From concept to action: a united, holistic and One Health approach to respond to the climate change crisis.

It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the planet, which is seriously affecting the planetary health including human health. Adapting climate change should not only be a slogan, but requires a united, holistic action and a paradigm shift from crisis response to an ambitious and integrated approach immediately. Recognizing the urgent needs to tackle the risk connection between climate change and One Health, the four key messages and recommendations that with the intent to guide further research and to promote international cooperation to achieve a more climate-resilient world are provided.

One Virus, Four Continents, Eight Countries: An Interdisciplinary and International Study on the Psychosocial Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic among Adults.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic brought about several features that increased the sense of fear and confusion, such as quarantine and financial losses among other stressors, which may have led to adverse psychosocial outcomes. The influence of such stressors took place within a broader sociocultural context that needs to be considered. The objective was to examine how the psychological response to the pandemic varied across countries and identify which risk/protective factors contributed to this response. An online survey was conducted from 29 May 2020-12 June 2020, among a multinational sample of 8806 adults from eight countries/regions (Canada, United States, England, Switzerland, Belgium, Hong Kong, Philippines, New Zealand). Probable generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and major depression episode (MDE) were assessed. The independent role of a wide range of potential factors was examined using multilevel logistic regression. Probable GAD and MDE were indicated by 21.0% and 25.5% of the respondents, respectively, with an important variation according to countries/regions (GAD: 12.2-31.0%; MDE: 16.7-32.9%). When considered together, 30.2% of the participants indicated probable GAD or MDE. Several factors were positively associated with a probable GAD or MDE, including (in descending order of importance) weak sense of coherence (SOC), lower age, false beliefs, isolation, threat perceived for oneself/family, mistrust in authorities, stigma, threat perceived for country/world, financial losses, being a female, and having a high level of information about COVID-19. Having a weak SOC yielded the highest adjusted odds ratio for probable GAD or MDE (3.21; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.73-3.77). This pandemic is having an impact on psychological health. In some places and under certain circumstances, however, people seem to be better protected psychologically. This is a unique opportunity to evaluate the psychosocial impacts across various sociocultural backgrounds, providing important lessons that could inform all phases of disaster risk management.

The effect of natural disasters on cancer care: a systematic review.

As the incidence of cancer and the frequency of extreme weather events rise, disaster mitigation is becoming increasingly relevant to oncology care. In this systematic Review, we aimed to investigate the effect of natural disasters on cancer care and the associated health effects on patients with cancer. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect for articles published between database inception and November 12, 2016. Articles identifying the effect of natural disasters on oncology services or the associated health implications for patients with cancer were included. Only articles published in English were included. Data extraction was done by two authors independently and then verified by all authors. The effects of disaster events on oncology services, survival outcomes, and psychological issues were assessed. Of the 4593 studies identified, only 85 articles met all the eligibility criteria. Damage to infrastructure, communication systems and medication, and medical record losses substantially disrupt oncology care. The effect of extreme weather events on survival outcomes is limited to only a small number of studies, often with inadequate follow-up periods. Natural disasters cause substantial interruption to the provision of oncology care. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic Review to assess the existing evidence base on the health effects of natural disaster events on cancer care. We advocate for the consideration of patients with cancer during disaster planning.

The great East Japan earthquake disaster: distribution of hospital damage in Miyagi Prefecture.

INTRODUCTION: In catastrophic events, a key to reducing health risks is to maintain functioning of local health facilities. However, little research has been conducted on what types and levels of care are the most likely to be affected by catastrophic events. Problem The Great East Japan Earthquake Disaster (GEJED) was one of a few "mega disasters" that have occurred in an industrialized society. This research aimed to develop an analytical framework for the holistic understanding of hospital damage due to the disaster. METHODS: Hospital damage data in Miyagi Prefecture at the time of the GEJED were collected retrospectively. Due to the low response rate of questionnaire-based surveillance (7.7%), publications of the national and local governments, medical associations, other nonprofit organizations, and home web pages of hospitals were used, as well as literature and news sources. The data included information on building damage, electricity and water supply, and functional status after the earthquake. Geographical data for hospitals, coastline, local boundaries, and the in undated areas, as well as population size and seismic intensity were collected from public databases. Logistic regression was conducted to identify the risk factors for hospitals ceasing inpatient and outpatient services. The impact was displayed on maps to show the geographical distribution of damage. RESULTS: Data for 143 out of 147 hospitals in Miyagi Prefecture (97%) were obtained. Building damage was significantly associated with closure of both inpatient and outpatient wards. Hospitals offering tertiary care were more resistant to damage than those offering primary care, while those with a higher proportion of psychiatric care beds were more likely to cease functioning, even after controlling for hospital size, seismic intensity, and distance from the coastline. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of building regulations is vital for all health care facilities, irrespective of function. Additionally, securing electricity and water supplies is vital for hospitals at risk for similar events in the future. Improved data sharing on hospital viability in a future event is essential for disaster preparedness.