"I teach it because it is the biggest threat to health": Integrating sustainable healthcare into health professions education.

BACKGROUND: Steering planetary and human health towards a more sustainable future demands educated and prepared health professionals. AIM: This research aimed: to explore health professions educators' sustainable healthcare education (SHE) knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy and teaching practices across 13 health professions courses in one Australian university. METHODS: Utilising a sequential mixed-methods design: Phase one (understanding) involved an online survey to ascertain educators' SHE knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy and teaching practices to inform phase two (solution generation), 'Teach Green' Hackathon. Survey data was descriptively analysed and a gap analysis performed to promote generation of solutions during phase two. Results from the hackathon were thematically analysed to produce five recommendations. RESULTS: Regarding SHE, survey data across 13 health professions disciplines (n = 163) identified strong content knowledge (90.8%); however, only (36.9%) reported confidence to 'explain' and (44.2%) to 'inspire' students. Two thirds of participants (67.5%) reported not knowing how best to teach SHE. Hackathon data revealed three main influencing factors: regulatory, policy and socio-cultural drivers. CONCLUSIONS: The five actionable recommendations to strengthen interdisciplinary capacity to integrate SHE include: inspire multi-level leadership and collaboration; privilege student voice; develop a SHE curriculum and resources repository; and integrate SHE into course accreditation standards.

'12 tips for teaching environmental sustainability to health professionals'.

Background: As recognition of the health impacts of climate change and other environmental challenges increases, so too does the need for health care professionals to practice healthcare sustainably. Environmental sustainability in healthcare extends beyond our traditional understanding of environmental health, which is often limited to environmental hazards and disease. Health services, professional organizations, and training institutions are increasingly forming climate and sustainability position statements and policies accordingly. To prepare future health professionals for global environmental change, environmental sustainability must be meaningfully integrated into health curricula.Aim: To provide educators with 12 tips for integrating environmental sustainability into health professional education.Methods: The authors reviewed the literature relating to climate change, environmental sustainability and health, and health professional education. By combining findings from this search with reflections on their own experience in clinical and public health teaching across nursing and midwifery, paramedicine, medicine, and public health, the authors developed recommendations for integrating environmental sustainability into health professional education.Results: These 12 tips can be used to teach students and qualified health professionals in nursing, allied health, and medicine to practice healthcare in an environmentally sustainable manner.Conclusions: Empowering health professionals to practice environmentally sustainable healthcare has economic, social, health, and environmental benefits. Teaching environmental sustainability to health professionals enhances existing learning by updating curricula with the latest evidence of how environmental determinants of health are rapidly changing and enables both educators and students to make an important contribution to safeguarding human health, the environment, and healthcare for future generations.

Circular economy and environmental health in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: The circular economy framework for human production and consumption is an alternative to the traditional, linear concept of 'take, make, and dispose'. Circular economy (CE) principles comprise of 'design out waste and pollution', 'retain products and materials in use', and 'regenerate natural systems'. This commentary considers the risks and opportunities of the CE for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), acknowledging that LMICs must identify their own opportunities, while recognising the potential positive and negative environmental health impacts. MAIN BODY: The implementation of the CE in LMICs is mostly undertaken informally, driven by poverty and unemployment. Activities being employed towards extracting value from waste in LMICs are imposing environmental health risks including exposure to hazardous and toxic working environments, emissions and materials, and infectious diseases. The CE has the potential to aid towards the achievement of the SDGs, in particular SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). However, since SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being) is critical in the pursuit of all SDGs, the negative implications of the CE should be well understood and addressed. We call on policy makers, industry, the health sector, and health-determining sectors to address these issues by defining mechanisms to protect vulnerable populations from the negative health impacts that may arise in LMICs as these countries domesticate the CE. CONCLUSION: Striving towards a better understanding of risks should not undermine support for the CE, which requires the full agency of the public and policy communities to realise the potential to accelerate LMICs towards sustainable production and consumption, with positive synergies for several SDGs.

Waiting for the wave, but missing the tide: Case studies of climate-related (im)mobility and health.

Climate change amplifies health risks, including through the health impacts of climate-related displacement. Yet diverse mobility responses in a warming world can also provide a pathway for climate change adaptation. This article examines the connections between climatic and environmental change, human mobility and health. It presents case studies across three countries: Fiji, Bangladesh, and Burkina Faso. All case studies used qualitative methods, including semi-structured interviews, storytelling, and group discussions. The Fiji case study focuses on relocation of a coastal village exposed to erosion, flooding and saltwater intrusion; it highlights self-reported health risks and opportunities following relocation. The Bangladesh case study includes seven sites that variously experience flooding, cyclones and riverbank erosion; while residents use migration and mobility as a coping strategy, there are associated health risks, particularly for those who feel trapped in new sites of residence. The case study from a village in Burkina Faso examines seasonal labour migration to the Ivory Coast and Mali during times of drought and reduced agricultural productivity, and discusses health risks for men who migrate and for women who remain in sending communities. These case studies illustrate that there is no consistent figure that represents a 'climate migrant', 'climate refugee', or 'trapped' person. Accordingly, we argue that where planetary health looks to highlight 'waves' of climate displacement, it may miss the 'tide' of slower onset climatic changes and smaller-scale and diverse forms of (im)mobility. However, even where climate-related mobility is broadly adaptive - e.g. providing opportunities for livelihood diversification, or migration away from environmental risks - there can be health risks and opportunities that are shaped by socio-political contexts, access to healthcare, altered food sources, and living and working conditions. Responsive solutions are required to protect and promote the health of mobile populations in a warming world.

