Public health policies are commonly evaluated by their financial costs and expected outcomes. However, policy decisions must also be supported by strong evidence, political feasibility, effective implementation, and public trust to achieve lasting public health benefits. Although public deliberation has been increasingly recognized as a way to involve citizens in policymaking, its role in improving policy efficiency has not been clearly defined.

In a recent analytical study, Dr. Michelle Bosché from the Harbor-UCLA Department of Emergency Medicine in Torrance, CA, and colleagues examined how public deliberation can strengthen public health policymaking by improving multiple dimensions of policy efficiency. The study was published online in the American Journal of Public Health on July 23, 2026. 

“We conceptualize 5 important dimensions of efficiency: fiscal, epistemic, political, implementation, and civic,” says Dr. Bosché.

The researchers explain that while fiscal efficiency focuses on achieving policy outcomes at the lowest monetary cost, the remaining dimensions evaluate whether policies are built on sound evidence, can overcome political challenges, are effectively implemented, and strengthen public trust and civic participation. Together, these dimensions provide a broader framework for evaluating public health policies.

To demonstrate how public deliberation can improve policymaking, the researchers examined three case studies. These included public engagement in pandemic influenza vaccine prioritization in the United States, Ireland’s Citizens’ Assembly that helped inform abortion policy reform, and Australia’s deliberative forum that contributed to long-term biobanking guidelines. Across these examples, public deliberation helped incorporate community values, reduce political barriers, and support policy implementation.

Explaining the value of this approach, Dr. Bosché says, “Well-designed public deliberation broadens the range of perspectives in a policy discussion, generating options that might otherwise remain invisible. Policies that emerge from this more expansive and reflective reasoning process are better tailored to real-world constraints and local realities and are more resilient to downstream challenges. By improving the quality of decisions (epistemic efficiency) and reducing the likelihood of costly revisions (implementation efficiency), deliberation may serve as an upstream mechanism for improving policy efficiency.”

The authors conclude that public deliberation should become a routine structural component of public health policymaking rather than an occasional exercise. Such an approach could improve policy quality, strengthen public trust, and create more effective and sustainable public health systems.

###

The American Public Health Association champions optimal, equitable health and well-being for all. With our broad-based member community and 150-year perspective, we influence federal policy to improve the public’s health. Learn more at www.apha.org.

About Harbor-UCLA Medical Center

Harbor-UCLA Medical Center is a major teaching hospital affiliated with the UCLA Schools of Medicine, Nursing, and Dentistry. Established in 1946, the medical center has provided healthcare services to the Greater South Bay community through its inpatient, emergency, and ambulatory care programs. The Department of Emergency Medicine, established in 1978, is one of the nation’s longest-standing emergency medicine residency programs and is dedicated to providing high-quality emergency care, education, and research.

About Dr. Michelle Bosché from Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, California

Dr. Michelle Bosché, MD, is an Emergency Medicine resident at the Harbor‑UCLA Department of Emergency Medicine in Torrance, California. She previously held roles in global health communications and medical editing, including positions at Global Health Strategies and Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF).

Funding information

This work was funded by the Kevin Gould Family Fund and the Alan and Jane Jacober Family Fund.

Journal

American Journal of Public Health

Funder

Kevin Gould Family Fund,
Alan and Jane Jacober Family Fund

DOI

10.2105/AJPH.2026.308637

The article focuses on the importance of mapping the complex interconnections between various entities involved in zoonotic disease dynamics. The authors argue that a better grasp of these relationships can lead to more effective policies that address both the biological and social dimensions of infectious diseases. This becomes especially relevant in a world characterized by rapid urbanization, climate change, and increased human-animal contact, all of which contribute to the risk of zoonotic spillovers.

One of the key contributions of this research is its exposition of network analysis as a methodological tool. Traditionally, the study of zoonotic diseases has been fragmented, with different disciplines operating in silos. By applying network analysis, this study seeks to connect the dots between epidemiological data, environmental factors, and social influences. This integrative approach holds the promise of revealing underlying patterns that could otherwise remain obscured in more traditional research paradigms.

The authors highlight that the network analysis framework can help identify ‘hubs’ or ‘super-spreaders’ within the ecosystem of zoonotic pathogens. These hubs may include specific animal species, geographic regions, or human behaviors that facilitate disease transmission. By targeting these critical nodes, public health interventions can be designed to minimize the risk of disease outbreaks. This is particularly vital as zoonotic diseases such as COVID-19, Ebola, and Zika have demonstrated their capacity to transcend borders and cause global crises.

Additionally, the article emphasizes the role of policy in shaping how societies respond to these zoonotic threats. A comprehensive understanding of disease dynamics is essential for crafting effective legislation that can bolster public health infrastructures. In this regard, the study serves as a clarion call for policymakers to engage with complex data sets that reflect real-world conditions, rather than relying solely on historical precedents or simplified models.

