Integration of planetary health in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education: protocol for a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite climate change being recognised as the greatest health threat of the 21st century, current medical education curricula do not reflect the urgency of the climate crisis. Preparing for climate-related health repercussions requires educational institutions to disseminate planetary health knowledge in a systematic way. We sought to evaluate the extent of the literature on the inclusion of planetary health in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education to guide curricular development. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A scoping review is being undertaken with a search strategy developed with a health sciences librarian. The search strategy was run on the following databases from inception to 22 June 2021: Medline, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Global Health, Scopus. This scoping review is being conducted as per methodology that has been previously outlined. Studies that discuss the implementation of planetary health education within undergraduate and postgraduate medical education will be included, whether they discuss formal inclusion or supplemental courses. To supplement our database search, data from the Health and Environment Adaptive Task Force's National Report on Planetary Health Education, the Planetary Health Report Card and the Association for Medical Education in Europe Consensus Statement on Planetary Health and Education for Sustainable Healthcare will be included. As we anticipate varying methodologies, the data analysis will consist of both a quantitative and a qualitative component. Outcomes will be categorised within the domains of the Planetary Health Education Framework, which incorporates concepts of systems thinking, social justice and interconnection within nature as they apply to education for planetary health. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As no intervention or patient recruitment will be required, research ethics board approval is not applicable. We plan to disseminate our results via publication in a peer-reviewed journal or conference presentation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This protocol has been registered in Open Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/7M6GZ).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.098 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.087 | 0.014 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".