Positionality and Its Problems: Questioning the Value of Reflexivity Statements in Research.

There has been a remarkable push for the use of positionality statements-also known as reflexivity statements-in scientific-journal articles and other research literatures. Grounded in reputable philosophical traditions, positionality statements are meant to address genuine concerns about the limits of knowledge production. However, there are at least three reasons why they should be avoided in scholarship. First, it is impossible to construct credible positionality statements because they are constrained by the very positionality they seek to address. Second, positionality statements are unnecessary because reducing bias-positional or otherwise-in scientific literatures does not hinge on the biographical details of individual scholars but on the integrity of the collective process of truth-seeking. Third, by asking scholars to disclose information about themselves, positionality statements undermine the very norms and practices that safeguard the impartiality of research. Instead of asking individual scholars to issue subjective declarations about their positionalities, scholarly communities should focus on improving the rules of intersubjective competition at the heart of scientific progress. In our view, the most productive path to increasing representation and reducing positional bias in research is to protect the freedom of scholarly inputs while insisting on methodological transparency and rigor.

Patients' perceptions of climate-sensitive health counselling in primary care: Qualitative results from Germany.

BACKGROUND: Climate change is the greatest threat to global health in the twenty first century, yet combating it entails substantial health co-benefits. Physicians and other health professionals have not yet fully embraced their responsibilities in the climate crisis, especially about their communication with patients. While medical associations are calling on physicians to integrate climate change into health counselling, there is little empirical evidence about corresponding perceptions of patients. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore primary care patients' perceptions of climate-sensitive health counselling. METHODS: From July to December 2021, 27 qualitative interviews with patients were conducted and analysed using thematic analysis. A purposive sampling technique was applied to identify patients who had already experienced climate-sensitive health counselling in Germany. RESULTS: Patients' perceptions of climate-sensitive health counselling were characterised by a high level of acceptance, which was enhanced by stressing the link between climate change and health, being credible concerning physician's own climate-friendly lifestyle, building upon good therapeutic relationships, creating a sense of solidarity, and working in a patient centred manner. Challenges and risks for acceptance were patients' disinterest or surprise, time constraints, feared politicisation of consultations, and evoking feelings of guilt and shame. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that primary care patients can accept climate-sensitive health counselling, if it follows certain principles of communication, including patient-centredness. Our findings can be useful for developing communication guidelines, respective policies as well as well-designed intervention studies, which are needed to test the health and environmental effects of climate-sensitive health counselling.

Climate-sensitive health counselling was accepted in a qualitative patient sample in Germany.Patient-centred communication and a link to individual health contributed to acceptance while time-constraints, politisation and feelings of guilt were potential challenges.Further research is needed to investigating patients' acceptance and effects of climate-sensitive health counselling in larger samples.

The effects on public health of climate change adaptation responses: a systematic review of evidence from low- and middle-income countries.

Climate change adaptation responses are being developed and delivered in many parts of the world in the absence of detailed knowledge of their effects on public health. Here we present the results of a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature reporting the effects on health of climate change adaptation responses in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The review used the 'Global Adaptation Mapping Initiative' database (comprising 1682 publications related to climate change adaptation responses) that was constructed through systematic literature searches in Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar (2013-2020). For this study, further screening was performed to identify studies from LMICs reporting the effects on human health of climate change adaptation responses. Studies were categorised by study design and data were extracted on geographic region, population under investigation, type of adaptation response and reported health effects. The review identified 99 studies (1117 reported outcomes), reporting evidence from 66 LMICs. Only two studies were ex ante formal evaluations of climate change adaptation responses. Papers reported adaptation responses related to flooding, rainfall, drought and extreme heat, predominantly through behaviour change, and infrastructural and technological improvements. Reported (direct and intermediate) health outcomes included reduction in infectious disease incidence, improved access to water/sanitation and improved food security. All-cause mortality was rarely reported, and no papers were identified reporting on maternal and child health. Reported maladaptations were predominantly related to widening of inequalities and unforeseen co-harms. Reporting and publication-bias seems likely with only 3.5% of all 1117 health outcomes reported to be negative. Our review identified some evidence that climate change adaptation responses may have benefits for human health but the overall paucity of evidence is concerning and represents a major missed opportunity for learning. There is an urgent need for greater focus on the funding, design, evaluation and standardised reporting of the effects on health of climate change adaptation responses to enable evidence-based policy action.