BACKGROUND: This protocol outlines a scoping review with the objective of identifying and exploring planetary health considerations within existing health guidelines and health technology assessments (HTA). The insights gained from this review will serve as a basis for shaping future Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) guidance on planetary health.
METHODS: We will adhere to the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. We will conduct a comprehensive search and screening of results in all languages across various databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Global Health, Health Systems Evidence, Greenfile, and Environmental Issues. Additionally, we will supplement this search with resources such as the GIN library, BIGG database, Epistemonikos, GRADE guidelines repository, GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool Database, MAGICapp, NICE website, WHO websites, and a manual exploration of unpublished relevant documents using Google incognito mode. Two independent reviewers will screen and assess the full texts of identified documents according to the eligibility criteria. The following information from each full text will be extracted: document title; first author\'s name; publication year; language; document type; document as a guideline or HTA; the topic/discipline; document purpose/study objective; developing/sponsoring organization; the country in which the study/guideline/HTA report was conducted; definition of planetary health or related concept provided; types of planetary health experts engaged; study methods; suggested methods to assess planetary health; use of secondary data on planetary health outcomes; description for use of life cycle assessment; description for assessing the quality of life cycle; population/intended audience; interventions; category; applicable planetary health boundaries; consideration of social justice/global equity; phase of intervention in life cycle related to planetary health addressed; the measure of planetary health impact; impact on biodiversity/land use; one health/animal welfare mention; funding; and conflict of interest. Data analysis will involve a combination of descriptive statistics and directed content analysis, with results presented in a narrative format and displayed in tables and graphs.
CONCLUSIONS: The final review results will be submitted to open-access peer-reviewed journals for publication when they become available. The research findings will also be disseminated at relevant planetary health conferences and workshops.
BACKGROUND: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/3jmsa ).

BACKGROUND: Migration and health are key priorities in global health and essential for protecting and promoting the health of migrants. To better understand the existing evidence on migration health, it is critical to map the research publication activity and evidence on the health of migrants and mobile populations. This paper presents a search strategy protocol for a bibliometric analysis of scientific articles on global migration health (GMH), leveraging the expertise of a global network of researchers and academics. The protocol aims to facilitate the mapping of research and evidence on the health of international migrants and their families, including studies on human mobility across international borders.
METHODS: A systematic search strategy using Scopus will be developed to map scientific articles on GMH. The search strategy will build upon a previous bibliometric study and will have two main search components: (1) \'international migrant population\', covering specific movements across international borders, and (2) \'health\'. The final search strategy will be implemented to determine the final set of articles to be screened for the bibliometric analysis. Title and abstract screening will exclude irrelevant articles and classify the relevant articles according to predefined themes and subthemes. A combination of the following approaches will be used in screening: applying full automation (ie, DistillerSR\'s machine learning tool) and/or semiautomation (ie, EndNote, MS Excel) tools, and manual screening. The relevant articles will be analysed using MS Excel, Biblioshiny and VOSviewer, which creates a visual mapping of the research publication activity around GMH. This protocol is developed in collaboration with academic researchers and policymakers from the Global South, and a network of migration health and research experts, with guidance from a bibliometrics expert.
BACKGROUND: The protocol will use publicly available data and will not directly involve human participants; an ethics review will not be required. The findings from the bibliometric analysis (and other research that can potentially arise from the protocol) will be disseminated through academic publications, conferences and collaboration with relevant stakeholders to inform policies and interventions aimed at improving the health of international migrants and their families.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of achieving the secondary prevention targets recommended in the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in 38 low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).
METHODS: We pooled nationally representative cross-sectional surveys from 38 LMICs between 2013 and 2020. Treatment, metabolic and lifestyle targets were assessed for individuals with a self-reported history of CVD according to WHO\'s recommendations. Associations between the prevalence of guideline adherence and sociodemographic characteristics were assessed using multivariate Poisson regression models.
RESULTS: The pooled sample included 126 106 participants, of whom 9821 (6.8% [95% CI 6.4-7.2]) reported a history of CVD. Overall, the prevalence of achieving treatment targets in patients with CVD was 22.7% (95% CI, 21.0-24.5%) for antihypertensive drugs, 19.6% (17.9-21.4%) for aspirin, and 13.6% (12.0-15.44%) for statins. The prevalence of achieving metabolic targets was 54.9% (52.5-57.3%) for BMI, 39.9% (37.7-42.2%) for blood pressure, 46.1% (43.6-48.6%) for total cholesterol, and 84.9% (83.1-86.5%) for fasting blood glucose. The prevalence of achieving lifestyle targets was 83.2% (81.5-84.7%) for not smoking, 83.1% (81.2-84.9%) for not drinking, 65.5% (63.1-67.7%) for sufficient physical activity and 16.2% (14.5-18.0%) for healthy diet. Only 6.1% (5.1-7.4%) achieved three treatment targets, 16.0% (14.3-17.9%) achieved four metabolic targets, and 6.9% (5.8-8.0%) achieved four lifestyle targets. Upper-middle income countries were better than low-income countries at achieving the treatment, non-drinking and dietary targets. Being younger and female were associated with poorer achievement of metabolic targets.
CONCLUSIONS: In LMICs, achieving the targets recommended in the guideline for treatment, metabolism and healthy lifestyles for patients with CVD is notably low. This highlights an urgent need for effective, systematic secondary prevention strategies to improve CVD management.

