The technological applications of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) have been steadily increasing since the 1950s exposing large proportions of the population. The World Health Organization (WHO) is assessing the potential health effects of exposure to RF-EMF. To systematically assess the effects of exposure to RF-EMF on self-reported non-specific symptoms in human subjects and to assess the accuracy of perceptions of presence or absence of RF-EMF exposure. Eligibility criteria: experimental studies carried out in the general population and in individuals with idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to EMF (IEI-EMF), in any language. Medline, Web of Science, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, Embase and EMF portal, searched till April 2022. Risk of Bias (ROB): we used the RoB tool developed by OHAT adapted to the topic of this review. we synthesized studies using random effects meta-analysis and sensitivity analyses, where appropriate. Included studies: 41 studies were included, mostly cross over trials and from Europe, with a total of 2,874 participants. considering the primary outcomes, we carried out meta-analyses of 10 exposure-outcomes pairs. All evidence suggested no or small non-significant effects of exposure on symptoms with high (three comparisons), moderate (four comparisons), low (one comparison) and very low (two comparisons) certainty of evidence. The effects (standard mean difference, where positive values indicate presence of symptom being exposed) in the general population for head exposure were (95% confidence intervals) 0.08 (-0.07 to 0.22) for headache, -0.01 (-0.22 to 0.20) for sleeping disturbances and 0.13 (-0.51 to 0.76) for composite symptoms; and for whole-body exposure: 0.09 (-0.35 to 0.54), 0.00 (-0.15 to 0.15) for sleeping disturbances and -0.05 (-0.17 to 0.07) for composite symptoms. For IEI-EMF individuals SMD ranged from -0.19 to 0.11, all of them with confidence intervals crossing the value of zero. Further, the available evidence suggested that study volunteers could not perceive the EMF exposure status better than what is expected by chance and that IEI-EMF individuals could not determine EMF conditions better than the general population. Limitations of evidence: experimental conditions are substantially different from real-life situations in the duration, frequency, distance and position of the exposure. Most studies were conducted in young, healthy volunteers, who might be more resilient to RF-EMF than the general population. The outcomes of interest in this systematic review were symptoms, which are self-reported. The available information did not allow to assess the potential effects of exposures beyond acute exposure and in elderly or in chronically ill people. It cannot be ruled out that a real EMF effect in IEI-EMF groups is masked by a mix with insensitive subjects. However, studies on symptoms reporting and/or field perceptions did not find any evidence that there were particularly vulnerable individuals in the IEI-EMF group, although in open provocation studies, when volunteers were informed about the presence or absence of EMF exposure, such differences were consistently observed. available evidence suggests that acute RF-EMF below regulatory limits does not cause symptoms and corresponding claims in the everyday life are related to perceived and not to real EMF exposure status.

Background Human resources are a key determinant for the quality of healthcare and health outcomes. Several human resource management approaches or practices have been proposed and implemented to better understand and address health workers’ challenges with mixed results particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The aim of this framework synthesis was to review the human resources frameworks commonly available to address human resources for health issues in LMIC. Methods We searched studies in Medline, Embase, CAB Global Health, CINAHL (EBSCO) and WHO global Index Medicus up to 2021. We included studies that provided frameworks to tackle human resources for health issues, especially for LMICs. We synthesised the findings using a framework and thematic synthesis methods. Results The search identified 8574 studies, out of which 17 were included in our analysis. The common elements of different frameworks are (in descending order of frequency): (1) functional roles of health workers; (2) health workforce performance outcomes; (3) human resource management practises and levers; (4) health system outcomes; (5) contextual/cross-cutting issues; (6) population health outcomes and (7) the humanness of health workers. All frameworks directly or indirectly considered themes around the functional roles of health workers and on the outcomes of health workforce activities, while themes concerning the humanness of health workers were least represented. We propose a synthesised Human-Centred Health Workforce Framework. Conclusions Several frameworks exist providing different recurring thematic areas for addressing human resources for health issues in LMIC. Frameworks have predominantly functional or instrumental dimensions and much less consideration of the humanness of health workers. The paradigms used in policy making, development and funding may compromise the effectiveness of strategies to address human resources challenges in LMIC. We propose a comprehensive human resources for health framework to address these pitfalls.

Background: Health information systems are crucial to provide data for decision-making and demand for data is constantly growing. However, the link between data and decisions is not always rational or linear and the management of data ends up overloading frontline health workers, which may compromise quality of healthcare delivery. Despite limited evidence, there is an increasing push for the digitalization of health information systems, which poses enormous challenges, particularly in remote, rural settings in low- and middle-income countries. Paper-based tools will continue to be used in combination with digital solutions and this calls for efforts to make them more responsive to local needs. Paper-based Health Information Systems in Comprehensive Care (PHISICC) is a transdisciplinary, multi-country research initiative to create and test innovative paper-based health information systems in three sub-Saharan African countries.Methods/Design: The PHISICC initiative is being carried out in remote, rural settings in Côte d’Ivoire, Mozambique and Nigeria through partnership with ministries of health and research institutions. We began with research syntheses to acquire the most up-to-date knowledge on health information systems. These were coupled with fieldwork in the three countries to understand the current design, patterns and contexts of use, and healthcare worker perspectives. Frontline health workers, with designers and researchers, used co-creation methods to produce the new PHISICC tools. This suite of tools is being tested in the three countries in three cluster-randomized controlled trials. Throughout the project, we have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders and have maintained the highest scientific standards to ensure that results are relevant to the realities in the three countries.Discussion: We have deployed a comprehensive research approach to ensure the robustness and future policy uptake of findings. Besides the innovative PHISICC paper-based tools, our process is in itself innovative. Rather than emphasizing the technical dimensions of data management, we focused instead on frontline health workers’ data use and decision-making. By tackling the whole scope of primary healthcare areas rather than a subset of them, we have developed an entirely new design and visual language for a suite of tools across healthcare areas. The initiative is being tested in remote, rural areas where the most vulnerable live.

Drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) is a global challenge and a major contributor of death from anti-microbial resistance. With the main aim to determine factors contributing to treatment outcomes observed among DR-TB patients in the countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA), a multi-method study was conducted in: Azerbaijan, Belarus, Romania, Tajikistan and Ukraine. Both quantitative and qualitative methodologies were used for data collection and analysis. The quantitative approaches included a desk review of documents related to the DR-TB responses and an analysis of clinical records of DR-TB patients in selected health facilities of the five countries. Qualitative methods included in-depth interviews with national TB programme (NTP) managers, other healthcare providers and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) workers, as well as interviews and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with DR-TB patients. The desk review of 38 reports identified as the main challenges to address DR-TB financial and/or management issues and adverse events of the medicines. The most common recommendations related to treatment outcome focussed on general programme management, treatment regimen composition, clinical management and social support for the patients. In all the five countries the NTPs still have a vertical structure. Some integration into the primary health care system (PHC) already exists but further involvement of PHC facilities is feasible and recommended. Interviews with stakeholders indicated that alcoholism and homelessness and a lack of appropriate response to these issues remain as major challenges for a sub-set of patients. Civil society groups, NGOs and communities are substantially engaged in providing different services to DR-TB patients, especially in Ukraine, Romania and Tajikistan. Data from clinical records of 212 patients revealed that independent risk factors for unfavourable treatment outcome (death, loss to follow-up, failure) were culture-positivity at two months of treatment, history of treatment with second-line drugs and homelessness. More powerful, less toxic and shorter oral treatment regimens as well as comprehensive patient support are needed to improve treatment outcome of patients with DR-TB.