IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v12y2025i1d10.1057_s41599-025-05077-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Practitioner perspectives on informing decisions in One Health sectors with predictive models

Author

Listed:
  • Kim M. Pepin

    (National Wildlife Research Center)

  • Keith Carlisle

    (National Wildlife Research Center)

  • Richard B. Chipman

    (National Rabies Management Program)

  • Dana Cole

    (National Feral Swine Damage Management Program)

  • Dean P. Anderson

    (Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research)

  • Michael G. Baker

    (University of Otago)

  • Jackie Benschop

    (Palmerston North)

  • Michael Bunce

    (Department of Conservation)

  • Rachelle N. Binny

    (Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research
    University of Auckland)

  • Nigel French

    (Palmerston North)

  • Suzie Greenhalgh

    (Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research)

  • Dion RJ O’Neale

    (University of Auckland
    The University of Auckland)

  • Scott McDougall

    (Cognosco)

  • Fraser J. Morgan

    (University of Auckland
    Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research)

  • Petra Muellner

    (Palmerston North
    Epi-interactive)

  • Emil Murphy

    (Deer Industry New Zealand)

  • Michael J. Plank

    (University of Canterbury)

  • Daniel M. Tompkins

    (Predator Free 2050 Limited)

  • David TS Hayman

    (Palmerston North
    University of Auckland)

Abstract

The continued emergence of challenges in human, animal, and environmental health (One Health sectors) requires public servants to make management and policy decisions about system-level ecological and sociological processes that are complex, poorly understood, and change over time. Relying on intuition, evidence, and experience for robust decision-making is challenging without a formal assimilation of these elements (a model), especially when the decision needs to consider potential impacts if an action is or is not taken. Models can provide assistance to this challenge, but effective development and use of model-based evidence in decision-making (‘model-to-decision workflow’) can be challenging. To address this gap, we examined conditions that maximize the value of model-based evidence in decision-making in One Health sectors by conducting 41 semi-structured interviews of researchers, science advisors, operational managers, and policy decision-makers with direct experience in model-to-decision workflows (‘Practitioners’) in One Health sectors. Broadly, our interview guide was structured to understand practitioner perspectives about the utility of models in health policy or management decision-making, challenges and risks with using models in this capacity, experience with using models, factors that affect trust in model-based evidence, and perspectives about conditions that lead to the most effective model-to-decision workflow. We used inductive qualitative analysis of the interview data with iterative coding to identify key themes for maximizing the value of model-based evidence in One Health applications. Our analysis describes practitioner perspectives for improved collaboration among modelers and decision-makers in public service, and priorities for increasing accessibility and value of model-based evidence in One Health decision-making. Two emergent priorities include establishing different standards for development of model-based evidence before or after decisions are made, or in real-time versus preparedness phases of emergency response, and investment in knowledge brokers with modeling expertise working in teams with decision-makers.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim M. Pepin & Keith Carlisle & Richard B. Chipman & Dana Cole & Dean P. Anderson & Michael G. Baker & Jackie Benschop & Michael Bunce & Rachelle N. Binny & Nigel French & Suzie Greenhalgh & Dion RJ O, 2025. "Practitioner perspectives on informing decisions in One Health sectors with predictive models," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-025-05077-3
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-025-05077-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-025-05077-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-025-05077-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-025-05077-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.