03662nas a2200493 4500000000100000008004100001260005300042653001400095653001600109653002300125653002000148653002200168653001500190653001500205653001800220100002000238700001600258700001300274700001500287700001400302700001400316700001400330700001800344700002400362700001600386700001600402700001600418700001600434700001100450700001300461700001400474700001500488700001300503700001700516700002000533700001500553700001400568245015200582856008300734300001200817490000600829520231900835022001403154 2026 d c08/2026bSpringer Science and Business Media LLC10aCommunity10aqualitative10azoonotic spillover10arisk interfaces10aZoonotic diseases10aOne Health10aPrevention10aInterventions1 aBärnighausen K1 aPhongsiri M1 aLilier K1 aTomklang S1 aLabooth T1 aChaibut T1 aJaruton P1 aChanprathad K1 aSuphawatthanaphan S1 aOvergaard H1 aReñosa MDC1 aSornillo BJ1 aWachinger J1 aAmin H1 aShelil M1 aPompeu CR1 aKachnova U1 aMontag D1 aSasitharan V1 aBärnighausen T1 aTreskova M1 aLapanun P00aUnderstanding zoonotic spillover interfaces for the design of a One Health education intervention: a qualitative baseline study from rural Thailand uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s42522-026-00228-1_reference.pdf a1 - 1910 v83 a

Background

Prevention of zoonotic spillover requires an understanding of how human, animal, and environmental interactions shape risk in everyday life. Efforts have focused largely on surveillance and response rather than on primary prevention informed by lived experience. In Southeast Asia—a recognised hotspot for zoonotic emergence—there is limited qualitative evidence describing how spillover risk is shaped by routine practices, environmental change, and structural constraints, and how such evidence can inform the design of One Health education interventions.

Methods

We conducted a formative qualitative study in Nan Province, northern Thailand, employing shared walks, in-depth interviews, community mapping, and participant and non-participant observation. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and organised using a qualitative One Health Risk Interface Framework encompassing human–animal, human–environment, human-human, animal–animal and animal–environment interfaces.

Results

Spillover risk and mitigation was produced and experienced through routine food preparation, hunting, farming, and caregiving practices. The human–animal interface includes frequent handling of wildlife and domestic animals, mixed-species environments, and informal meat processing. The human–environment interface is characterised by water scarcity, contamination, deforestation, landslides, and inadequate waste management. The human-human interface describes information and communication issues and how these problems can be addressed. The animal–animal and animal–environment interfaces reflect shifting ecologies driven by land-use change, secondary forests, and agricultural intensification, bringing wildlife, livestock, and people into closer proximity.

Conclusion

Zoonotic spillover risk in rural Thailand is produced through interconnected behavioural, ecological, and structural processes that cannot be addressed through individual behaviour change alone. An education intervention will need to develop both knowledge and skills within a broader framework of conservation and acknowledgment of structural resource constraints.

 a2524-4655