↓ Skip to main content

Application of the NEOH Framework for Self-Evaluation of One Health Elements of a Case-Study on Obesity in European Dogs and Dog-Owners

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Application of the NEOH Framework for Self-Evaluation of One Health Elements of a Case-Study on Obesity in European Dogs and Dog-Owners
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2018.00163
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alberto Muñoz-Prieto, Liza R. Nielsen, Silvia Martinez-Subiela, Jovita Mazeikiene, Pia Lopez-Jornet, Sara Savić, Asta Tvarijonaviciute

Abstract

Obesity is a malnutrition disorder of global concern with increasing prevalence driven by underlying societal, economic and environmental mechanisms leading to changed physical activity patterns, eating behaviors and diet compositions in both humans and in their pet-dogs. A questionnaire-based study was carried out as a joint effort across 11 European countries. It was considered a One Health (OH) initiative between scientists from human and animal health sectors aiming to identify factors associated with obesity in dog owners and their dogs. Expected outcomes of this approach included new insights unachievable by single-sector research initiatives, and hence potentially leading to new cross-sectorial solutions. We performed an internal evaluation among the actors of the obesity initiative using the framework for evaluation developed by the "Network for Evaluation of One Health" (NEOH). It served as a case-study for the NEOH consortium to illustrate the application and provide feedback on the utility of the framework. The evaluation was performed by a subgroup of scientists also involved in the obesity study group, and it consisted of: (1) the definition of the initiative and its context, (2) the description of the theory of change, and (3) the qualitative and quantitative process evaluation of operations and supporting infrastructures scored on a scale from 0 to 1. In the One Health operations, the obesity study initiative scored medium high on OH-thinking (0.5) and OH-planning (0.45), and relatively high on OH-working (0.7). The supporting infrastructure score was high for systemic organization (0.8), but low for sharing (0.45) and learning (0.28). The calculated OH-index was 0.29 (on scale 0 to 1) indicating that the full potential of health integration and collaboration was not exploited in the initiative, and the main issue identified was a lack of stakeholder engagement. The OH-ratio of 1.1 indicated equal focus on operations and supporting infrastructures. Hence, the evaluation identified potentially counterproductive as well as beneficial characteristics, which are further discussed in this paper in relation to the expected outcomes. The NEOH framework for evaluation requires that the evaluators have a good understanding of systems thinking and the mechanisms of the health issue targeted by the initiative.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 17%
Researcher 12 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 20 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 8 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 9%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Environmental Science 3 4%
Other 19 27%
Unknown 22 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 July 2018.
All research outputs
#17,985,001
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#3,544
of 6,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,684
of 328,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#77
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,392 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,924 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.