Acceptability of a microfinance-based empowerment intervention for transgender and cisgender women sex workers in Greater Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Lall P ，Shaw SA ，Saifi R ，Sherman S ，Azmi NN ，Pillai V ，El-Bassel N ，Kamarulzaman A ，Wickersham JA ... -  《Journal of the International AIDS Society》

Correlates of newly diagnosed HIV infection among cisgender women sex workers and transgender women sex workers in Greater Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Wang M ，Lim SH ，Gibson BA ，Azwa I ，Guadamuz TE ，Altice FL ，Kamarulzaman A ，Wickersham JA ... -  《-》

Effectiveness of interventions for improving educational outcomes for people with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

People with disabilities are consistently falling behind in educational outcomes compared to their peers without disabilities, whether measured in terms of school enrolment, school completion, mean years of schooling, or literacy levels. These inequalities in education contribute to people with disabilities being less likely to achieve employment, or earn as much if they are employed, as people without disabilities. Evidence suggests that the gap in educational attainment for people with and without disabilities is greatest in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Exclusion of people with disabilities from mainstream education, and low rates of participation in education of any kind, are important issues for global equity. Interventions which might have a positive impact include those that improve educational outcomes for people with disabilities, whether delivered in specialist or inclusive education settings. Such interventions involve a wide range of initiatives, from those focused on the individual level - such as teaching assistance to make mainstream classes more accessible to children with specific learning needs - to those which address policy or advocacy. The objectives of this review were to answer the following research questions: (1) What is the nature of the interventions used to support education for people with disabilities in LMICs? (2) What is the size and quality of the evidence base of the effectiveness of interventions to improve educational outcomes for people with disabilities in LMICs? (3) What works to improve educational outcomes for people with disabilities in LMICs? (4) Which interventions appear to be most effective for different types of disability? (5) What are the barriers and facilitators to the improvement of educational outcomes for people with disabilities? (6) Is there evidence of cumulative effects of interventions? The search for studies followed two steps. Firstly, we conducted an electronic search of databases and sector-specific websites. Then, after initial screening, we examined the reference lists of all identified reviews and screened the cited studies for inclusion. We also conducted a forward search and an ancestral search. No restrictions in terms of date or format were placed on the search, but only English-language publications were eligible for inclusion. In our review, we included studies on the basis that they were able to detect intervention impact. Descriptive studies of various designs and methodologies were not included. We also excluded any study with a sample size of fewer than five participants. We included studies which examined the impact of interventions for people with disabilities living in LMICs. There were no restrictions on comparators/comparison groups in included studies. However, to be eligible for inclusion, a study needed to have both an eligible intervention and an eligible outcome. Any duration of follow-up was eligible for inclusion. We used EppiReviewer for bibliographic management, screening, coding, and data synthesis. Eligibility was assessed using a predesigned form based on the inclusion criteria developed by the authors. We piloted all coding sheets with at least five studies before use. The form allowed for coding of multiple intervention domains and multiple outcomes domains. The entire screening process was reported using a PRISMA flow chart. We screened all unique references from our search title and abstract, with two independent reviewers determining relevance, and repeated this process for full texts. Data was extracted from studies according to a coding sheet. Coding included: (1) extraction of basic study characteristics, (2) a narrative summary of procedures and findings (including recording of iatrogenic effects), (3) a summary of findings/results table, (4) an assessment of confidence in study findings, and (5) creation of a forest plot of effect sizes. A third data collector, a research associate, checked the results of this process. Confidence in study findings was assessed using a standardised tool. All coding categories were not mutually exclusive and so multiple coding was done where an intervention covered more than one category of intervention. Twenty-eight studies were included in this review. Most studies (n = 25) targeted children with disabilities. Only two studies directly targeted family members, and the remaining three focused on service providers. Individuals with intellectual or learning and developmental impairments were most frequently targeted by interventions (n = 17). The category of interventions most represented across studies was 'Educational attainment support', for instance, a reading comprehension intervention that combined strategy instruction (graphic organisers, visual displays, mnemonic illustrations, computer exercises, predicting, inference, text structure awareness, main idea identification, summarisation, and questioning) for children with dyslexia. The second most common category of intervention was 'Accessible learning environments', for instance, programmes which aimed to improve social skills or to reduce rates of victimisation of children with disabilities in schools. Regarding intervention effects, included studies concerned with 'Conditions for inclusion of people with disabilities in education' showed a moderately significant effect, and one study concerned with teacher knowledge showed a significant effect size. Among the 18 studies included in the analysis of intervention effects on 'Skills for learning', 12 interventions had a significant effect. When considering the effect of interventions on different outcomes, we see that the effect on literacy, cognitive skills, handwriting, and numeracy are significant. All these effects are large but are based on a low number of studies. The studies concerned with speech and school behaviour show no significant effect of intervention. Across studies, heterogeneity is high, and risk of publication bias varies but was frequently high. All but one study received an overall rating of low confidence in study findings. However, this lack of confidence across studies was largely due to the use of low-rigour study designs and was not always reflective of multiple points of weakness within a given study. Children with disabilities fall behind in educational outcomes as the current school systems are not set up to teach children with different impairment types. There is no one 'magic bullet' intervention which can equalise health outcomes for this group. A twin-track approach is needed, which both addresses the specific needs of children with disabilities but also ensures that they are included in mainstream activities (e.g., through improving the skills of teachers and accessibility of the classroom). However, currently most interventions included in this systematic review targeted individual children with disabilities in an attempt to improve their functioning, skills, and competencies, but did not focus on mainstreaming these children into the school by system-level or school-level changes. Consequently, a focus on evaluation of interventions which target not just the individual with a disability but also their broader environment, are needed.

