Africa accounts for over one-third of the global burden of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). Although continental efforts have been made to combat these diseases, there still exists a significant gap in the fight, ranging from a lack of data to multisectoral participation and, most critically, health inequity. Here, we assess the effort made to combat challenges caused by health disparities to prevent and control neglected tropical diseases. This article engages a health equity view to addressing the need for inclusion in achieving universal health coverage towards eradicating NTDs and outlines strategies to achieve such. Health disparities exist, and there is substantial and irrefutable evidence for them. Inequitable distribution and limited access to basic and essential life resources such as water, housing, toilets, soap, and literacy continue to facilitate the existence of NTDs such as Schistosomiasis, soil-transmitted helminths, and trachoma, the occurrence of which can be avoided if affected populations have better access to those resources. To eradicate NTDs, health disparities must be addressed to provide excellent health care to all populations and adequate universal health coverage for long-term sustainability. NTD programmes need to be data-driven to ensure better decision-making and ensure the inclusion of diverse population groups including women, children, and youths. This will ensure that no one is left behind, drawing upon the sustainable development goals. Community participation and engagement should also be considered as an essential approach to ensure people are at the centre of health programmes and their implementation.

This article delves into the interplay of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) within Africa, spotlighting gender disparities in NTD programs. NTDs, impacting marginalized communities, impose considerable physical, mental, and social burdens. The article underscores NTDs as equity markers for SDGs, spotlighting gender‐based imbalances in disease susceptibility, treatment accessibility, and health‐seeking tendencies. Gender's influence on NTD risks is elucidated, emphasizing the heightened susceptibility of women due to socioeconomic constraints, cultural dynamics, and gender norms. The article also highlights the absence of gender considerations in NTD programs, advocating for gender‐integrated strategies, enhanced data collection, and collaborative partnerships to rectify these inequities. By embracing a gender‐equity approach, the article underscores the necessity of gender‐balanced NTD efforts for comprehensive health, sustainable development, and gender parity, demanding cohesive actions across sectors.

Background and Aim: The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is facing a humanitarian crisis due to prolonged conflicts, human rights abuses, and gender‐based violence. This perspective article aims to discuss the challenges faced by vulnerable populations in the DRC, including the impact of interventions and broader humanitarian strategies.Methods: A search on Google Scholar was carried out to identify relevant journal articles. Additionally, relevant reports and data on the DR Congo crisis were sourced from the websites of international and humanitarian organizations including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, World Health Organization, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and the Norwegian Refugee Council.Results: The crisis has led to 6.1 million displaced individuals and 1 million seeking asylum in neighboring countries. Insecurity and displacement further exacerbate the crisis, exacerbating health issues and malnutrition, particularly among women and children. The deterioration of water, sanitation, and hygiene infrastructure in the region facilitates the spread of infectious diseases. The UN has appealed for $8.3 billion in humanitarian assistance in West and Central Africa, including DRC. However, more attention and efforts are needed to curb the menace of the conflict.Conclusions: Addressing root causes like political volatility, economic disparity, and social unrest is crucial for sustained health protection. Tailoring humanitarian assistance to the context of conflict is essential, prioritizing mental health support and psychosocial services. Improving access to healthcare is crucial. Addressing food insecurity is essential, involving targeted food assistance programs, improving agricultural practices, and establishing income‐generating activities. Sustaining international assistance and investments are needed to address the health needs of the most vulnerable populations.

This review aimed to synthesize scientific evidence on the access to vaccination among refugees, asylum seekers, and internally displaced persons (IDPs) in

Climate change places increasing pressure on health systems. They must both reduce their negative impact on the environment and strengthen resilience to climate-related risks. To synthesize and map the evidence from systematic reviews on the scope and effectiveness of climate change mitigation and adaptation actions in health systems. An umbrella review of systematic reviews examining health system responses to climate change was conducted. The review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological guidelines and adhered to the PRISMA checklist. The included systematic reviews had to meet two overarching criteria: at least two databases were searched, and a predefined instrument was used to assess the quality or risk of bias of the included studies. Forty-six systematic reviews published between 2020 and 2026 were included, covering 1,175 individual studies. Most reviews (41/46) focused exclusively on mitigation strategies, with evidence concentrated around major greenhouse gas emission hotspots: surgical procedures; radiology; pharmaceuticals; solid waste; and transportation of patients and staff. Across these areas, some mitigation strategies were associated with environmental and economic co-benefits, although the underlying evidence was heterogeneous and often of low to moderate quality. In contrast, only a small number of reviews addressed climate adaptation and health system resilience. Existing evidence provides practical guidance on effective climate mitigation actions. The limited number of systematic reviews on climate adaptation highlights a gap in the evidence base. Translating mitigation evidence into clinical guidelines and policies and strengthening research on adaptation could support more systematic climate action in health systems.

Background Climate change places increasing pressure on health systems. They must both reduce their negative impact on the environment and strengthen resilience to climate-related risks. Objective To synthesize and map the evidence from systematic reviews on the scope and effectiveness of climate change mitigation and adaptation actions in health systems. Methods An umbrella review of systematic reviews examining health system responses to climate change was conducted. The review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological guidelines and adhered to the PRISMA checklist. The included systematic reviews had to meet two overarching criteria: at least two databases were searched, and a predefined instrument was used to assess the quality or risk of bias of the included studies. Results Thirty-nine systematic reviews published between 2020 and 2025 were included, covering 933 individual studies. Most reviews (35/39) focused exclusively on mitigation strategies, with evidence concentrated around major greenhouse gas emission hotspots: surgical procedures; radiology; pharmaceuticals; food waste; and transportation of patients and staff. Across these areas, many mitigation strategies were associated with environmental and economic co-benefits, although the underlying evidence was heterogeneous and often of low to moderate quality. In contrast, only a small number of reviews addressed climate adaptation and health system resilience. Conclusions Existing evidence provides practical guidance on effective climate mitigation actions. The limited number of systematic reviews on climate adaptation highlights a gap in the evidence base. Translating mitigation evidence into clinical guidelines and policies and strengthening research on adaptation could support more systematic climate action in health systems.