Currently, various tools exist to evaluate knowledge and awareness of antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and are applied by various organizations. Previous systematic reviews have focused mainly on study findings such as levels of knowledge and AMR awareness. However, the survey procedures and data instruments used ought to be scrutinized as well, since they are important contributors to credible results. This review aims to assess the study methods and procedures of existing population-based surveys and explore key components which determine the general population’s levels of knowledge and awareness of antibiotic use and AMR. We searched existing literature for population -based surveys which sought knowledge and awareness of antibiotic use or AMR in the general population. Databases searched included Ovid, MEDLINE and EMBASE, PsycINFO and Scopus, domestic journals and gray literature sources. Population-based cross-sectional studies published in English or Thai from January 2000 to December 2018 were included in the review. Quality assessment was conducted using the ‘Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies’ (AXIS). All 22 studies included in the analysis had clear objectives focusing on assessing people’s levels of knowledge, awareness, attitudes and behavior relating to antibiotic use and awareness of AMR. These studies had employed appropriate methodologies for population-based cross-sectional surveys relative to research questions. More than half of studies (14 out of 22) had scientifically soundly designed methodologies which captured the representativeness of the population; whereas the remaining studies had unclear sample size estimations, inappropriate sample frames and selection biases. Half of the studies had tested the validity and reliability of the questionnaire. The common questions used by these surveys were categorized into four themes: behavior related to antibiotic use, knowledge and awareness of antibiotic use, knowledge and awareness of AMR and others such as receiving information about antibiotic use and AMR or cross-cutting issues like self-medication. This review identified four key features of good practices in antibiotic use and awareness surveys: a) clear survey objective; b) scientifically sound sampling techniques ensuring representativeness; c) strategies for recruitment of samples and survey administration methods; and d) credible measurement to prevent non-sampling biases. During questionnaire design, the health systems context in terms of access to health services and antibiotics should be taken into account. In conclusion, to maximize the use of surveys, the application of findings in surveys and associated factors related to antibiotic use and AMR should primarily generate public health interventions and target specific groups to make progress in solving AMR problems.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large number of individual experts. Evidence from human, animal and mechanistic data suggests that occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (silica, asbestos and coal dust) causes pneumoconiosis. In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust. These estimates of prevalences and levels will serve as input data for estimating (if feasible) the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years that are attributable to occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust among working-age (≥ 15 years) workers. We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts. We included working-age (≥ 15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (< 15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included all study types with objective dust or fibre measurements, published between 1960 and 2018, that directly or indirectly reported an estimate of the prevalence and/or level of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and/or coal dust. At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, then data were extracted from qualifying studies. We combined prevalence estimates by industrial sector (ISIC-4 2-digit level with additional merging within Mining, Manufacturing and Construction) using random-effects meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and all available authors assessed the quality of evidence, using the ROB-SPEO tool and QoE-SPEO approach developed specifically for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. Eighty-eight studies (82 cross-sectional studies and 6 longitudinal studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising > 2.4 million measurements covering 23 countries from all WHO regions (Africa, Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, South-East Asia, Europe, and Western Pacific). The target population in all 88 included studies was from major ISCO groups 3 (Technicians and Associate Professionals), 6 (Skilled Agricultural, Forestry and Fishery Workers), 7 (Craft and Related Trades Workers), 8 (Plant and Machine Operators and Assemblers), and 9 (Elementary Occupations), hereafter called manual workers. Most studies were performed in Construction, Manufacturing and Mining. For occupational exposure to silica, 65 studies (61 cross-sectional studies and 4 longitudinal studies) were included with > 2.3 million measurements collected in 22 countries in all six WHO regions. For occupational exposure to asbestos, 18 studies (17 cross-sectional studies and 1 longitudinal) were included with > 20,000 measurements collected in eight countries in five WHO regions (no data for Africa). For occupational exposure to coal dust, eight studies (all cross-sectional) were included comprising > 100,000 samples in six countries in five WHO regions (no data for Eastern Mediterranean). Occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust was assessed with personal or stationary active filter sampling; for silica and asbestos, gravimetric assessment was followed by technical analysis. Risk of bias profiles varied between the bodies of evidence looking at asbestos, silica and coal dust, as well as between industrial sectors. However, risk of bias was generally highest for the domain of selection of participants into the studies. The largest bodies of evidence for silica related to the industrial sectors of Construction (ISIC 41-43), Manufacturing (ISIC 20, 23-25, 27, 31-32) and Mining (ISIC 05, 07, 08). For Construction, the pooled prevalence estimate was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.93, 17 studies, I² 91%, moderate quality of evidence) and the level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. For Manufacturing, the pooled prevalence estimate was 0.85 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.91, 24 studies, I² 100%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. The pooled prevalence estimate for Mining was 0.75 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.82, 20 studies, I² 100%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was 0.04 mg/m³ (95% CI 0.03 to 0.05, 17 studies, I² 100%, low quality of evidence). Smaller bodies of evidence were identified for Crop and animal production (ISIC 01; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); Professional, scientific and technical activities (ISIC 71, 74; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); and Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level). For asbestos, the pooled prevalence estimate for Construction (ISIC 41, 43, 45,) was 0.77 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.87, six studies, I² 99%, low quality of evidence) and the level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. For Manufacturing (ISIC 13, 23-24, 29-30), the pooled prevalence and level estimates were rated as being of very low quality of evidence. Smaller bodies of evidence were identified for Other mining and quarrying (ISIC 08; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); and Water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation (ISIC 37; very low quality of evidence for levels). For coal dust, the pooled prevalence estimate for Mining of coal and lignite (ISIC 05), was 1.00 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.00, six studies, I² 16%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was 0.77 mg/m³ (95% CI 0.68 to 0.86, three studies, I² 100%, low quality of evidence). A small body of evidence was identified for Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35); with very low quality of evidence for prevalence, and the pooled level estimate being 0.60 mg/m³ (95% CI -6.95 to 8.14, one study, low quality of evidence). Overall, we judged the bodies of evidence for occupational exposure to silica to vary by industrial sector between very low and moderate quality of evidence for prevalence, and very low and low for level. For occupational exposure to asbestos, the bodies of evidence varied by industrial sector between very low and low quality of evidence for prevalence and were of very low quality of evidence for level. For occupational exposure to coal dust, the bodies of evidence were of very low or moderate quality of evidence for prevalence, and low for level. None of the included studies were population-based studies (i.e., covered the entire workers' population in the industrial sector), which we judged to present serious concern for indirectness, except for occupational exposure to coal dust within the industrial sector of mining of coal and lignite. Selected estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica by industrial sector are considered suitable as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates, and selected estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to asbestos and coal dust may perhaps also be suitable for estimation purposes. Protocol identifier: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.005. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018084131.

