Stakeholder attitudes and perspectives on wildlife disease surveillance as a component of a One Health approach in Thailand

Serena Elise George; Moniek Smink; Nareerat Sangkachai; Anuwat Wiratsudakul; Walasinee Sakcamduang; Sarin Suwanpakdee; Jonathan M Sleeman

doi:10.1016/j.onehlt.2023.100600

Stakeholder attitudes and perspectives on wildlife disease surveillance as a component of a One Health approach in Thailand

One Health. 2023 Jul 10:17:100600. doi: 10.1016/j.onehlt.2023.100600. eCollection 2023 Dec.

Authors

Serena Elise George¹, Moniek Smink², Nareerat Sangkachai^{3

4}, Anuwat Wiratsudakul^{3

4

5}, Walasinee Sakcamduang^{3

5}, Sarin Suwanpakdee^{3

4

5}, Jonathan M Sleeman⁶

Affiliations

¹ University of Wisconsin-Madison, School of Veterinary Medicine, 2015 Linden Dr, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
² University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Computer Sciences, 1210 W Dayton St, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
³ Thailand National Wildlife Health Center, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Mahidol University, 999 Phuttamonthon 4 Road, Salaya, Nakhon Pathom 73170, Thailand.
⁴ The Monitoring and Surveillance Center for Zoonotic Diseases in Wildlife and Exotic Animals, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Mahidol University, 999 Phuttamonthon 4 Road, Salaya, Nakhon Pathom 73170, Thailand.
⁵ Department of Clinical Sciences and Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Mahidol University, 999 Phuttamonthon 4 Road, Salaya, Nakhon Pathom 73170, Thailand.
⁶ U.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife Health Center, 6006 Schroeder Rd, Madison, WI 53711, USA.

Abstract

Coordinated wildlife disease surveillance (WDS) can help professionals across disciplines effectively safeguard human, animal, and environmental health. The aims of this study were to understand how WDS in Thailand is utilized, valued, and can be improved within a One Health framework. An online questionnaire was distributed to 183 professionals (55.7% response rate) across Thailand working in wildlife, marine animal, livestock, domestic animal, zoo animal, environmental, and public health sectors. Twelve semi-structured interviews with key professionals were then performed. Three-quarters of survey respondents reported using WDS data and information. Sectors agreed upon ranking disease control (76.5% of respondents) as the most beneficial outcome of WDS, while fostering new ideas through collaboration was valued by few participants (2.0%). Accessing data collected by one's own sector was identified as the most challenging (50%) yet least difficult to improve (88.3%). Having legal authority to conduct WDS was the second most frequently identified challenge. Interviewees explained that legal documentation required for cross-institutional collaborations posed a barrier to efficient communication and use of human resources. Survey respondents identified allocation of human resources (75.5%), adequate budget (71.6%), and having a clear communication system between sectors (71.6%) as highest priority areas for improvement to WDS in Thailand. Authorization from administrative officials and support from local community members were identified as challenges during in-person interviews. Future outreach may be directed toward these groups. As 42.9% of marine health professionals had difficulty knowing whom to contact in other sectors and 28.4% of survey respondents indicated that communication with marine health professionals was not applicable to their work, connecting the marine sector with other sectors may be prioritized. This study identifies priorities for addressing current challenges in the establishment of a general WDS system and information management system in Thailand while presenting a model for such evaluation in other regions.

Keywords: One health; Survey; Thailand; Wildlife disease surveillance.