The importance of a sustainable health workforce is increasingly recognised. However, the building of a future health workforce that is responsive to diverse population needs and demographic and economic change remains insufficiently understood. There is a compelling argument to be made for a comprehensive research agenda to address the questions. With a focus on Europe and taking a health systems approach, we introduce an agenda linked to the ‘Health Workforce Research’ section of the European Public Health Association. Six major objectives for health workforce policy were identified: (1) to develop frameworks that align health systems/governance and health workforce policy/planning, (2) to explore the effects of changing skill mixes and competencies across sectors and occupational groups, (3) to map how education and health workforce governance can be better integrated, (4) to analyse the impact of health workforce mobility on health systems, (5) to optimise the use of international/EU, national and regional health workforce data and monitoring and (6) to build capacity for policy implementation. This article highlights critical knowledge gaps that currently hamper the opportunities of effectively responding to these challenges and advising policy-makers in different health systems. Closing these knowledge gaps is therefore an important step towards future health workforce governance and policy implementation. There is an urgent need for building health workforce research as an independent, interdisciplinary and multi-professional field. This requires dedicated research funding, new academic education programmes, comparative methodology and knowledge transfer and leadership that can help countries to build a people-centred health workforce.

Background: Medical deserts represent a pressing public health and health systems challenge. The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated the gap between people and health services, yet a commonly agreed definition of medical deserts was lacking. This study aims to define medical deserts through a consensus-building exercise, explaining the phenomenon to its full extent, in a manner that can apply to countries and health systems across the globe.Methods: We used a standard Delphi exercise for the consensus-building process. The first phase consisted of one round of individual online meetings with selected key informants; the second phase comprised two rounds of surveys when a consensus was reached in January 2023. The first phase—the in-depth individual meetings—was organized online. The dimensions to include in the definition of medical deserts were identified, ranked and selected based on their recurrence and importance. The second phase—the surveys—was organized online. Finally, external validation was obtained from stakeholders via email.Results: The agreed definition highlight five major dimensions: ‘Medical deserts are areas where population healthcare needs are unmet partially or totally due to lack of adequate access or improper quality of healthcare services caused by (i) insufficient human resources in health or (ii) facilities, (iii) long waiting times, (iv) disproportionate high costs of services or (v) other socio-cultural barriers’.Conclusions: The five dimensions of access to healthcare: (i) insufficient human resources in health or (ii) facilities, (iii) long waiting times, (iv) disproportionate high costs of services and (v) other socio-cultural barriers—ought to be addressed to mitigate medical deserts.

This article is dedicated to the WHO International Year of Health and Care Workers in 2021 in recognition of their commitment during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study aims to strengthen health workforce preparedness, protection and ultimately resilience during a pandemic. We argue for a health system approach and introduce a tool for rapid comparative assessment based on integrated multi-level governance. We draw on secondary sources and expert information, including material from Denmark, Germany, Portugal and Romania. The results reveal similar developments across countries: action has been taken to improve physical protection, digitalization and prioritization of healthcare worker vaccination, whereas social and mental health support programmes were weak or missing. Developments were more diverse in relation to occupational and organizational preparedness: some ad-hoc transformations of work routines and tasks were observed in all countries, yet skill-mix innovation and collaboration were strongest in Demark and weak in Portugal and Romania. Major governance gaps exist in relation to education and health integration, surveillance, social and mental health support programmes, gendered issues of health workforce capacity and integration of migrant healthcare workers (HCW). There is a need to step up efforts and make health systems more accountable to the needs of HCW during global public health emergencies.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative force in healthcare, offering significant potential to address workforce challenges and improve patient outcomes. This perspective article presents a framework for responsible AI innovation, emphasising ethical governance, responsible leadership and a commitment to human‐centred AI. It provides guidance for healthcare organisations to position AI as a strategic enabler, augmenting the health and care workforce and fostering sustainable, patient‐centred advancements in healthcare.

Background: The healthcare workforce (HCWF) globally is facing high stress levels and deteriorating mental health due to workplace, labour market and policy deficiencies that further exacerbate the existing crisis. However, comprehensive and effective action is missing.Aims: We adopt a health system and governance perspective to address the mental health needs of healthcare workers (HCWs), considering the nature of interventions and the levels and actors involved in governance. The aim is to move the debate forward by identifying governance gaps hampering the implementation of health workforce policies and exploring strategies to effectively increase mental health support.Material and Methods: A qualitative comparative methodology is applied based on a case study design utilising a multi‐level intersectoral governance matrix. We conducted a rapid assessment of HCWF developments in the European context (Germany, Portugal, Romania, Switzerland and the United Kingdom), drawing on secondary sources and country experts.Results and Discussion: Awareness of mental health threats among HCWs increased, but policy discourse is driven by service delivery and labour market demands. The attention to HCWs' needs is stronger on the international level and weakest at national/regional levels. Although organisations and professions demonstrate varying degrees of activity, their efforts are scattered and lack sustainability. Similar challenges were identified across healthcare systems, including limited action, disconnected actors, missing coordination, and a lack of attention to governance gaps and system weaknesses.Conclusion: Adopting a health system approach is important but not sufficient. Successful mental health policy implementation needs multi‐level governance and coherent coordination mechanisms.