Hunt X ，Saran A ，White H ，Kuper H ... -  《-》

Improving the experience of health services for trans and gender-diverse young people and their families: an exploratory qualitative study.

Stepney M ，Martin S ，Mikulak M ，Ryan S ，Stewart J ，Ma R ，Barnett A ... -  《-》

The 2023 Latin America report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: the imperative for health-centred climate-resilient development.

In 2023, a series of climatological and political events unfolded, partly driving forward the global climate and health agenda while simultaneously exposing important disparities and vulnerabilities to climate-related events. On the policy front, a significant step forward was marked by the inaugural Health Day at COP28, acknowledging the profound impacts of climate change on health. However, the first-ever Global Stocktake showed an important gap between the current progress and the targets outlined in the Paris Agreement, underscoring the urgent need for further and decisive action. From a Latin American perspective, some questions arise: How do we achieve the change that is needed? How to address the vulnerabilities to climate change in a region with long-standing social inequities? How do we promote intersectoral collaboration to face a complex problem such as climate change? The debate is still ongoing, and in many instances, it is just starting. The renamed regional centre Lancet Countdown Latin America (previously named Lancet Countdown South America) expanded its geographical scope adding Mexico and five Central American countries: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Panama, as a response to the need for stronger collaboration in a region with significant social disparities, including research capacities and funding. The centre is an independent and multidisciplinary collaboration that tracks the links between health and climate change in Latin America, following the global Lancet Countdown's methodologies and five domains. The Lancet Countdown Latin America work hinges on the commitment of 23 regional academic institutions, United Nations agencies, and 34 researchers who generously contribute their time and expertise. Building from the first report, the 2023 report of the Lancet Countdown Latin America, presents 34 indicators that track the relationship between health and climate change up to 2022, aiming at providing evidence to public decision-making with the purpose of improving the health and wellbeing of Latin American populations and reducing social inequities through climate actions focusing on health. This report shows that Latin American populations continue to observe a growing exposure to changing climatic conditions. A warming trend has been observed across all countries in Latin America, with severe direct impacts. In 2022, people were exposed to ambient temperatures, on average, 0.38 °C higher than in 1986-2005, with Paraguay experiencing the highest anomaly (+1.9 °C), followed by Argentina (+1.2 °C) and Uruguay (+0.9 °C) (indicator 1.1.1). In 2013-2022, infants were exposed to 248% more heatwave days and people over 65 years old were exposed to 271% more heatwave days than in 1986-2005 (indicator 1.1.2). Also, compared to 1991-2000, in 2013-2022, there were 256 and 189 additional annual hours per person, during which ambient heat posed at least moderate and high risk of heat stress during light outdoor physical activity in Latin America, respectively (indicator 1.1.3). Finally, the region had a 140% increase in heat-related mortality from 2000-2009 to 2013-2022 (indicator 1.1.4). Changes in ecosystems have led to an increased risk of wildfires, exposing individuals to very or extremely high fire danger for more extended periods (indicator 1.2.1). Additionally, the transmission potential for dengue by Aedes aegypti mosquitoes has risen by 54% from 1951-1960 to 2013-2022 (indicator 1.3), which aligns with the recent outbreaks and increasing dengue cases observed across Latin America in recent months. Based on the 2023 report of the Lancet Countdown Latin America, there are three key messages that Latin America needs to further explore and advance for a health-centred climate-resilient development. Latin American countries require intersectoral public policies that simultaneously increase climate resilience, reduce social inequities, improve population health, and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The findings show that adaptation policies in Latin America remain weak, with a pressing need for robust vulnerability and adaptation (V&A) assessments to address climate risks effectively. Unfortunately, such assessments are scarce. Up to 2021, Brazil is the only country that has completed and officially reported a V&A to the 2021 Global Survey conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO). Argentina, Guatemala, and Panama have also conducted them, but they have not been reported (indicator 2.1.1). Similarly, efforts in developing and implementing Health National Adaptation Plans (HNAPs) are varied and limited in scope. Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay are the only countries that have an HNAP (indicator 2.1.2). Moreover, self-reported city-level climate change risk assessments are very limited in the region (indicator 2.1.3). The collaboration between meteorological and health sectors remains insufficient, with only Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Guatemala self-reporting some level of integration (indicator 2.2.1), hindering comprehensive responses to climate-related health risks in the region. Additionally, despite the urgent need for action, there has been minimal progress in increasing urban greenspaces across the region since 2015, with only Colombia, Nicaragua, and Venezuela showing slight improvements (indicator 2.2.2). Compounding these challenges is the decrease in funding for climate change adaptation projects in Latin America, as evidenced by the 16% drop in funds allocated by the Green Climate Fund (GCF) in 2022 compared to 2021. Alarmingly, none of the funds approved in 2022 were directed toward climate change and health projects, highlighting a critical gap in addressing health-related climate risks (indicator 2.2.3). From a vulnerability perspective, the Mosquito Risk Index (MoRI) indicates an overall decrease in severe mosquito-borne disease risk in the region due to improvements in water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) (indicator 2.3.1). Brazil and Paraguay were the only countries that showed an increase in this indicator. It is worth noting that significant temporal variation within and between countries still persists, suggesting inadequate preparedness for climate-related changes. Overall, population health is not solely determined by the health sector, nor are climate policies a sole responsibility of the environmental sector. More and stronger intersectoral collaboration is needed to pave development pathways that consider solid adaptation to climate change, greater reductions of GHG emissions, and that increase social equity and population health. These policies involve sectors such as finance, transport, energy, housing, health, and agriculture, requiring institutional structures and policy instruments that allow long-term intersectoral collaboration. Latin American countries need to accelerate an energy transition that prioritises people's health and wellbeing, reduces energy poverty and air pollution, and maximises health and economic gains. In Latin America, there is a notable disparity in energy transition, with electricity generation from coal increasing by an average of 2.6% from 1991-2000 to 2011-2020, posing a challenge to efforts aimed at phasing out coal (indicator 3.1.1). However, this percentage increase is conservative as it may not include all the fossil fuels for thermoelectric electricity generation, especially during climate-related events and when hydropower is affected (Panel 4). Yet, renewable energy sources have been growing, increasing by an average of 5.7% during the same period. Access to clean fuels for cooking remains a concern, with 46.3% of the rural population in Central America and 23.3% in South America lacking access to clean fuels in 2022 (indicator 3.1.2). It is crucial to highlight the concerning overreliance on fossil fuels, particularly liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), as a primary cooking fuel. A significant majority of Latin American populations, approximately 74.6%, rely on LPG for cooking. Transitioning to cleaner heating and cooking alternatives could also have a health benefit by reducing household air pollution-related mortality. Fossil fuels continue to dominate road transport energy in Latin America, accounting for 96%, although some South American countries are increasing the use of biofuels (indicator 3.1.3). Premature mortality attributable to fossil-fuel-derived PM2.5 has shown varied trends across countries, increasing by 3.9% from 2005 to 2020 across Latin America, which corresponds to 123.5 premature deaths per million people (indicator 3.2.1). The Latin American countries with the highest premature mortality rate attributable to PM2.5 in 2020 were Chile, Peru, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Paraguay. Of the total premature deaths attributable to PM2.5 in 2020, 19.1% was from transport, 12.3% from households, 11.6% from industry, and 11% from agriculture. From emission and capture of GHG perspective, commodity-driven deforestation and expansion of agricultural land remain major contributors to tree cover loss in the region, accounting for around 80% of the total loss (indicator 3.3). Additionally, animal-based food production in Latin America contributes 85% to agricultural CO2 equivalent emissions, with Argentina, Brazil, Panama, Paraguay, and Uruguay ranking highest in per capita emissions (indicator 3.4.1). From a health perspective, in 2020, approximately 870,000 deaths were associated with imbalanced diets, of which 155,000 (18%) were linked to high intake of red and processed meat and dairy products (indicator 3.4.2). Energy transition in Latin America is still in its infancy, and as a result, millions of people are currently exposed to dangerous levels of air pollution and energy poverty (i.e., lack of access to essential energy sources or services). As shown in this report, the levels of air pollution, outdoors and indoors, are a significant problem in the whole region, with marked disparities between urban and rural areas. In 2022, Peru, Chile, Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia, El