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.

Applications emitting radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF; 100 kHz to 300 GHz) are widely used for communication (e.g. mobile phones), in medicine (diathermy) and in industry (RF heaters). Concern has been raised that RF-EMF exposure affects health related quality of life, because a part of the population reports to experience a variety of symptoms related to low exposure levels below regulatory limits. To systematically review the effects of longer-term or repeated local and whole human body RF-EMF exposure on the occurrence of symptoms evaluating migraine, tinnitus, headaches, sleep disturbances and composite symptom scores as primary outcomes. We will follow the WHO handbook for guideline development. For the development of the systematic review protocol we considered handbook for conducting systematic reviews for health effects evaluations from the National Toxicology Program-Office of Health Assessment and Translation (NTP-OHAT) and COSTER (Recommendations for the conduct of systematic reviews in toxicology and environmental health research). Peer-reviewed epidemiological studies in the general population or workers aiming to investigate the association between local or whole-body RF-EMF exposure for at least one week and symptoms are eligible for inclusion. Only cohort, case-control and panel studies will be included. We will search the scientific literature databases Medline, Web of Science, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos and Embase, using a predefined search strategy. This search will be supplemented by a search in the EMF-Portal and checks of reference lists of relevant papers and reviews. Data from included papers will be extracted according to predefined forms. Findings will be summarized in tables, graphical displays and in a narrative synthesis of the available evidence, complemented with meta-analyses. We will separately review effects of local, far field and occupational exposure. The internal validity of included studies will be assessed using the NTP-OHAT Risk of Bias Rating Tool for Human and Animal Studies, elaborated to observational RF-EMF studies. To rate certainty of the evidence, we will use the OHAT GRADE-based approach for epidemiological studies. This protocol concerns one of the ten different systematic reviews considered in a larger systematic review of the World Health Organization to assess potential health effects of exposure to RF-EMF in the general and working population. PROSPERO CRD42021239432.

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.