Background: Adapting interventions that have worked elsewhere can save resources associated with developing new interventions for each specific context. While a developing body of evidence shows benefits of adapted interventions compared with interventions transported without adaptation, there are also examples of interventions which have been extensively adapted, yet have not worked in the new context. Decisions on when, to what extent, and how to adapt interventions therefore are not straightforward, particularly when conceptualising intervention effects as contingent upon contextual interactions in complex systems. No guidance currently addresses these questions comprehensively. To inform development of an overarching guidance on adaptation of complex population health interventions, this systematic review synthesises the content of the existing guidance papers. Methods: We searched for papers published between January 2000 and October 2018 in 7 bibliographic databases. We used citation tracking and contacted authors and experts to locate further papers. We double screened all the identified records. We extracted data into the following categories: descriptive information, key concepts and definitions, rationale for adaptation, aspects of adaptation, process of adaptation, evaluating and reporting adapted interventions. Data extraction was conducted independently by two reviewers, and retrieved data were synthesised thematically within pre-specified and emergent categories. Results: We retrieved 6694 unique records. Thirty-eight papers were included in the review representing 35 sources of guidance. Most papers were developed in the USA in the context of implementing evidence-informed interventions among different population groups within the country, such as minority populations. We found much agreement on how the papers defined key concepts, aims, and procedures of adaptation, including involvement of key stakeholders, but also identified gaps in scope, conceptualisation, and operationalisation in several categories. Conclusions: Our review found limitations that should be addressed in future guidance on adaptation. Specifically, future guidance needs to be reflective of adaptations in the context of transferring interventions across countries, including macro- (e.g. national-) level interventions, better theorise the role of intervention mechanisms and contextual interactions in the replicability of effects and accordingly conceptualise key concepts, such as fidelity to intervention functions, and finally, suggest evidence-informed strategies for adaptation re-evaluation and reporting. Trial registration: PROSPERO 2018, CRD42018112714.

In light of the current public health challenges, calls for more inter- and transdisciplinarity in the public health workforce are increasing, particularly to respond to complex and intersecting health challenges, such as those presented by the climate crisis, emerging infectious diseases, or military conflict. Although widely used, it is unclear how the concepts of multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinarity are applied with respect to the public health workforce. We conducted a scoping review and qualitative content analysis to provide an overview of how the concepts of multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinarity are defined and applied in the academic literature about the public health workforce. Of the 1957 records identified, 324 articles were included in the review. Of those, 193, 176, and 53 mentioned the concepts of multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinarity, respectively. Overall, 44 articles provided a definition. Whilst definitions of multidisciplinarity were scarce, definitions of inter- and transdisciplinarity were more common and richer, highlighting the aim of the collaboration and the blurring and dissolution of disciplinary boundaries. A better understanding of the application of multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinarity is an important step to implementing these concepts in practice, including in institutional structures, academic curricula, and approaches in tackling public health challenges.

