine some were mentioned more often because you made certain choices in who you interviewed. I explained this in some of the parts of the research, but the only correction that I made was that
15:47
I only took the stakeholder, if it was mentioned, I mean, I didn't count all the times that it was mentioned because people can just, some can talk more or, in a sense, so I only, even though it was mentioned, say like
16:06
20 times in one interview, I only took it as a one mention. Do you understand what I mean? Yes, thank you. Yeah, yeah, okay. And how did I define,
16:22
I don't, I didn't define the direct and undirected in a sense, I just, I had 100 and almost 40 different stakeholders, so some were for example, identified as like
16:40
huntsmen or pet owners or that didn't have such a kind of powerful actual role in the system, so those were defined as undirected stakeholders. Thank you, I'm looking forward to reading your publication on this work.
17:04
Hi, I have a comment slash question. Hi Anina, so nice to see you after so many months. Iona Zortman, I'm a PhD student at the CIRAAD and I was part of the advising team for Anina's research.
17:25
I was just wondering, Anina, if you could maybe discuss a bit about when you say higher level coordination, can you explain a little bit about what determines higher level? Is it based on like
17:42
political, geographic kind of location or? Like ministries and policymakers, so with actual like political or policy influence on
18:00
kind of implementing stuff or making decisions. Okay, so even though the higher, like these types of, because you had said ministries and policymakers weren't just defined, surprisingly weren't defined as key stakeholders, but they were identified as
18:22
people with which the other stakeholders would like to have more interactions with or improved interactions with. Yes, and these were, for example, like government ministries, say the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health or the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry or different government agencies,
18:44
government officials. Okay, perfect, thank you. I have a quick question. Forgive me if I didn't pick it up in your talk, but there are quite a lot of other countries that have similar initiatives
19:02
and there are international initiatives also. I wondered whether you had looked at those to see, well, A, to make sure that what you're proposing is compatible and B, to pick up any lessons you might think of from them. We did look through Ayana's research and then kind of to the, what to go,
19:25
like to go forward and what to research next would be to go through some of the different countries, for example, Netherland and
19:40
was it, I can't remember, UK or where was the other one in Europe, for kind of actually for the formation of the network as benchmarks, but I didn't unfortunately have the time and resources to go through all the new countries.
20:01
I'm not suggesting it's a gap in what you've done, but I mean quite a lot of efforts have gone into international ones, particularly. And your concept of the one health bit is clearly rather advanced upon that, which is great, but I think I can think of Switzerland, UK,
20:20
Belgium, I think there are quite a few and there's quite a few EU ones as well, which might be, you know, if you progress with this, it might be worth having a look and seeing what's out there because if nothing else, then things like standardisation of data reporting and all that sort of thing can be picked up from there to make sure everything's consistent and compatible.