Wildfires and deforestation potentially have direct effects on multiple health outcomes as well as indirect consequences for climate change. Tropical rainforest areas are characterised by high rainfall, humidity and temperature, and they are predominantly found in low-income and middle-income countries. This study aims to synthesise the methods, data and health outcomes reported in scientific papers on wildfires and deforestation in these locations.

We will carry out a scoping review according to the Joanna Briggs Institute’s (JBI) manual for scoping reviews and the framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley, and Levac et al. The search for articles was performed on 18 August 2023, in 16 electronic databases using Medical Subject Headings terms and adaptations for each database from database inception. The search for local studies will be complemented by the manual search in the list of references of the studies selected to compose this review. We screened studies written in English, French, Portuguese and Spanish. We included quantitative studies assessing any human disease outcome, hospitalisation and vital statistics in regions of tropical rainforest. We exclude qualitative studies and quantitative studies whose outcomes do not cover those of interest. The text screening was done by two independent reviewers. Subsequently, we will tabulate the data by the origin of the data source used, the methods and the main findings on health impacts of the extracted data. The results will provide descriptive statistics, along with visual representations in diagrams and tables, complemented by narrative summaries as detailed in the JBI guidelines.

The study does not require an ethical review as it is meta-research and uses published, deidentified secondary data sources. The submission of results for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation at scientific and policymakers’ conferences is expected.

Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/pnqc7/).

There are no globally agreed on strategies on early detection and first response management of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) during and after caesarean birth. Our study aimed to develop an international expert’s consensus on evidence-based approaches for early detection and obstetric first response management of PPH intraoperatively and postoperatively in caesarean birth.

Systematic review and three-stage modified Delphi expert consensus.

International.

Panel of 22 global experts in PPH with diverse backgrounds, and gender, professional and geographic balance.

Agreement or disagreement on strategies for early detection and first response management of PPH at caesarean birth.

Experts agreed that the same PPH definition should apply to both vaginal and caesarean birth. For the intraoperative phase, the experts agreed that early detection should be accomplished via quantitative blood loss measurement, complemented by monitoring the woman’s haemodynamic status; and that first response should be triggered once the woman loses at least 500 mL of blood with continued bleeding or when she exhibits clinical signs of haemodynamic instability, whichever occurs first. For the first response, experts agreed on immediate administration of uterotonics and tranexamic acid, examination to determine aetiology and rapid initiation of cause-specific responses. In the postoperative phase, the experts agreed that caesarean birth-related PPH should be detected primarily via frequently monitoring the woman’s haemodynamic status and clinical signs and symptoms of internal bleeding, supplemented by cumulative blood loss assessment performed quantitatively or by visual estimation. Postoperative first response was determined to require an individualised approach.

These agreed on proposed approaches could help improve the detection of PPH in the intraoperative and postoperative phases of caesarean birth and the first response management of intraoperative PPH. Determining how best to implement these strategies is a critical next step.

The benefits of breast feeding may be associated with better formation of eating habits beyond childhood. This study was designed to verify the association between breast feeding and food consumption according to the degree of processing in four Brazilian birth cohorts.

The duration of exclusive, predominant and total breast feeding was evaluated. The analysis of the energy contribution of fresh or minimally processed foods (FMPF) and ultra-processed foods (UPF) in the diet was evaluated during childhood (13–36 months), adolescence (11–18 years) and adulthood (22, 23 and 30 years).

Those who were predominantly breastfed for less than 4 months had a higher UPF consumption (β 3.14, 95% CI 0.82 to 5.47) and a lower FMPF consumption (β –3.47, 95% CI –5.91 to –1.02) at age 22 years in the 1993 cohort. Exclusive breast feeding (EBF) for less than 6 months was associated with increased UPF consumption (β 1.75, 95% CI 0.25 to 3.24) and reduced FMPF consumption (β –1.49, 95% CI –2.93 to –0.04) at age 11 years in the 2004 cohort. In this same cohort, total breast feeding for less than 12 months was associated with increased UPF consumption (β 1.12, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.19) and decreased FMPF consumption (β –1.13, 95% CI –2 .07 to –0.19). Children who did not receive EBF for 6 months showed an increase in the energy contribution of UPF (β 2.36, 95% CI 0.53 to 4.18) and a decrease in FMPF (β –2.33, 95% CI –4 .19 to –0.48) in the diet at 13–36 months in the 2010 cohort. In this cohort, children who were breastfed for less than 12 months in total had higher UPF consumption (β 2.16, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.51) and lower FMPF consumption (β –1.79, 95% CI –3.09 to –0.48).

Exposure to breast feeding is associated with lower UPF consumption and higher FMPF consumption in childhood, adolescence and adulthood.

Preterm birth is a leading cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality. During the COVID-19 pandemic, reduction in rates of preterm birth in women exposed to viral mitigation measures was reported by multiple studies. In addition, others and we observed a more pronounced reduction of preterm birth in women who had previously experienced a preterm birth. The aim of this pilot study is to establish the feasibility of a lifestyle intervention based on viral mitigation measures in high-risk pregnancies, with the ultimate aim to reduce the incidence of preterm birth.

One hundred pregnant women, enrolled in antenatal clinics at two tertiary maternity centres in Melbourne, Australia, who have had a previous preterm birth between 22 and 34 weeks gestation will be recruited. This is a two-arm, parallel group, open-label randomised controlled feasibility trial: 50 women will be randomised to the intervention group, where they will be requested to comply with a set of lifestyle changes (similar to the viral mitigation measures observed during the pandemic). Another 50 women will be randomised to the control group, where they will undergo standard pregnancy care. The primary outcome of this trial is feasibility, which will be assessed by measuring patient eligibility rate, recruitment rate, compliance rate and data completion rate. Secondary outcomes include incidence of preterm birth, maternal satisfaction, maternal quality of life and other pregnancy outcomes. Standard methods in statistical analysis for randomised controlled trials on an intention to treat basis will be followed.

This trial has been approved by the Monash Human Research Ethics Committee; approval reference number RES-22-0000-122A. Study findings will be reported and submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication, and presentation at conferences.

ACTRN12622000753752; Pre-results.

There is an urgent need to support primary care organisations in implementing safe and high-quality virtual consultations. We have previously performed qualitative research to capture the views of 1600 primary care physicians across 20 countries on the main benefits and challenges of using virtual consultations. Subsequently, a prototype of a framework to guide the implementation of high-quality virtual primary care was developed.

To explore general practitioners’ perspectives on the appropriateness and relevance of each component of the framework’s prototype, to further refine it and optimise its practical use in primary care facilities.

Participants will be primary care physicians with active experience providing virtual care, recruited through convenience and snowball sampling. This study will use a systematic and iterative online Delphi research approach (eDelphi), with a minimum of three rounds. A pre-round will be used to circulate items for initial feedback and adjustment. In subsequent rounds, participants will be asked to rate the relevance of the framework’s components. Consensus will be defined as >70% of participants agreeing/strongly agreeing or disagreeing/strongly disagreeing with a component. Data will be collected using structured online questionnaires. The primary outcome of the study will be a list of the essential components to be incorporated in the final version of the framework.

The study has received ethical approval conceded by the Imperial College London Science, Engineering and Technology Research Ethics Committee (SETREC) (reference no .6559176/2023). Anonymous results will be made available to the public, academic organisations and policymakers.