One Health in the public mind: Narrative constructions of zoonotic spillovers

The COVID-19 pandemic heightened global attention to the One Health (OH) framework-a multisectoral, multidisciplinary approach that integrates human, animal, and environmental health to address challenges such as zoonotic spillovers. While OH has gained traction in scientific and policy arenas, little is known about how the public understands OH issues. Such problem definitions matter because they are theorized to align with logical, congruent solutions. This study examines (1) how often people identify OH dimensions (human, animal, environment) when defining zoonotic spillovers; (2) whether narrative content varies between whole and partial OH definitions; and (3) whether narrative content is congruent with their problem definitions. Based on a survey from residents of eastern coastal Australia (n = 1549, after data cleaning), we coded open-ended responses about problem definitions, heroes, and solutions, and analyzed results with Poisson generalized linear modeling of counts. A small portion of respondents (14%) articulated a full OH problem definition; the majority (75%) emphasized human dimensions, while just 11% highlighted environmental or animal aspects. Respondents using a OH definition were more likely to identify diverse heroes spanning human, environmental, and animal organizations, and to propose environmental solutions compared with those using human-centered definitions. Evidence of congruence between problem definitions and solutions emerged, with OH problem definitions associated with a multisectoral array of heroes. Overall, public conceptions of zoonotic spillovers remain fragmented, reflecting limited uptake of integrative OH perspectives. Strengthening public understanding of OH and fostering coherent, systems-based narratives are essential for enhancing policy legitimacy and advancing preventive, cross-sectoral approaches to OH issues more broadly.