Predictors of suicide attempt recurrence after an index suicide attempt in Spain: a prospective multicentre cohort study.

The increasing prominence of One Health in global health discourse reflects a growing recognition that complex health challenges, such as zoonotic pandemics, antimicrobial resistance, climate change, and biodiversity loss, cannot be adequately addressed within disciplinary or sectoral silos , . In its most common formulation, One Health is an integrated approach that brings together human, animal, and environmental health . This description has been instrumental in fostering intersectoral collaboration and legitimising new forms of governance and research funding. However, this operational framing also carries a significant conceptual limitation. By presenting One Health primarily as a pragmatic response to contemporary problems, it implicitly suggests that interdisciplinarity is a recent achievement, driven by external pressures rather than embedded in the intellectual history of health sciences. Such a view risks reducing One Health to a managerial or technocratic device, an arrangement of sectors, rather than recognising it as the expression of a deeper epistemological orientation. This article contends that One Health is best understood as the culmination of a long genealogy of thought in which health has been conceptualised as relational, contextual, and inseparable from broader ecological and social systems. Long before the contemporary label gained currency, building on Schwabe's earlier One Medicine formulation and later popularised through early-2000s initiatives such as the 2004 “One World, One Health” Manhattan Principles convened in New York , diverse professions and disciplines grappled with the same fundamental question: how can health be understood when humans are recognised as biologically, environmentally, and socially entangled with other forms of life?