Over the past century, dietary recommendations emphasizing food patterns as means to deliver essential nutrients have garnered widespread acceptance. The necessity for foods supplying vital nutrients and energy throughout various life stages requires the involvement of local resources and cultural practices to prevent nutrient deficiency diseases. Since the 1980s, dietary guidelines aimed at adverting chronic diseases have relied on epidemiological research to predict which dietary patterns correlate with reduced risk of chronic disease or links to health outcomes. Dietary guidelines have been broad, typically recommending avoiding excess or deficiency of single nutrients. Efforts to fine-tune these recommendations face challenges due to a scarcity of robust scientific data supporting more specific guidance across the life cycle. Consumers have become skeptical of dietary guidelines, because media coverage of new studies is often in conflict with accepted nutrition dogma. Indications to align individual and planet\'s health have been issued supporting the concept of sustainable dietary patterns. Whether we really have a science-based databank to support dietary guidelines is still a matter of ongoing debate, as presented in this paper.

UNASSIGNED: Simulation plays a pivotal role in addressing universal healthcare challenges, reducing education inequities, and improving mortality, morbidity and patient experiences. It enhances healthcare processes and systems, contributing significantly to the development of a safety culture within organizations. It has proven to be cost-effective and successful in enhancing team performance, fostering workforce resilience and improving patient outcomes.Through an international collaborative effort, an iterative consultation process was conducted with 50 societies operating across 67 countries within six continents. This process revealed common healthcare challenges and simulation practices worldwide. The intended audience for this statement includes policymakers, healthcare organization leaders, health education institutions, and simulation practitioners. It aims to establish a consensus on the key priorities for the broad adoption of exemplary simulation practice that benefits patients and healthcare workforces globally.
CONCLUSIONS: Advocating for the benefits that simulation provides to patients, staff and organizations is crucial, as well as promoting its adoption and integration into daily learning and practice throughout the healthcare spectrum. Low-cost, high-impact simulation methods should be leveraged to expand global accessibility and integrate into system improvement processes as well as undergraduate and postgraduate curricula. Support at institutional and governmental level is essential, necessitating a unified and concerted approach in terms of political, strategic and financial commitment.It is imperative that simulation is used appropriately, employing evidence-based quality assurance approaches that adhere to recognized standards of best practice. These standards include faculty development, evaluation, accrediting, credentialing, and certification.We must endeavor to provide equitable and sustainable access to high-quality, contextually relevant simulation-based learning opportunities, firmly upholding the principles of equity, diversity and inclusion. This should be complemented with a renewed emphasis on research and scholarship in this field.
UNASSIGNED: We urge policymakers and leaders to formally acknowledge and embrace the benefits of simulation in healthcare practice and education. This includes a commitment to sustained support and a mandate for the application of simulation within education, training, and clinical environments.We advocate for healthcare systems and education institutions to commit themselves to the goal of high-quality healthcare and improved patient outcomes. This commitment should encompass the promotion and resource support of simulation-based learning opportunities for individuals and interprofessional teams throughout all stages and levels of a caregiver\'s career, in alignment with best practice standards.We call upon simulation practitioners to champion healthcare simulation as an indispensable learning tool, adhere to best practice standards, maintain a commitment to lifelong learning, and persist in their fervent advocacy for patient safety.This statement, the result of an international collaborative effort, aims to establish a consensus on the key priorities for the broad adoption of exemplary simulation practice that benefits patients and healthcare workforces globally.

BACKGROUND: Information systems for community health have become increasingly sophisticated and evidence-based in the last decade and they are now the most widely used health information systems in many low-income and middle-income countries. This study aimed to establish consensus regarding key features and interoperability priorities for community health information systems (CHISs).
METHODS: A Delphi study was conducted among a systematically selected panel of CHIS experts. This impressive pool of experts represented a range of leading global health institutions, with gender and regional balance as well as diversity in their areas of expertise. Through five rounds of iterative surveys and follow-up interviews, the experts established a high degree of consensus. We supplemented the Delphi study findings with a series of focus group discussions with 10 community health worker (CHW) leaders.
RESULTS: CHISs today are expected to adapt to a wide range of local contextual requirements and to support and improve care delivery. While once associated with a single role type (CHWs), these systems are now expected to engage other end users, including patients, supervisors, clinicians and data managers. Of 30 WHO-classified digital health interventions for care providers, experts identified 23 (77%) as being important for CHISs. Case management and care coordination features accounted for more than one-third (14 of 37, 38%) of the core features expected of CHISs today, a higher proportion than any other category. The highest priority use cases for interoperability include CHIS to health management information system monthly reporting and CHIS to electronic medical record referrals.
CONCLUSIONS: CHISs today are expected to be feature-rich, to support a range of user roles in community health systems, and to be highly adaptable to local contextual requirements. Future interoperability efforts, such as CHISs in general, are expected not only to move data efficiently but to strengthen community health systems in ways that measurably improve care.

