Dr Benjamin Ewald

One Health is a concept which fosters collaborative relationships between human health, animal health and environmental health partners. Diseases are emerging and re-emerging in South Asia due to poor sanitation, close proximity of people to livestock, deforestation, porous borders, climate change, changes in human behaviour and unhygienic food preparation and consumption practices. This review was completed in two stages. First, we conducted a review of peer-reviewed literature and grey literature available in Google search engine related to One Health in four countries (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India and Nepal). Second, we used a structured questionnaire completed by the key stakeholders working on One Health for the collection of information related to the challenges in implementing One Health. Most of the One Health activities in South Asia are determined by donor preferences. Bangladesh and India did considerable work in advancing One Health with limited support from the government agencies. Weak surveillance mechanisms, uncertain cost-effectiveness of One Health compared with the existing approach, human resources and laboratory capacity are some of the factors hindering implementation of the One Health concept. Implementation of One Health is growing in the South Asia region with limited or no government acceptance. To institutionalise it, there is a need for leadership, government support and funding.

© 2017 American Journal of Preventive Medicine Introduction Primary care physicians are well placed to offer physical activity counseling, but insufficient time is a barrier. Referral to an exercise specialist is an alternative. In Australia, exercise specialists are publicly funded to provide face-to-face counseling to patients who have an existing chronic illness. This trial aimed to (1) determine the efficacy of primary care physicians¿ referral of insufficiently active patients for counseling to increase physical activity, compared with usual care, and (2) compare the efficacy of face-to-face counseling with counseling predominantly via telephone. Study design Three-arm pragmatic RCT. Setting/participants Two hundred three insufficiently active (<7,000 steps/day) primary care practice patients (mean age 57 years; 70% female) recruited in New South Wales, Australia, in 2011¿2014. Intervention (1) Five face-to-face counseling sessions by an exercise specialist, (2) one face-to-face counseling session followed by four telephone calls by an exercise specialist, or (3) a generic mailed physical activity brochure (usual care). The counseling sessions operationalized social cognitive theory via a behavior change counseling framework. Main outcome measures Change in average daily step counts between baseline and 12 months. Data were analyzed in 2016. Results Forty (20%) participants formally withdrew; completion rates at 3 and 6 months were 64% and 58%, respectively. Intervention attendance was high (75% received five sessions). The estimated mean difference between usual care and the combined intervention groups at 12 months was 1,002 steps/day (95% CI=244, 1,759, p=0.01). When comparing face-to-face with predominantly telephone counseling, the telephone group had a non-significant higher mean daily step count (by 619 steps) at 12 months. Conclusions Provision of expert physical activity counseling to insufficiently active primary care patients resulted in a significant increase in physical activity (approximately 70 minutes of walking per week) at 12 months. Face-to-face only and counseling conducted predominantly via telephone were both effective. This trial provides evidence to expand public funding for expert physical activity counseling and for delivery via telephone in addition to face-to-face consultations. Trial registration This trial is registered at www.anzctr.org.au/ ACTRN12611000884909.

Background: Although an overall public health target of 10,000 steps per day has been advocated, the dose-response relationship for each health benefit of physical activity may differ. Methods: A representative community sample of 2458 Australian residents aged 55-85 wore a pedometer for a week in 2005-2007 and completed a health assessment. Age-standardized steps per day were compared with multiple markers of health using locally weighted regression to produce smoothed dose-response curves and then to select the steps per day matching 60% or 80% of the range in each health marker. Results: There is a linear relationship between activity level and markers of inflammation throughout the range of steps per day; this is also true for BMI in women and high density lipoprotein in men. For other markers, including waist:hip ratio, fasting glucose, depression, and SF-36 scores, the benefit of physical activity is mostly in the lower half of the distribution. Conclusions: Older adults have no plateau in the curve for some health outcomes, even beyond 12,000 steps per day. For other markers, however, there is a threshold effect, indicating that most of the benefit is achieved by 8000 steps per day, supporting this as a suitable public health target for older adults. © 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.

New drugs are usually compared to a placebo. Sometimes it may be unethical to give patients a placebo, so the new drug is compared with standard treatment. Trials which compare treatments may not be designed to show that one treatment is superior. These are known as non-inferiority or equivalence trials. Non-inferiority trials aim to show that the new drug is no worse than standard treatment. Equivalence trials aim to show the new treatment is no better and no worse. An equivalence boundary should be set before the trial. This is the definition of what would be the minimum important difference between the treatments. There are several traps in the interpretation of trials of non-inferiority or equivalence. The results can be influenced by many factors including the size of the equivalence boundary and whether an intention-to-treat or 'per protocol' analysis is used.