Public Health Measures to Address the Impact of Climate Change on Population Health-Proceedings from a Stakeholder Workshop.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization identified climate change as the 21st century's biggest health threat. This study aimed to identify the current knowledge base, evidence gaps, and implications for climate action and health policymaking to address the health impact of climate change, including in the most underserved groups. METHODS: The Horizon-funded project ENBEL ('Enhancing Belmont Research Action to support EU policy making on climate change and health') organised a workshop at the 2021-European Public Health conference. Following presentations of mitigation and adaptation strategies, seven international researchers and public health experts participated in a panel discussion linking climate change and health. Two researchers transcribed and thematically analysed the panel discussion recording. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: (1) 'Evidence is key' in leading the climate debate, (2) the need for 'messaging about health for policymaking and behaviour change' including health co-benefits of climate action, (3) existing 'inequalities between and within countries', and (4) 'insufficient resources and funding' to implement national health adaptation plans and facilitate evidence generation and climate action, particularly in vulnerable populations. CONCLUSION: More capacity is needed to monitor health effects and inequities, evaluate adaptation and mitigation interventions, address current under-representations of low- or middle-income countries, and translate research into effective policymaking.

Redrawing Cities with Children and Adolescents: Development of a Framework and Opportunity Index for Wellbeing—The REDibuja Study Protocol

Global changes require urgent integration of health and wellbeing into all urban policies. Complex social and environmental factors define wellbeing outcomes and inequities present in cities. Additionally, political decisions are seldom thought and developed considering the needs and participation of children and adolescents. The REDibuja study aims to develop a multidimensional framework of wellbeing for children and adolescents and to validate an index of opportunities for better wellbeing for children and adolescents in the urban context of Temuco, Chile. This child-centered and cross-sectional study will involve mixed methodologies throughout the implementation of five work packages for two years (2022–2023): (1) development of a conceptual framework for child and adolescent wellbeing, (2) integration of available and public data, (3) studies in the local context, (4) data integration using geographic information systems, and (5) validation of the wellbeing opportunity index for children and adolescents. REDibuja will implement methodologies that until now are little used to facilitate political decisions in our regional context. This process and results could be transferred for assessment and decision-making in Latin America and low- and middle-income countries in other regions.

Intersectoral and multisectoral approaches to health policy: an umbrella review protocol.

BACKGROUND: It is widely recognized that one's health is influenced by a multitude of nonmedical factors, known as the social determinants of health (SDH). The SDH are defined as "the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age, and which are shaped by the distribution of money, power and resources at global, national and local levels". Despite their influence on health, most of the SDH are targeted through government departments and ministries outside of the traditional health sector (e.g. education, housing). As such, the need for intersectoral and multisectoral approaches arises. Intersectoral and multisectoral approaches are thought to be essential to addressing many global health challenges our world faces today and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. There are various ways of undertaking intersectoral and multisectoral action, but there are three widely recognized approaches (Health in All Policies [HiAP], Healthy Cities, and One Health) that each have a unique focus. However, despite the widespread acceptance of the need for intersectoral and multisectoral approaches, knowledge around how to support, achieve and sustain multisectoral action is limited. The goal of this study is to assemble evidence from systematic approaches to reviewing the literature (e.g. scoping review, systematic review) that collate findings on facilitators/enablers and barriers to implementing various intersectoral and multisectoral approaches to health, to strengthen understanding of how to best implement health policies that work across sectors, whichever they may be. METHODS: An umbrella review (i.e. review of reviews) is to be undertaken to collate findings from the peer-reviewed literature, specifically from Ovid MEDLINE and Scopus databases. This umbrella review protocol was developed following the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P), and study design informed by the PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). DISCUSSION: Countries that employ multisectoral approaches are better able to identify and address issues around poverty, housing and others, by working collaboratively across sectors, with multisectoral action by governments thought to be required to achieve health equity.

'Health in All Policies'-A Key Driver for Health and Well-Being in a Post-COVID-19 Pandemic World.