The COVID-19 pandemic affected all WHO member states. We compared and contrasted the COVID-19 treatment guidelines of each member state with the WHO COVID-19 therapeutic guidelines.
Ministries of Health or accessed National Infectious Disease websites and other relevant bodies and experts were contacted to obtain national guidelines (NGs) for COVID-19 treatment. NGs were included only if they delineated specific pharmacological treatments for COVID-19, which were stratified by disease severity. We conducted a retrospective review using the adapted Reporting Checklist for Public Versions of Guidelines (RIGHT-PVG) survey checklist and a derived comparative metric based on the WHO guidelines was performed.
COVID-19 therapeutics NGs could be obtained from 109 of the 194 WHO member states. There was considerable variation in guidelines and in disease severity stratifications. Therapeutic recommendations in many NGs differed substantially from the WHO guidelines. Overall in late 2022, 93% of NGs were recommending at least one treatment which had proved to be ineffective in large randomised trials, and was not recommended by WHO. Corticosteroids were not recommended in severe disease in nearly 10% of NGs despite overwhelming evidence of their benefit. NGs from countries with low-resource settings showed the greatest divergence when stratified by gross domestic product per year, Human Development Index and the Global Health Security Index.
Our study is limited to NGs that were readily accessible, and it does not reflect the availability of recommended medicines in the field. Three years after the start of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, available COVID-19 NGs vary substantially in their therapeutic recommendations, often differ from the WHO guidelines, and commonly recommend ineffective, unaffordable or unavailable medicines.

BACKGROUND: Clinical and public health guidelines serve to direct clinical practice and policy, based on the best available evidence. The World Health Organization (WHO) and national health bodies of many countries have released physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines. Despite significant overlap in the body of evidence reviewed, the guidelines differ across jurisdictions. This study aimed to review the processes used to develop global and national physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines and examine the extent to which they conform with a recommended methodological standard for the development of guidelines.
METHODS: We extracted data on nine sets of guidelines from seven jurisdictions (WHO, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and United States). We rated each set of guidelines as high, medium, or low quality on criteria related to the rigour of the development process.
RESULTS: We observed variation in the quality of guidelines development processes across jurisdictions and across different criteria. Guidelines received the strongest overall ratings for criteria on clearly describing the evidence selected and stating an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. Guidelines received the weakest overall ratings for criteria related to clearly describing the methods used to formulate the recommendations and reporting external review by experts prior to publication. Evaluated against the selected criteria, the strongest processes were undertaken by the WHO and Canada.
CONCLUSIONS: Reaching agreement on acceptable guideline development processes, as well as the inclusion and appraisal procedures of different types of evidence, would help to strengthen and align future guidelines.

BACKGROUND: There are an increasing number of global surgery activities worldwide. With such tremendous growth, there is a potential risk for untoward interactions between high-income country members and low-middle income country members, leading to programmatic failure, poor results, and/or low impact.
METHODS: Key concepts for cultural competency and ethical behavior were generated by the Academic Global Surgery Committee of the Society for University Surgeons in collaboration with the Association for Academic Global Surgery. Both societies ensured active participation from high-income countries and low-middle income countries.
RESULTS: The guidelines provide a framework for cultural competency and ethical behavior for high-income country members when collaborating with low-middle income country partners by offering recommendations for: (1) preparation for work with low-middle income countries; (2) process standardization; (3) working with the local community; (4) limits of practice; (5) patient autonomy and consent; (6) trainees; (7) potential pitfalls; and (8) gray areas.
CONCLUSIONS: The article provides an actionable framework to address potential cultural competency and ethical behavior issues in high-income country - low-middle income country global surgery collaborations.

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) cause a significant global health challenge, with unhealthy diets identified as a major risk factor. Sodium and potassium, which are essential minerals for human health, play important roles in various bodily functions, and an imbalance in their intake can have significant health implications, particularly concerning hypertension and cardiovascular diseases. This review compiles dietary sodium and potassium intake recommendations from prominent global health organizations and compares global guidelines to Japan\'s Dietary Reference Intake (DRI) guidelines. Sodium and potassium intake guidelines from organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA), Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and DRI for Japanese exhibit variations. Compared to other Asian countries, Japan\'s historically higher sodium goal aligns with Southeast Asia where traditional preserved foods contribute to high sodium intake. Contrarily, Japan\'s lower potassium goal contrasts with other countries in Asia promoting a diet rich in fruits and vegetables. The ongoing effort by Japan to align with global recommendations reflects a gradation approach considering social habits. While harmonizing international efforts is essential, appreciating regional diversities is paramount through tailoring guidelines to cultural and dietary habit practices. Implementing context-specific guidelines informed by scientific research can contribute to global efforts in promoting healthy diets and reducing the burden of NCDs. Global guidelines that recommended the daily dietary intake goal for sodium and potassium exhibit variations. These disparities are influenced by diverse factors, including cultural dietary habits, socioeconomic status, health priorities, and available scientific research. Each population should follow the recommendations of their region.