In light of global environmental crises and the need for sustainable development, the fields of public health and environmental sciences have become increasingly interrelated. Both fields require interdisciplinary thinking and global solutions, which is largely directed by scientific progress documented in peer-reviewed journals. Journal editors play a critical role in coordinating and shaping what is accepted as scientific knowledge. Previous research has demonstrated a lack of diversity in the gender and geographic representation of editors across scientific disciplines. This study aimed to explore the diversity of journal editorial boards publishing in environmental science and public health. The Clarivate Journal Citation Reports database was used to identify journals classified as Public, Environmental, and Occupational (PEO) Health, Environmental Studies, or Environmental Sciences. Current EB members were identified from each journal’s publicly available website between 1 March and 31 May 2021. Individuals’ names, editorial board roles, institutional affiliations, geographic locations (city, country), and inferred gender were collected. Binomial 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the proportions of interest. Pearson correlations with false discovery rate adjustment were used to assess the correlation between journal-based indicators and editorial board characteristics. Linear regression and logistic regression models were fitted to further assess the relationship between gender presence, low- and middle-income country (LMIC) presence and several journal and editor-based indicators. After identifying 628 unique journals and excluding discontinued or unavailable journals, 615 journal editorial boards were included. In-depth analysis was conducted on 591 journals with complete gender and geographic data for their 27,772 editors. Overall, the majority of editors were men (65.9%), followed by women (32.9%) and non-binary/other gender minorities (0.05%). 75.5% journal editorial boards (n = 446) were composed of a majority of men (>55% men), whilst only 13.2% (n = 78) demonstrated gender parity (between 45–55% women/gender minorities). Journals categorized as PEO Health had the most gender diversity. Furthermore, 84% of editors (n = 23,280) were based in high-income countries and only 2.5% of journals (n = 15) demonstrated economic parity in their editorial boards (between 45–55% editors from LMICs). Geographically, the majority of editors’ institutions were based in the United Nations (UN) Western Europe and Other region (76.9%), with 35.2% of editors (n = 9,761) coming solely from the United States and 8.6% (n = 2,373) solely from the United Kingdom. None of the editors-in-chief and only 27 editors in total were women based in low-income countries. Through the examination of journal editorial boards, this study exposes the glaring lack of diversity in editorial boards in environmental science and public health, explores the power dynamics affecting the creation and dissemination of knowledge, and proposes concrete actions to remedy these structural inequities in order to inform more equitable, just and impactful knowledge creation.

The planetary crises require health professionals to understand the interlinkages between health and environmental changes, and how to reduce ecological harm (ie, ecological footprint) and promote positive change (ie, ecological handprint). However, health professions' education and training are mostly lacking these aspects. In this Viewpoint, we report findings from the evaluation of the Planetary Health Academy, the first open online lecture series for transformative planetary health education in Germany. In a retrospective online survey, 458 of 3656 Planetary Health Academy participants reported on their emotions towards climate change, attitudes towards health professionals' responsibilities, self-efficacy, and the contribution of the Planetary Health Academy to their knowledge and actions. Additionally, motivators and barriers to acting were assessed. Our findings provide insights that can inform future efforts for transformative education. Combined with network and movement building, education could act as a social tipping element toward actions to mitigate global environmental changes.

Focusing specifically on the gender-climate-health nexus, this Personal View builds on existing feminist works and analyses to discuss why intersectional approaches to climate policy and inclusive representation in climate decision making are crucial for achieving just and equitable solutions to address the impacts of climate change on human health and societies. This Personal View highlights how women, girls, and gender-diverse people often face disproportionate climate-related health impacts, particularly those who experience compounding and overlapping vulnerabilities due to current and former systems of oppression. We summarise the insufficient meaningful inclusion of gender, health, and their intersection in international climate governance. Despite the tendency to conflate gender equality with number-based representation, climate governance under the UNFCCC (1995-2023) remains dominated by men, with several countries projected to take over a decade to achieve gender parity in their Party delegations. Advancing gender-responsiveness in climate policy and implementation and promoting equitable participation in climate governance will not only improve the inclusivity and effectiveness of national strategies, but will also build more resilient, equitable, and healthier societies.