The implications of this research extend beyond individual countries and regional contexts; they resonate on a global scale. It is essential to implement international collaborations that transcend political boundaries. Coordinated efforts are necessary to monitor and respond to zoonotic threats effectively. The interconnectedness of the modern world means that a disease outbreak in one locality can rapidly escalate into a worldwide pandemic, as witnessed in the recent COVID-19 crisis.

Furthermore, the study explores the ethical considerations inherent in pathogen surveillance and intervention strategies. As researchers seek to build more robust models of disease transmission, they must wrestle with questions regarding data privacy and the rights of communities involved. It brings to light the potential for stigmatization and behavioral alteration that accompanies heightened surveillance efforts. Therefore, an ethical framework must accompany the scientific basis for policymaking to ensure that interventions are both effective and just.

In the context of the ongoing debates surrounding zoonotic diseases and their public health implications, the authors call for more interdisciplinary collaboration. The expertise of ecologists, sociologists, epidemiologists, and policymakers is essential to build a comprehensive understanding of zoonotic dynamics. It is only through collective action and shared knowledge that we can hope to mitigate the risks posed by these complex health challenges.

Moreover, the integration of technological innovations into this landscape can enhance the capacity to analyze zoonotic disease spread. Big data analytics, machine learning models, and geographic information systems (GIS) can be employed to achieve real-time monitoring and analysis. These sophisticated tools can refine our understanding of the intricate web of interactions that facilitate zoonotic disease transmission, thus enabling timely interventions.

A major takeaway from the research is the emphasis on education and public awareness regarding zoonotic diseases. The general public often remains unaware of the risks associated with animal-human interactions and the broader implications of zoonotic outbreaks. Therefore, public health campaigns that inform communities about prevention strategies can significantly contribute to reducing the incidence of these diseases. When populations are educated about potential risks, they can adopt behaviors that mitigate transmission.

Importantly, the narrative dissected in the article is not one of mere pessimism; it offers hope through innovation and proactive measures. Policymakers and researchers are urged to cultivate resilience in health systems. This involves not only immediate responses to outbreaks but also long-term strategies that adapt to changing ecological and societal conditions. Building capacity in lower-resource settings can lead to a more equitable global health landscape that can effectively tackle zoonotic threats.

Lastly, the study serves as a relevant reminder of the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health, echoing the One Health approach. This framework advocates for a holistic understanding of health that transcends disciplinary boundaries. By recognizing that human health is intrinsically linked to animal health and environmental sustainability, researchers and policymakers can work toward a healthier future for all.

As we continue to confront the challenges posed by zoonotic diseases, the call to action is clear. By employing innovative methodologies such as network analysis, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, and prioritizing ethical considerations, we can better prepare for the next zoonotic crisis. This study sheds light on the vital connections that exist within the intricate web of public health, urging global stakeholders to act decisively and strategically in the face of emerging threats.

With research outcomes like those of de Paula Fonseca, Bell, and Brown, the hope for a safer world grows ever more attainable. Through informed policy and comprehensive understanding, humanity can not only manage existing zoonotic threats but also prevent new ones from emerging, paving the way for a healthier planet.

Subject of Research: Zoonotic disease dynamics and global pandemic policy

Article Title: From pathogens to policy: using network analysis to map the knowledge base on human–zoonotic disease dynamics underpinning global pandemic policy.

Article References:

de Paula Fonseca, B., Bell, D. & Brown, G.W. From pathogens to policy: using network analysis to map the knowledge base on human–zoonotic disease dynamics underpinning global pandemic policy.
Health Res Policy Sys (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-025-01434-5

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI:

Keywords: Zoonotic diseases, Pandemic policy, Network analysis, Public health, One Health, Disease dynamics, Interdisciplinary research, Global health, Surveillance, Ethics.

The research team conducted an exhaustive meta-analysis of 312 studies examining the transmission risks of 39 different pathogens and diseases, all transmitted either by infected animals or by vectors such as mosquitoes. Strikingly, only 7.4% of these studies thoroughly accounted for all three critical components of risk: hazard, exposure, and vulnerability. This reveals a significant gap in how risk is scientifically conceptualized and operationalized, with many studies focusing narrowly on a single dimension, such as vector abundance, thereby limiting the reliability of models that inform public health decisions.

In technical terms, “hazard” refers to the presence or prevalence of zoonotic hosts, vectors, or reservoirs that harbor pathogens capable of infection. “Exposure” is the probability that humans will come into contact with these hazards, modulated by behavioral, ecological, and social variables. “Vulnerability” further incorporates the likelihood that, once exposed, individuals or groups will be infected, reflecting biological susceptibilities or other risk amplifiers. The researchers emphasize that it is the intersection of these three factors that constitutes the true risk landscape, a complexity frequently overlooked in isolated assessments.

