RESUMEN
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0002102.].
RESUMEN
Academic global surgery is a rapidly growing field that aims to improve access to safe surgical care worldwide. However, no universally accepted competencies exist to inform this developing field. A consensus-based approach, with input from a diverse group of experts, is needed to identify essential competencies that will lead to standardization in this field. A task force was set up using snowball sampling to recruit a broad group of content and context experts in global surgical and perioperative care. A draft set of competencies was revised through the modified Delphi process with two rounds of anonymous input. A threshold of 80% consensus was used to determine whether a competency or sub-competency learning objective was relevant to the skillset needed within academic global surgery and perioperative care. A diverse task force recruited experts from 22 countries to participate in both rounds of the Delphi process. Of the n = 59 respondents completing both rounds of iterative polling, 63% were from low- or middle-income countries. After two rounds of anonymous feedback, participants reached consensus on nine core competencies and 31 sub-competency objectives. The greatest consensus pertained to competency in ethics and professionalism in global surgery (100%) with emphasis on justice, equity, and decolonization across multiple competencies. This Delphi process, with input from experts worldwide, identified nine competencies which can be used to develop standardized academic global surgery and perioperative care curricula worldwide. Further work needs to be done to validate these competencies and establish assessments to ensure that they are taught effectively.
RESUMEN
In light of global environmental crises and the need for sustainable development, the fields of public health and environmental sciences have become increasingly interrelated. Both fields require interdisciplinary thinking and global solutions, which is largely directed by scientific progress documented in peer-reviewed journals. Journal editors play a critical role in coordinating and shaping what is accepted as scientific knowledge. Previous research has demonstrated a lack of diversity in the gender and geographic representation of editors across scientific disciplines. This study aimed to explore the diversity of journal editorial boards publishing in environmental science and public health. The Clarivate Journal Citation Reports database was used to identify journals classified as Public, Environmental, and Occupational (PEO) Health, Environmental Studies, or Environmental Sciences. Current EB members were identified from each journal's publicly available website between 1 March and 31 May 2021. Individuals' names, editorial board roles, institutional affiliations, geographic locations (city, country), and inferred gender were collected. Binomial 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the proportions of interest. Pearson correlations with false discovery rate adjustment were used to assess the correlation between journal-based indicators and editorial board characteristics. Linear regression and logistic regression models were fitted to further assess the relationship between gender presence, low- and middle-income country (LMIC) presence and several journal and editor-based indicators. After identifying 628 unique journals and excluding discontinued or unavailable journals, 615 journal editorial boards were included. In-depth analysis was conducted on 591 journals with complete gender and geographic data for their 27,772 editors. Overall, the majority of editors were men (65.9%), followed by women (32.9%) and non-binary/other gender minorities (0.05%). 75.5% journal editorial boards (n = 446) were composed of a majority of men (>55% men), whilst only 13.2% (n = 78) demonstrated gender parity (between 45-55% women/gender minorities). Journals categorized as PEO Health had the most gender diversity. Furthermore, 84% of editors (n = 23,280) were based in high-income countries and only 2.5% of journals (n = 15) demonstrated economic parity in their editorial boards (between 45-55% editors from LMICs). Geographically, the majority of editors' institutions were based in the United Nations (UN) Western Europe and Other region (76.9%), with 35.2% of editors (n = 9,761) coming solely from the United States and 8.6% (n = 2,373) solely from the United Kingdom. None of the editors-in-chief and only 27 editors in total were women based in low-income countries. Through the examination of journal editorial boards, this study exposes the glaring lack of diversity in editorial boards in environmental science and public health, explores the power dynamics affecting the creation and dissemination of knowledge, and proposes concrete actions to remedy these structural inequities in order to inform more equitable, just and impactful knowledge creation.
RESUMEN
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has subjected the mental health and well-being of Filipino children under drastic conditions. While children are more vulnerable to these detriments, there remains the absence of unified and comprehensive strategies in mitigating the deterioration of the mental health of Filipino children. Existing interventions focus on more general solutions that fail to acknowledge the circumstances that a Filipino child is subjected under. Moreover, these strategies also fail to address the multilayered issues faced by a lower-middle-income country, such as the Philippines. As the mental well-being of Filipino children continues to be neglected, a subsequent and enduring mental health epidemic can only be expected for years to come.
