When microorganisms (such as bacteria or viruses) are highly exposed to antimicrobial drugs, they can develop the capacity to defeat the drugs designed to eradicate them. Long-term accumulation of adaptations to survive drug exposure can lead to the development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The success of antibiotics has led to their widespread overuse and misuse in humans, animals and plants. AMR is a global concern and solutions are not vertical actions in a single buy business model. Even if a transectoral approach is key, there is a lack of multi-disciplinary partnerships that allow for strategic cooperation between different sectors such as the pharmaceutical industry, agro-alimentary complex, patient care and education, NGOs and research and development. Global public health voices should lead this integration to align the progress of existing AMR successes. Maintaining the public’s trust in preventive medicine, health systems and food production safety, together with public health driven, non-profit drug development, is a key factor. In its “Call for integrated action on AMR”, signed by about 70 national and international organizations the World Federation of Public Health Associations (WFPHA) called “on all governments, the private sector, non-governmental organizations, health professionals, public and private research organizations, and all stakeholders to ensure that public health remains at the centre of all policy and scientific endeavours in the field of antimicrobial resistance”. The “Global Charter for the Public’s Health”, developed by the WFPHA in association with WHO, is proposed in this article as a tool for implementation of complex public health actions such as AMR.

Background: during the last hundred years, several major public health issues have already afflicted humanity. Most frequently cited definitions of public health have stemmed from long-standing definitions, which raises several concerns including whether these definitions can respond to today’s public health challenges. The present study aimed to identify and review available public health definitions in the first place. Methods: in this scoping review, we undertook an electronic search in four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and EBSCOhost) from inception until June 06, 2022, and a grey literature search in Google Scholar. Moreover, reference lists of publications included in the scoping review were screened manually for additional relevant publications. All types of scientific publications, in English, that focused on the definition of public health and provided an original definition were included. Year, type, disciplinary fields of publications, objectives of publications, and public health definitions were extracted. Results: 5651 publications were identified through the scoping search, of which five were subjected to full-text review. Of these publications, two were included. An additional nine publications were identified through the manual screening. A total 11 of publications were included in the scoping review. Of the 11 definitions included in this review, the latest original definitions date back to about two decades ago. Conclusions: there is a noticeable lack of updated definitions of public health. Considering our findings and the ever-changing nature of public health issues, there is an urgent need for re-assessing and updating public health definitions.

The potential for the use of real-world data (RWD) to generate real-world evidence (RWE) that can inform clinical decision-making and health policy is increasingly recognized, albeit with hesitancy in some circles. If used appropriately, the rapidly expanding wealth of health data could improve healthcare research, delivery of care, and patient outcomes. However, this depends on two key factors: (1) building structures that increase the confidence and willingness of European Union (EU) citizens to permit the collection and use of their data, and (2) development of EU health policy to support and shape data collection infrastructures, methodologies, transmission, and use. The great potential for use of RWE in healthcare improvement merits careful exploration of the drivers of, and challenges preventing, efficient RWD curation. Literature-based research was performed to identify relevant themes and discussion topics for two sets of expert panels, organized by the European Alliance for Personalised Medicine. These expert panels discussed steps that would enable a gradual but steady growth in the quantity, quality, and beneficial deployment of RWE. Participants were selected to provide insight based on their professional medical, economic, patient, industry, or governmental experience. Here, we propose a framework that addresses public trust and access to data, cross-border governance, alignment of evidence frameworks, and demonstrable improvements in healthcare decisions. We also discuss key case studies that support these recommendations, in accordance with the discussions at the expert panels.

Background: During healthcare guideline development, panel members often have implicit, different definitions of health outcomes that can lead to misunderstandings about how important these outcomes are and how to balance benefits and harms. McMaster GRADE Centre researchers developed ‘health outcome descriptors’ for standardizing descriptions of health outcomes and overcoming these problems to support the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC) Guideline Development Group (GDG). We aimed to determine which aspects of the development, content, and use of health outcome descriptors were valuable to guideline developers. Methods: We developed 24 health outcome descriptors related to breast cancer screening and diagnosis for the European Commission Breast Guideline Development Group (GDG). Eighteen GDG members provided feedback in written format or in interviews. We then evaluated the process and conducted two health utility rating surveys. Results: Feedback from GDG members revealed that health outcome descriptors are probably useful for developing recommendations and improving transparency of guideline methods. Time commitment, methodology training, and need for multidisciplinary expertise throughout development were considered important determinants of the process. Comparison of the two health utility surveys showed a decrease in standard deviation in the second survey across 21 (88%) of the outcomes. Conclusions: Health outcome descriptors are feasible and should be developed prior to the outcome prioritization step in the guideline development process. Guideline developers should involve a subgroup of multidisciplinary experts in all stages of development and ensure all guideline panel members are trained in guideline methodology that includes understanding the importance of defining and understanding the outcomes of interest.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a continuous and robust impact on world health. The resulting COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating physical, mental and fiscal impact on the millions of people living with noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). In addition to older age, people living with CVD, stroke, obesity, diabetes, kidney disease, and hypertension are at a particularly greater risk for severe forms of COVID-19 and its consequences. Meta-analysis indicates that hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and thrombotic complications have been observed as both the most prevalent and most dangerous co-morbidities in COVID-19 patients. And despite the nearly incalculable physical, mental, emotional, and economic toll of this pandemic, forthcoming public health figures continue to place cardiovascular disease as the number one cause of death across the globe in the year 2020. The world simply cannot wait for the next pandemic to invest in NCDs. Social determinants of health cannot be addressed only through the healthcare system, but a more holistic multisectoral approach with at its basis the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is needed to truly address social and economic inequalities and build more resilient systems. Yet there is reason for hope: the 2019 UN Political Declaration on UHC provides a strong framework for building more resilient health systems, with explicit calls for investment in NCDs and references to fiscal policies that put such investment firmly within reach. By further cementing the importance of addressing circulatory health in a future Framework Convention on Emergency Preparedness, WHO Member States can take concrete steps towards a pandemic-free future. As the chief representatives of the global circulatory health community and patients, the Global Coalition for Circulatory Health calls for increased support for the healthcare workforce, global vaccine equity, embracing new models of care and digital health solutions, as well as fiscal policies on unhealthy commodities to support these investments.