A bibliometric analysis of One Health research, guided by the Joint Plan of Action, 2010–2024

Abstract Background: This study aimed to assess whether current research trends in One Health emphasise zoonotic and foodborne diseases and antimicrobial resistance, as has historically been the case, or whether they increasingly align with a more holistic understanding of the One Health concept. This is achieved by exploring the global trends in One Health-labelled research and examining how these align with the Quadripartite One Health Joint Plan of Action (2022–2026) (OH JPA). Methods: A combination of bibliometric analysis and Social Network Mapping was used to meet the study objectives. Specifically, 6168 publications (January 2010–October 2024) were retrieved from the Dimensions database for bibliometric analysis. A full-accounting approach was used to attribute publications to countries or institutions, while Social Network Analysis centrality measures were used to quantify the scale and impact of collaboration among institutions engaged in One Health research. A topic model was also developed and visualised using the Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection machine learning algorithm. Results: We found that globally, in the last decade, there has been an increase in the volume of One Health research publications, with the largest annual publication growth occurring after 2018. Half of all 6168 One Health research publications from 2010 are focused on six primary research topics, five of which are a lead topic for one of the six action tracks under the OH JPA. We also found that while there are more outputs on zoonotic epidemics and pandemics, the proportions of other areas of One Health research are increasing, although integrating the environment is still comparatively underrepresented. Although global collaborations exist in One Health research, there exist disparities between countries where One Health research is being conducted (largely in Africa and Asia) and countries leading One Health research (primarily high-income countries). There is some evidence of the use of One Health research in policy making, but the evidence base to determine this is limited, especially for low- and middle-income countries. Conclusions: Efforts are needed to strengthen One Health research capacity in the Global South, while continuing, globally, to conduct collaborative research to better understand changes in One Health research priorities, topical gaps and collaborations. One Health impact statement This article contributes to ongoing debates on One Health priorities, conceptual thinking and ways of working. The ‘One Health’ approach has galvanised many policy makers, practitioners and researchers across the human, environment, animal and plant health sectors to tackle interconnected health challenges through a more integrated and collaborative lens. However, tendencies towards disciplinary and sectoral silos as well as lack of coordination of One Health in policy persist. This study involved data scientists, social scientists, plant pathologists, ecologists, veterinarians, public health scientists, One Health specialists and policy experts engaged in providing scientific and strategic advice on One Health for institutions working across the globe. This cross-sectoral, transdisciplinary team allowed interpretation of results in ways that would not have been possible with a less diverse team. Research and policy documents self-labelled as One Health were analysed to provide insights that can be used by One Health global scientific and strategic platforms for reform. In addition, insights on One Health research collaborations offer fuel for all stakeholders in the One Health landscape to continue working collectively to tackle complex, global health issues.