Salvador, Brazil, Uruguay, Honduras, Panama, and Nicaragua were in the top 100 most polluted countries globally. Transitioning to cleaner sources of energy, phasing out fossil fuels, and promoting better energy efficiency in the industrial and housing sectors are not only climate mitigation measures but also huge health and economic opportunities for more prosperous and healthy societies. Latin American countries need to increase climate finance through permanent fiscal commitments and multilateral development banks to pave climate-resilient development pathways. Climate change poses significant economic costs, with investments in mitigation and adaptation measures progressing slowly. In 2022, economic losses due to weather-related extreme events in Latin America were US$15.6 billion -an amount mainly driven by floods and landslides in Brazil-representing 0.28% of Latin America's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (indicator 4.1.1). In contrast to high-income countries, most of these losses lack insurance coverage, imposing a substantial financial strain on affected families and governments. Heat-related mortality among individuals aged 65 and older in Latin America reached alarming levels, with losses exceeding the equivalent of the average income of 451,000 people annually (indicator 4.1.2). Moreover, the total potential income loss due to heat-related labour capacity reduction amounted to 1.34% of regional GDP, disproportionately affecting the agriculture and construction sectors (indicator 4.1.3). Additionally, the economic toll of premature mortality from air pollution was substantial, equivalent to a significant portion of regional GDP (0.61%) (indicator 4.1.4). On a positive note, clean energy investments in the region increased in 2022, surpassing fossil fuel investments. However, in 2020, all countries reviewed continued to offer net-negative carbon prices, revealing fossil fuel subsidies totalling US$23 billion. Venezuela had the highest net subsidies relative to current health expenditure (123%), followed by Argentina (10.5%), Bolivia (10.3%), Ecuador (8.3%), and Chile (5.6%) (indicator 4.2.1). Fossil fuel-based energy is today more expensive than renewable energy. Fossil fuel burning drives climate change and damages the environment on which people depend, and air pollution derived from the burning of fossil fuels causes seven million premature deaths each year worldwide, along with a substantial burden of disease. Transitioning to sustainable, zero-emission energy sources, fostering healthier food systems, and expediting adaptation efforts promise not only environmental benefits but also significant economic gains. However, to implement mitigation and adaptation policies that also improve social wellbeing and prosperity, stronger and solid financial systems are needed. Climate finance in Latin American countries is scarce and strongly depends on political cycles, which threatens adequate responses to the current and future challenges. Progress on the climate agenda is lagging behind the urgent pace required. While engagement with the intersection of health and climate change is increasing, government involvement remains inadequate. Newspaper coverage of health and climate change has been on the rise, peaking in 2022, yet the proportion of climate change articles discussing health has declined over time (indicator 5.1). Although there has been significant growth in the number of scientific papers focusing on Latin America, it still represents less than 4% of global publications on the subject (indicator 5.3). And, while health was mentioned by most Latin American countries at the UN General Debate in 2022, only a few addressed the intersection of health and climate change, indicating a lack of awareness at the governmental level (indicator 5.4). The 2023 Lancet Countdown Latin America report underscores the cascading and compounding health impacts of anthropogenic climate change, marked by increased exposure to heatwaves, wildfires, and vector-borne diseases. Specifically, for Latin America, the report emphasises three critical messages: the urgent action to implement intersectoral public policies that enhance climate resilience across the region; the pressing need to prioritise an energy transition that focuses on health co-benefits and wellbeing, and lastly, that need for increasing climate finance by committing to sustained fiscal efforts and engaging with multilateral development banks. By understanding the problems, addressing the gaps, and taking decisive action, Latin America can navigate the challenges of climate change, fostering a more sustainable and resilient future for its population. Spanish and Portuguese translated versions of this Summary can be found in Appendix B and C, respectively. The full translated report in Spanish is available in Appendix D.

Hartinger SM ，Palmeiro-Silva YK ，Llerena-Cayo C ，Blanco-Villafuerte L ，Escobar LE ，Diaz A ，Sarmiento JH ，Lescano AG ，Melo O ，Rojas-Rueda D ，Takahashi B ，Callaghan M ，Chesini F ，Dasgupta S ，Posse CG ，Gouveia N ，Martins de Carvalho A ，Miranda-Chacón Z ，Mohajeri N ，Pantoja C ，Robinson EJZ ，Salas MF ，Santiago R ，Sauma E ，Santos-Vega M ，Scamman D ，Sergeeva M ，Souza de Camargo T ，Sorensen C ，Umaña JD ，Yglesias-González M ，Walawender M ，Buss D ，Romanello M ... -  《-》