摘要：AbstractBackgroundEcoHealth and One Health are two major approaches broadly aimed at understanding the links between human, animal, and environment health. There have been increasing calls for convergence between the two. If convergence is desired, greater clarity regarding the underlying theoretical assumptions of both approaches is required. This would also support integrated research to effectively address complex health issues at the human, animal and environment interface. To better understand the areas of overlap and alignment, we systematically compared and contrasted the theoretical assumptions of both approaches.ObjectivesWe aimed to gain a more in-depth understanding of the ontological, epistemological and methodological underpinnings of EcoHealth and One Health in order to identify areas of difference and overlap, and consider the extent to which closer convergence between the two may be possible.MethodsWe undertook a scoping review of literature about the ontological, epistemological and methodological positions of EcoHealth and One Health, and analyzed these according to Lincoln, Lynham and Guba's paradigm framework.ResultsEcoHealth and One Health are both collaborative, systems-focused approaches at the human, animal, and ecosystem health interface. EcoHealth typically leans towards constructivist-leaning assumptions. Many consider this a necessary aspiration for One Health. However, in practice One Health remains dominated by the veterinary and medical disciplines that emphasize positivist-leaning assumptions.DiscussionThe aspirations of EcoHealth and One Health appear to overlap at the conceptual level, and may well warrant closer convergence. However, further shared discussions about their epistemological and ontological assumptions are needed to reconcile important theoretical differences, and to better guide scopes of practice. Critical realism may be a crucial theoretical meeting point. Systems thinking methods (with critical realist underpinnings), such as system dynamics modelling, are potentially useful methodologies for supporting convergent practice.Highlights•EcoHealth and One Health share considerable overlapping theoretical aspirations.•Clearer understanding of the aims and scope of both approaches is needed.•Closer convergence may be possible using a diverse range of methods and worldviews.•Calls for more critical, constructivist approaches in One Health may support this.•Systems thinking methods may support beneficial integration of these approaches.