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic underscored the need for pandemic preparedness, with respiratory-transmitted viruses considered as a substantial risk. In pandemics, long‐term care facilities (LTCFs) are a high-risk setting with severe outbreaks and burden of disease. Non‐pharmacological interventions (NPIs) constitute the primary defence mechanism when pharmacological interventions are not available. However, evidence on the effectiveness of NPIs implemented in LTCFs remains unclear. Methods: We conducted a systematic review assessing the effectiveness of NPIs implemented in LTCFs to protect residents and staff from viral respiratory pathogens with pandemic potential. We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and two COVID-19 registries in 09/2022. Screening and data extraction was conducted independently by two experienced researchers. We included randomized controlled trials and non-randomized observational studies of intervention effects. Quality appraisal was conducted using ROBINS-I and RoB2. Primary outcomes encompassed number of outbreaks, infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. We synthesized findings narratively, focusing on the direction of effect. Certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using GRADE. Results: We analysed 13 observational studies and three (cluster) randomized controlled trials. All studies were conducted in high-income countries, all but three focused on SARS-CoV-2 with the rest focusing on influenza or upper-respiratory tract infections. The evidence indicates that a combination of different measures and hand hygiene interventions can be effective in protecting residents and staff from infection-related outcomes (moderate CoE). Self-confinement of staff with residents, compartmentalization of staff in the LTCF, and the routine testing of residents and/or staff in LTCFs, among others, may be effective (low CoE). Other measures, such as restricting shared spaces, serving meals in room, cohorting infected and non-infected residents may be effective (very low CoE). An evidence gap map highlights the lack of evidence on important interventions, encompassing visiting restrictions, pre-entry testing, and air filtration systems. Conclusions: Although CoE of interventions was low or very low for most outcomes, the implementation of NPIs identified as potentially effective in this review often constitutes the sole viable option, particularly prior to the availability of vaccinations. Our evidence-gap map underscores the imperative for further research on several interventions. These gaps need to be addressed to prepare LTCFs for future pandemics. Trial registration: CRD42022344149.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of local evidence ecosystems in which academia and practice in the Public Health Service (PHS) are interconnected. However, appropriate organizational structures and well-trained staff are lacking and evidence use in local public health decision-making has to be integrated into training programs in Germany. To address this issue, we developed a framework incorporating a toolbox to conceptualize training programs designed to qualify public health professionals for working at the interface between academia and practice. We conducted a scoping review of training programs, key-informant interviews with public health experts, and a multi-professional stakeholder workshop and triangulated their output. The resulting toolbox consists of four core elements, encompassing 15 parameters: (1) content-related aspects, (2) context-related aspects, (3) aspects relevant for determining the training format, and (4) aspects relevant for consolidation and further development. Guiding questions with examples supports the application of the toolbox. Additionally, we introduced a how-to-use guidance to streamline the creation of new training programs, fostering knowledge transfer at the academia-practice interface, equipping public health researchers and practitioners with relevant skills for needs-based PHS research. By promoting collaborative training development across institutions, our approach encourages cross-institutional cooperation, enhances evidence utilization, and enables efficient resource allocation. This collaborative effort in developing training programs within local evidence ecosystems not only strengthens the scientific and practical impact but also lays a foundation for implementing complex public health measures effectively at the local level.

As in many European countries, the Public Health Service (PHS) in Germany has had considerable difficulties in attracting well-qualified personnel for decades. Despite ongoing political and societal debate, limited empirical research on possible causes and explanations is available. To identify areas of action, we explored reasons for the (lack of) interest in working in the PHS by conducting two cross-sectional surveys among 3019 medical students (MS), public health students, and students from other PHS-relevant fields (PH&ONM) in Germany right before (wave 1, 2019/2020) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (wave 2, 2021). While interest in working in the PHS among MS was low, it was considerably higher among PH&ONM. The prevalent underestimation of the importance of public health and low levels of knowledge about the PHS were identified as potential barriers. Although core activities of the PHS were often considered attractive, they were repeatedly not attributed to the PHS. A negative perception of the PHS (e.g., it being too bureaucratic) was prevalent among students with and without PHS interest, indicating that both a negative image and potentially structural deficits need to be overcome to increase attractiveness. Based on the findings, we propose approaches on how to sustainably attract and retain qualified personnel.

The Public Health Service (PHS) in Germany has had difficulties in recruiting enough qualified staff for years, but there is limited research on what factors drive decisions to (not) join the PHS workforce. We explored reasons for this perceived (lack of) attractiveness. We conducted two cross-sectional surveys among medical students (MS), public health students and students from other PHS-relevant fields (PH&ONM) in Germany before (2019/2020) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (2021). Both waves surveyed self-reported reasons for why students did (not) consider working in the PHS as attractive and how this could be improved, using open-question items. Qualitative and quantitative content analyses were conducted according to Mayring. In total, 948 MS and 445 PH&ONM provided valid written responses. Reasons for considering the PHS as attractive were, among others, the perception of a good work-life balance, high impact, population health focus, and generally interesting occupations. Suggestions to increase attractiveness included reducing bureaucracy, modernization/digitalization, and more acknowledgement of non-medical professionals. Among MS, reasons against were too little clinical/patient-related activities, low salary, and occupations regarded as boring. Our findings indicate areas for improvement for image, working conditions in, and institutional structures of the PHS in Germany to increase its attractiveness as an employer among young professionals.