Table 1. Risk factors identified and ranked by participants of the framing workshop, and how these were integrated in the MonkeyFeverRisk project.

Ranking	Risk factors	Number of votes	How risks were addressed in project
1	Lack of education/awareness	10	Tick information cards were produced to inform local communities about risks from ticks and tick protection measures. Development of an educational video in progress.
2	Under or late reporting of monkey deaths	9	Accounted for in data interpretation in risk modelling
2	Deforestation and/or forest degradation	9	Integrated as a risk factor in models
2	Lack of awareness of preventative measures (tick repellants, vaccination)	9	Measured in cross-sectional household surveys WP2 Tick information cards produced (see above).
3	Lack of awareness or understanding of alternative hosts	8	Addressed in household and ecological surveys
4	Human use of forests	7	Addressed in household surveys and in spatial risk modelling
4	Low vaccination coverage	7	Addressed in household surveys and in spatial risk modelling
4	Poor diagnostics and surveillance	7	Improving surveillance and diagnostics is not a direct project aim but could result from a strengthened OneHealth network. Ecological analysis of vector and alternate hosts will inform surveillance strategies.
4	Lack of OneHealth policy	7	Project established a OneHealth WhatsApp network on KFD which facilitates networking amongst people involved in KKFD management. Project members attended National and State level technical committees on KFD and discussed OneHealth approach
5	Poor data management	6	The project provided a blueprint for future data management on KFD, for example ensuring that cases were georeferenced at a household level to capture landscape conditions favouring spill-over
5	Poor understanding of tick ecology	6	Addressed in ecological surveys
6	Side effects and concerns about vaccines	5	Measured as part of the household surveys but not a direct research project aim
7	Living in or around forests	4	Addressed in risk modelling, household surveys and ecological surveys (stratified by forest proximity)
7	Favorable environment for ticks	4	Addressed in ecological surveys (habitat associations were measured)
7	Poor tick identification	4	Addressed in ecological research and capacity building (see Table 2)