Policy in all sectors affects health, through multiple pathways and determinants. Health in all policies (HiAP) is an approach that seeks to identify and influence the health and equity impacts of policy decisions, to enhance health benefits and avoid harm. This usually involves the use of health impact assessment or health lens analysis. There is growing international experience in these approaches, and some countries have cross-sectoral governance structures that prioritize the assessment of the policies that are most likely to affect health. The fundamental elements of HiAP are inter-sectoral collaboration, policy influence, and holistic consideration of the range of health determinants affected by a policy area or proposal. HiAP requires public health professionals to invest time to build partnerships and engage meaningfully with the sectors affecting the social determinants of health and health equity. With commitment, political will and tools such as the health impact assessment, it provides a powerful approach to integrated policymaking that promotes health, well-being, and equity. The COVID-19 pandemic has raised the profile of public health and highlighted the links between health and other policy areas. This paper describes the rationale for, and principles underpinning, HiAP mechanisms, including HIA, experiences, challenges and opportunities for the future.

["From Crisis to Health in All Policies." Conference report from the Poverty and Health 2021 Congress]. / "Aus der Krise zu Health in All Policies". Tagungsbericht vom Kongress Armut und Gesundheit 2021.

The annual Poverty and Health congress, which has been organized by Gesundheit Berlin-Brandenburg e. V. since 1995, has become one of the biggest public health events in Germany. It offers an exchange platform for science, practice, and politics. This year's congress topic was "From Crisis to Health in All Policies," which aimed to address the SARS-CoV­2 pandemic's impact on society in general and public health in particular. Overall, 80 panels were organized with close to 500 experts discussing a wide range of subjects and questions, for example, the connection between poverty and COVID-19, the current challenges in the care sector, the situation of homeless people, and the impact of the pandemic on (young) families or students as well as global questions on vaccination strategy and key issues for a public health strategy for Germany.

Global Health - emergence, hegemonic trends and biomedical reductionism.

BACKGROUND: Global Health has increasingly gained international visibility and prominence. First and foremost, the spread of cross-border infectious disease arouses a great deal of media and public interest, just as it drives research priorities of faculty and academic programmes. At the same time, Global Health has become a major area of philanthropic action. Despite the importance it has acquired over the last two decades, the complex collective term "Global Health" still lacks a uniform use today. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this paper is to present the existing definitions of Global Health, and analyse their meaning and implications. The paper emphasises that the term "Global Health" goes beyond the territorial meaning of "global", connects local and global, and refers to an explicitly political concept. Global Health regards health as a rights-based, universal good; it takes into account social inequalities, power asymmetries, the uneven distribution of resources and governance challenges. Thus, it represents the necessary continuance of Public Health in the face of diverse and ubiquitous global challenges. A growing number of international players, however, focus on public-private partnerships and privatisation and tend to promote biomedical reductionism through predominantly technological solutions. Moreover, the predominant Global Health concept reflects the inherited hegemony of the Global North. It takes insufficient account of the global burden of disease, which is mainly characterised by non-communicable conditions, and the underlying social determinants of health. CONCLUSIONS: Beyond resilience and epidemiological preparedness for preventing cross-border disease threats, Global Health must focus on the social, economic and political determinants of health. Biomedical and technocratic reductionism might be justified in times of acute health crises but entails the risk of selective access to health care. Consistent health-in-all policies are required for ensuring Health for All and sustainably reducing health inequalities within and among countries. Global Health must first and foremost pursue the enforcement of the universal right to health and contribute to overcoming global hegemony.

Behavioural and structural interventions in cancer prevention: towards the 2030 SDG horizon.

Traditionally, the prevention of cancer (and other chronic diseases) has been considered primarily linked to personal responsibility, for which interventions must be based on health education information enabling individuals to make knowledge-based decisions to improve their lifestyle. However, lifestyle is conditioned by environmental factors (including dimensions such as the context of economics, transport, urbanism, agriculture or education) that may render healthy behavioural choices either easier or, alternatively, impossible. This article reviews the conceptual underpinnings of the behavioural-structural dichotomy. We believe that it is advisable to opt for multilevel strategies that take into account all the determinants of health, using structural and behavioural approaches, rather than only the latter, as has been done until now.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: A syndemic perspective.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has affected communities, populations, and countries throughout the world. As the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic developed, the extent to which the disease interacted with already existing endemic, non-communicable and infectious diseases became evident, hence deeply influencing health outcomes. Additionally, a synergistic effect has been demonstrated also with socio-economic, cultural, and contextual determinants of health which seem to contribute to poorer health and accumulating social disadvantages. In this essay, using as a starting point the syndemic theory that translates the cumulative and intertwined factors between different epidemics, we argue that the SARS-CoV-2 is a one health issue of a syndemic nature and that the failure to acknowledge this contributes to weakened policy-making processes and public health responses and ineffective health policies and programs.