Raquel Carvalho, the study’s lead author and a researcher at BIOTA Synthesis, highlights the lack of standardization in methodologies as a fundamental obstacle. For instance, a study assessing dengue risk might solely measure mosquito abundance, while another might focus on human exposure patterns such as outdoor activity frequency. Such inconsistencies undermine the predictive power of models and consequently impair strategic efforts for early detection and localized interventions. This heterogeneity in risk assessment frameworks leads to divergent and sometimes contradictory policy recommendations.

The study’s findings carry profound implications for spatial planning and resource allocation in public health. Overlooking any component of the risk triad—hazard, exposure, vulnerability—not only skews risk maps but can also foster misdirected management strategies. For example, prioritizing insecticide applications purely based on vector presence without considering human exposure patterns may waste resources and fail to curb transmission effectively. Conversely, neglecting vulnerability factors may leave at-risk populations dangerously exposed despite apparent low hazard levels.

The research team also played a pivotal role in informing the recently proposed State Plan for Climate Adaptation and Resilience (PEARC) in São Paulo, which integrates these refined concepts of risk assessment into its framework. PEARC’s nuanced delineation between hazard, exposure, and vulnerability forms a scientific cornerstone for climate adaptation strategies, aiming to mitigate the compounded threat of environmental change on zoonotic and vector-borne diseases. This work underscores the intersectionality of ecological and social dimensions in managing climate-related health risks.

One compelling example highlighted is the differential risk profiles of dengue compared to hantavirus infections. Dengue, transmitted by Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, correlates strongly with high human population density and anthropogenic water storage practices that facilitate breeding. Here, exposure and vulnerability are heightened, necessitating targeted vector control and public education campaigns. In contrast, hantavirus presence in wild rodent populations poses a lower risk in sparsely populated rural areas due to limited human contact, illustrating why detection of pathogens alone should not be equated with elevated transmission danger.

The article calls for international research realignment to bolster efforts in tropical regions, where zoonotic and vector-borne diseases present heightened challenges due to biodiversity richness and climate sensitivity. The authors advocate for dedicated funding channels and enhanced international collaboration aimed at standardizing risk methodologies and expanding surveillance capacity. Such cooperation is deemed critical to preemptively address emerging infections aggravated by shifting environmental conditions.

Another vital recommendation pertains to improving the surveillance infrastructure, including laboratory networks for diagnosing zoonoses and vector-borne infections. The current inadequacy in wildlife pathogen monitoring represents a significant blind spot, as animal hosts serve as reservoirs that can spill over to humans. Enhancing diagnostic capabilities and data sharing frameworks would facilitate timely identification of outbreak precursors, thus enabling more agile public health responses.

The study further highlights the intertwined relationship between water security and vector-borne diseases. Erratic or inefficient water distribution often compels communities to store water unsafely, inadvertently creating breeding grounds for mosquitoes. Rationalizing water management is presented as a key preventive measure that addresses one of the root environmental drivers of disease proliferation. Moreover, it aligns with broader sustainability goals and climate adaptation policies, reinforcing the multi-sectoral nature of effective disease control.

Carvalho’s work also exemplifies the value of interdisciplinary and international training, having involved an internship at the University of Glasgow, Scotland. This global perspective enriches the research approach by incorporating diverse scientific paradigms and strengthening networks for knowledge exchange. Presently, Carvalho continues her investigations as a professor in the Department of Zoology at the Institute of Biosciences, University of São Paulo, contributing to the translational potential of this integrative framework.

Ultimately, this study shines a powerful spotlight on the necessity of holistic, standardized approaches to assessing and managing the risks posed by zoonotic and vector-borne diseases in an era of profound environmental upheaval. By bridging ecological, behavioral, and social dimensions through integrative methodologies, policymakers and scientists can forge more effective, adaptive, and equitable strategies. In doing so, they confront not only the immediate biological threats but also the broader challenges of global change.

Subject of Research: Risk assessment of zoonotic and vector-borne diseases in relation to environmental change and climate impacts

Article Title: Unpacking the risks of zoonotic and vector-borne pathogen transmission to humans in the context of environmental change

News Publication Date: 23-Jun-2025

Web References:

• Journal Article DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2025.101348
• BIOTA Synthesis: https://biotasintese.iea.usp.br/
• São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP): https://www.fapesp.br/en

Keywords: Risk assessment, Disease outbreaks, Infectious diseases, Public policy, Zoonoses, Mosquitoes, Climate change effects