Current evidence seems to support prompt inclusion of a list of ingredients, nutritional information (usually only kcal) and health warnings on labels. Standard drink and serving size is useful only when combined with other health education efforts. A definition of 'moderate intake' and recommended drinking guidelines are best suited to other contexts.

The words we choose matter: recognising the importance of language in decolonising global health Recognition of the relevance of colonial history to the contemporary practice of global health is not new, but the recent increase in visibility and prominence given to it by global health institutions and flagship journals is welcome when accompanied by meaningful reflection and action. 1 The goal of decolonising global health is to critically reflect on its history, identify hierarchies and culturally Eurocentric conceptions, and overcome the global inequities that such structures perpetuate. 2 We must reflect on the terminology we use when we discuss global health challenges, phrase research questions, write papers, teach students, or interact with patients, research participants, and the public. Although our choice of words shapes an audience's understanding of global health, the restricted range of expressions and terms prevents us from offering more nuanced and appropriate perspectives. The conceptualisation of English terms in other languages is often limited to literal translation that struggles to reproduce the same meaning, as highlighted by recently emerging technical terms, such as social distancing. Thus, to make real progress in the process of decolonising global health in our minds and practices, awareness, reflection, and change of language are fundamental.Most global health literature is still published in English only. This Anglocentrism narrows engagement with many international readers and poses a barrier to authorship for researchers whose working language is not English, which reinforces the power dynamics of the field. 3 By contrast, it is neither generally required nor practiced for foreign researchers working in low-income and middle-income countries to learn the language(s) of the country or region they are working in. This tendency, plus the absence of mechanisms to connect research networks operating in parallel in different languages, means that an English-speaking academic has little incentive and restricted capability to engage with scientific advances being published in Mandarin, Spanish, French, Arabic, and other widely spoken languages. Finding ways to bridge these language barriers in research and bibliographic databases is a fundamental pathway to knowledge co-production and equal research partnerships.

Given the broad scope and intersectoral nature of public health structures and practices, there are inherent difficulties in defining which services fall under the public health remit and in assessing their capacity and performance. The aim of this study is to analyze how public health functions and practice have been defined and operationalized in different countries and regions around the world, with a specific focus on assessment tools that have been developed to evaluate the performance of essential public health functions, services, and operations. Our review has identified nearly 100 countries that have carried out assessments, using diverse analytical and methodological approaches. The assessment processes have evolved quite differently according to administrative arrangements and resource availability, but some key contextual factors emerge that seem to favor policy-oriented follow-up. These include local ownership of the assessment process, policymakers' commitment to reform, and expert technical advice for implementation.

No abstract

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most lethal tumours, and it is the fourth cause of cancer death in Europe. Despite its important public health impact, no effective treatments exist, nor are there high-visibility research efforts to improve care. This alarming situation is emblematic of a larger group of cancer diseases, known as neglected cancers. To address the impact of these diseases, the European Commission-supported Innovative Partnership for Action Against Cancer launched a multi-stakeholder initiative to determine key steps that healthcare systems can rapidly implement to improve their response. A working group comprising 20 representatives from European medical societies, patient associations, cancer plan organisations and other relevant European healthcare stakeholders was organised. A consensus process based on the results of different studies, discussion of research outcomes, and development and endorsement of draft statements resulted in 22 consensus recommendations (the Bratislava Statement). The statement argues that substantial improvements can be achieved in patient outcomes by centralising pancreatic cancer care around state-of-the-art reference centres, staffed by expert multidisciplinary teams capable of providing high-quality care. This organisational model requires a specific care framework encompassing primary, palliative and survivorship care, and a policy environment prioritising the use of quality criteria and performance assessments as well as research investments dedicated to prevention, risk prediction, early detection and diagnosis. In order to address the challenges posed by neglected cancers in general and pancreatic cancer in particular, a specific control strategy tailored to this reality is required.

Background Early detection of symptoms and prompt diagnosis of ovarian cancer are considered important avenues for improving patient experiences and outcomes. Methods This qualitative study used a phenomenological approach to perform patient interviews, collecting individual accounts of the prediagnostic phase in women diagnosed and treated for ovarian cancer in 2016–2017. Purposive sampling was used to obtain a diverse sample of 24 participants, while thematic content analysis was used to extract themes and subthemes from interview data. Results Three themes and nine subthemes were identified. The first theme was women's delay in recognizing symptoms and seeking care, with subthemes on the lack of knowledge about early signs of ovarian cancer, gender‐related barriers and false reassurance from negative test results. A second theme was missed opportunities during healthcare encounters, due to misattribution of women's symptoms by their physicians, underestimation of symptom severity and need for mediation and inadequate tests and/or false negative results. Finally, interviews highlighted the use of resources and alternative healthcare pathways, including complementary/alternative medicines, access to private health care and women's capacity for action and decision‐making (agency) about their health. Conclusion Delayed diagnosis of ovarian cancer is rooted in both individual factors (lack of health literacy, reluctance to seek care) and systemic issues (missed opportunities in healthcare encounters, access to timely specialist care). Further research is needed to investigate the extent to which traditional gender roles and socioeconomic inequalities condition women's ability to manage their own health and to interact with health professionals and the health system. Patient and Public Contribution In addition to the patient participation during the interviews, one author was a representative of a patient association.

No abstract

No abstract