Considering planetary health in health guidelines and health technology assessments: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background This protocol outlines a scoping review with the objective of identifying and exploring planetary health considerations within existing health guidelines and health technology assessments (HTA). The insights gained from this review will serve as a basis for shaping future Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) guidance on planetary health. Methods We will adhere to the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. We will conduct a comprehensive search and screening of results in all languages across various databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Global Health, Health Systems Evidence, Greenfile, and Environmental Issues. Additionally, we will supplement this search with resources such as the GIN library, BIGG database, Epistemonikos, GRADE guidelines repository, GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool Database, MAGICapp, NICE website, WHO websites, and a manual exploration of unpublished relevant documents using Google incognito mode. Two independent reviewers will screen and assess the full texts of identified documents according to the eligibility criteria. The following information from each full text will be extracted: document title; first author’s name; publication year; language; document type; document as a guideline or HTA; the topic/discipline; document purpose/study objective; developing/sponsoring organization; the country in which the study/guideline/HTA report was conducted; definition of planetary health or related concept provided; types of planetary health experts engaged; study methods; suggested methods to assess planetary health; use of secondary data on planetary health outcomes; description for use of life cycle assessment; description for assessing the quality of life cycle; population/intended audience; interventions; category; applicable planetary health boundaries; consideration of social justice/global equity; phase of intervention in life cycle related to planetary health addressed; the measure of planetary health impact; impact on biodiversity/land use; one health/animal welfare mention; funding; and conflict of interest. Data analysis will involve a combination of descriptive statistics and directed content analysis, with results presented in a narrative format and displayed in tables and graphs. Discussion The final review results will be submitted to open-access peer-reviewed journals for publication when they become available. The research findings will also be disseminated at relevant planetary health conferences and workshops. Systematic review registration Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/3jmsa ).
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 | 0.173 | 0.183 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.106 | 0.035 |
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".