Background While an estimated 70%–75% of the health workforce are women, this is not reflected in the leadership roles of most health organisations—including global decision-making bodies such as the World Health Assembly (WHA). Methods We analysed gender representation in WHA delegations of Member States, Associate Members and Observers (country/territory), using data from 10 944 WHA delegations and 75 815 delegation members over 1948–2021. Delegates’ information was extracted from WHO documentation. Likely gender was inferred based on prefixes, pronouns and other gendered language. A gender-to-name algorithm was used as a last resort (4.6%). Time series of 5-year rolling averages of the percentage of women across WHO region, income group and delegate roles are presented. We estimated (%) change ±SE of inferred women delegation members at the WHA per year, and estimated years±SE until gender parity from 2010 to 2019 across regions, income groups, delegate roles and countries. Correlations with these measures were assessed with countries’ gender inequality index and two Worldwide Governance indicators. Results While upwards trends could be observed in the percentage of women delegates over the past 74 years, men remained over-represented in most WHA delegations. Over 1948–2021, 82.9% of delegations were composed of a majority of men, and no WHA had more than 30% of women Chief Delegates (ranging from 0% to 30%). Wide variation in trends over time could be observed across different geographical regions, income groups and countries. Some countries may take over 100 years to reach gender parity in their WHA delegations, if current estimated trends continue. Conclusion Despite commitments to gender equality in leadership, women remain gravely under-represented in global health governance. An intersectional approach to representation in global health governance, which prioritises equity in participation beyond gender, can enable transformative policymaking that fosters transparent, accountable and just health systems.

Introduction: Effective antimicrobial stewardship programs require data on antimicrobial consumption (AMC) and utilization (AMU) to guide interventions. However, such data is often scarce in low-resource settings. We describe the consumption and utilization of antibiotics at a large tertiary-level hospital in Uganda. Methods: In this cross-sectional study at Kiruddu National Referral Hospital, we analyzed medicine delivery records for the period July 2021 to June 2022, accessed on 12/08/2022, to extract AMC data expressed as defined daily doses (DDDs) per 1000 inhabitants per day (DID). We used the WHO point prevalence survey (PPS) to analyze AMU data with a systematic sampling of outpatient department (OPD) for a period between June and August 2022 and selected all inpatient department (IPD) patients admitted before 8:00 AM on 27/11/2022. AMU data was analyzed as the proportion of individual antibiotic prescriptions, indications for prescriptions, and compliance with the national treatment guidelines. Both AMC and AMU data were categorized by the WHO AWaRe (access, watch, and reserve) criteria. Results: In the year 2021–2022, a total of 6.05 DID of antibiotics were consumed comprising 3.61 DID (59.6%) access, 2.44 DID (40.3%) watch, and 0.003 (0.1%) reserve antibiotics. The most consumed antibiotics comprised penicillin (1.61 DID, 26.7%), cephalosporins (1.51, 25%), and imidazole (1.10 DID, 18.1%). A total of 119/211 (56%) patients in the OPD and 99/172 (57.5%) patients in the IPD were prescribed antibiotics. Of the 158 OPD antibiotic prescriptions, 73 (46.2%) were access, 72 (45.6%) were watch, 0 (0%) were reserve, and 13 (8.2%) were unclassified antibiotics. Of the 162 IPD antibiotic prescriptions, 62 (38.3%) were access, 88 (54.3%) were watch, 01 (0.6%) was reserve, and 11 (6.8%) were unclassified antibiotics. Indications for antibiotic prescriptions in the OPD comprised respiratory tract infections (53, 38.1%), urinary tract infections (34, 26.6%), gastrointestinal infections (20, 14.4%), sepsis (17, 12.2%), and medical prophylaxis (12, 8.7%). The indications for antibiotic prescriptions in the IPD comprised sepsis (28.2%), respiratory tract infections (18.3%), burn wounds (14.1%), and gastrointestinal infections (14.1%). Conclusion: Prescription of watch antibiotics in both OPD and IPD hospital settings was high. Establishment of robust antimicrobial stewardship measures could help improve the rational prescription of antibiotics.