The Inflation Reduction Act: An Opportunity to Accelerate Confidence in Real-World Evidence in the United States.

Arora P ，Gupta A ，Mackay E ，Heeg B ，Thorlund K ... -  《-》

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 ... -  《-》

Exploring conceptual and theoretical frameworks for nurse practitioner education: a scoping review protocol.

Wilson R ，Godfrey CM ，Sears K ，Medves J ，Ross-White A ，Lambert N ... -  《-》

Qualitative evidence synthesis informing our understanding of people's perceptions and experiences of targeted digital communication.

Health communication is an area where changing technologies, particularly digital technologies, have a growing role to play in delivering and exchanging health information between individuals, communities, health systems, and governments.[1] Such innovation has the potential to strengthen health systems and services, with substantial investments in digital health already taking place, particularly in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Communication using mobile phones is an important way of contacting individual people and the public more generally to deliver and exchange health information. Such technologies are used increasingly in this capacity, but poor planning and short‐term projects may be limiting their potential for health improvement. The assumption that mobile devices will solve problems that other forms of communication have not is also prevalent. In this context, understanding people's views and experiences may lead to firmer knowledge on which to build better programs. A qualitative evidence synthesis by Heather Ames and colleagues on clients' perceptions and experiences of targeted digital communication focuses on a particular type of messaging – targeted messages from health services delivered to particular group(s) via mobile devices, in this case looking at communicating with pregnant women and parents of young children, and with adults and teenagers about sexual health and family planning.[2] These areas of reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health (RMNCAH) are where important gains have been made worldwide, but there remains room for improvement. Ames and colleagues sought to examine and understand people's perceptions and experiences of using digital targeted client communication. This might include communication in different formats and with a range of purposes related to RMNCAH – for example, receiving text message reminders to take medicines (e.g. HIV medicines) or go to appointments (such as childhood vaccination appointments), or phone calls offering information or education (such as about breastfeeding or childhood illnesses), support (e.g. providing encouragement to change behaviours) or advice (such as advising about local healthcare services). These communication strategies have the potential to improve health outcomes by communicating with people or by supporting behaviour change. However, changing people's health behaviours to a significant and meaningful degree is notoriously challenging and seldom very effective across the board. There are a multitude of systematic reviews of interventions aiming to change behaviours of both patients and providers, with the overall objective of improving health outcomes – many of which show little or no average effects across groups of people.[3] This evidence synthesis is therefore important as it may help to understand why communicating with people around their health might (or might not) change behaviours and improve consequent health outcomes. By examining the experiences and perspectives of those receiving the interventions, this qualitative evidence synthesis allows us to better understand the interventions' acceptability and usefulness, barriers to their uptake, and factors to be considered when planning implementation. The synthesis looked at 35 studies from countries around the world, focussing on communication related to RMNCAH. Of the 35 studies, 16 were from high‐income countries, mainly the United States, and 19 were from low‐ or middle‐income countries, mainly African countries. Many of the studies presented hypothetical scenarios. The findings from the synthesis are mixed and give us a more nuanced picture of the role of targeted digital communication. People receiving targeted digital communications from health services often liked and valued these contacts, feeling supported and connected by them. However, some also reported problems with the use of these technologies, which may represent barriers to their use. These included practical or technical barriers like poor network or Internet access, as well as cost, language, technical literacy, reading or issues around confidentiality, especially where personal health conditions were involved. Access to mobile phones may also be a barrier, particularly for women and adolescents who may have to share or borrow a phone or who have access controlled by others. In such situations it may be difficult to receive communications or to maintain privacy of content. The synthesis also shows that people's experiences of these interventions are influenced by factors such as the timing of messages, their frequency and content, and their trust in the sender. Identifying key features of such communications by the people who use them might therefore help to inform future choices about how and when such messaging is used. The authors used their knowledge from 25 separate findings to list ten implications for practice. This section of the review is hugely valuable, making a practical contribution to assist governments and public health agencies wishing to develop or improve their delivery of digital health. The implications serve as a list of points to consider, including issues of access (seven different aspects are considered), privacy and confidentiality, reliability, credibility and trust, and responsiveness to the needs and preferences of users. In this way, qualitative evidence is building a picture of how to better communicate with people about health. For example, an earlier 2017 Cochrane qualitative evidence synthesis by Ames, Glenton and Lewin on parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences of communication about routine childhood vaccination provides ample evidence that may help program managers to deliver or plan communication interventions in ways that are responsive to and acceptable to parents.[4] The qualitative synthesis method, therefore, puts a spotlight on how people's experiences of health and health care in the context of their lives may lead to the design of better interventions, as well as to experimental studies which take more account of the diversity that exists in people's attitudes and decision‐making experiences.[5] In the case of this qualitative evidence synthesis by Ames and colleagues, the method pulled together a substantial body of research (35 data‐rich studies were sampled from 48 studies identified, with the high‐to‐moderate confidence in the evidence for 13 of the synthesized findings). The evidence from this review can inform the development of interventions, and the design of trials and their implementation. While waiting for such new trials or trial evidence on effects to emerge, decision‐makers can build their programs on the highly informative base developed by this review. This qualitative evidence synthesis, alongside other reviews, has informed development by the World Health Organization of its first guideline for using digital technologies for health systems strengthening,[1, 6] part of a comprehensive program of work to better understand and support implementation of such new technologies.

Ryan R ，Hill S 《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

A Comparative Analysis of International Drug Price Negotiation Frameworks: An Interview Study of Key Stakeholders.

Policy Points Health care systems around the world rely on a range of methods to ensure the affordability of prescription drugs, including negotiating prices soon after drug approval and relying on formal clinical assessments that compare newly approved therapies with existing alternatives. The negotiation framework established under the Inflation Reduction Act is far more limited than other frameworks explored in this study. Adding elements from these frameworks could lead to more effective price negotiation in the United States. In 2022, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which allowed Medicare, for the first time, to begin negotiating the prices for certain high-cost brand-name prescription drugs. Many other industrialized countries negotiate drug prices, and we sought to compare and contrast key features of the negotiation process across several health systems. We focused, in particular, on the criteria for selecting drugs for price negotiation, procedures for negotiation, factors that influence negotiated prices, and how prices are implemented. We included four G7 countries in our analysis (Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom [England]), two Benelux countries (Belgium and the Netherlands), and one Scandinavian country (Norway) with long-established frameworks for drug price negotiation. We also analyzed the Veterans Affairs Health System in the United States. For each system, we gathered relevant legislation, government publications, and guidelines to understand negotiation frameworks, and we reached out to key drug price negotiators in each system to conduct semistructured interviews. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded, and data were analyzed based on an internal assessment tool that we developed. All eight systems negotiate the prices of brand-name prescription drugs soon after approval and rely on formal clinical assessments that compare newly approved drugs with existing therapies. Systems in our study differed on characteristics such as whether the body performing clinical assessments is separate from the negotiating authority, how added health benefit is assessed, whether explicit willingness-to-pay thresholds are employed, and how specific approaches for priority disease areas are taken. High-income countries around the world adopt different approaches to conducting price negotiations on brand-name drugs but coalesce around a set of practices that will largely be absent from the current Medicare negotiation framework. US policymakers might consider adding some of these characteristics in the future to improve negotiation outcomes.

Syversen ID ，Schulman K ，Kesselheim AS ，Feldman WB ... -  《-》