Community gardening has been widely recognized as a multicomponent approach that has affected a broad range of health and well-being outcomes. The objective of this study was to investigate the association between community gardening and nutrition and physical health among adults. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Five electronic databases were searched systematically. Quality of included studies was appraised by several quality assessment tools related to the study design of each included article. Evidence from 19 articles was included (14 cross-sectional studies, 4 quasi-experimental studies and 1 case–control study). Although the majority of included studies appeared to have moderate quality, there existed weaknesses in the methods used, including low response rate and lack of confounder controls. Due to diversity in the measurement units, only body mass index (BMI) data could be pooled to perform meta-analysis. The results suggest that gardening had a significantly positive effect on BMI reduction. Subgroup analysis showed that quasi-experimental and case–control studies produced greater pooled effect size than those of cross-sectional design. Funnel plot and Egger’s test showed no significant evidence of publication bias. As robust evidence for the effect of community gardening on BMI reduction was found, this intervention should be integrated in health promoting policy to improve population health.

Thailand is a popular host nation for international migrant workers, particularly those from Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Myanmar. Thailand has introduced approaches to protect their rights for health and social welfare, using various mechanisms over many years. However, the implementation of these policies is dynamic and has been influenced by national security, economic necessity, and public health concerns. The aim of this study was to explore how Thailand designs and implements health and social welfare policies for migrants in Thailand, both before and during COVID-19. A qualitative analysis was used alongside interviews with 18 key informants in various sectors in this field. Thematic coding was applied. Results show that there were seven key themes emerging from the analysis, including: (i) sustainability of the HICS; (ii) people dropping out from the Social Security Scheme (SSS); (iii) quality of health screening in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) migrants; (iv) health screening problems and state quarantine management in response to COVID-19; (v) managing the migration quota and dependency on migrant workers; (vi) influx of migrants in the backdrop of COVID-19; and (vii) poor living conditions of migrants and the impact of COVID-19. The majority of interviewees agreed that undocumented migrants is a critical concern that impedes access to migrants’ health and social welfare. This situation was especially pronounced during the second wave of COVID-19 in Thailand, which took hold in migrant communities. In the short term, the poor living conditions of migrants urgently need to be addressed in order to contain and mitigate this crisis. In the long term, there needs to be an improved health system design that includes migrants, regardless of their immigration status. This requires intersectoral policy coherence, including the hastening of nationality verification to sustainably mitigate undocumented migrants.

The outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has threatened health and well-being in all populations. This impact is also deepening structural inequalities for migrant workers in Thailand. Due to their vulnerability and limited opportunity to access health services, they have greater risks in many health aspects compared to other populations. This qualitative study sought to examine the key health concerns and barriers during the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare access among migrant workers in Thailand through the lens of policymakers, healthcare professionals, experts on migrant health, and migrant workers. We conducted 17 semi-structured in-depth interviews of stakeholders from health and non-health sectors in Thailand from July to October 2021. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using both deductive and inductive thematic approaches. Thematic coding was applied. The results showed that financial constraints were a major barrier for healthcare access among migrant workers. These included affordability of healthcare and difficulty accessing funds (migrant health insurance). Structural barriers included some health facilities opening for emergency cases only. Insufficient healthcare resources were profound during the peak of positive cases. Cognitive barriers included negative attitudes and diverse understanding of healthcare rights. Language and communication barriers, and a lack of information also played an important role. Conclusion, our study highlights healthcare access barriers to migrant workers in Thailand during the COVID-19 pandemic. Recommendations for future resolution of these barriers were also proposed.

Migrant health workers (MHWs) and migrant health volunteers (MHVs) are key health workforce actors who play a substantial role in improving the health of migrants in Thailand. The objective of this study was to explore the factors associated with health literacy in MHWs and MHVs in Thailand. A self-administered questionnaire was conducted from December 2018 to April 2019 in two migrant-populated provinces. A total of 40 MHWs, 78 MHVs, and 116 general migrants were included in the survey. Results showed that a higher education level was associated with a greater health literacy score. MHWs were more likely to have a higher health literacy score (5.59 points difference) than general migrants. The province per se and type of affiliations did not significantly contribute to the difference in the health literacy score of each individual. Most MHWs received health information from health professionals, health staff, and the internet, while MHVs and general migrants received information from health professionals, MHWs/MHVs, family/friends, and posters/leaflets. This study suggests that a higher education level should be used as a criterion for recruitment of MHWs and MHVs. Access to interactive health information like health professionals should be promoted as the main source of information to ensure better health literacy among MHWs and MHVs.