In Paris in December 2015 the parties to the UN Climate Convention agreed to keep global warming „well below“ 2 degrees Celsius, ideally at only 1,5 degrees by 2100.
On October 5th 2016 more than 55 countries accounting for more than 55 % of the total global greenhouse gas emissions have ratified the ratified the Agreement so that November 4th will see its entry into force.
The new 1.5 degree limit is an unequivocal call to action: More needs to be done at once to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. By the second half of the century the world is supposed to be „climate neutral“.
With the countries current commitments to emission reductions this goal cannot be achieved. In addition, the mainstream scenarios on offer pin their hopes on questionable, risky and costly technologies. Focussing on these technofixes is a dangerous distraction from necessary steps that we can already implement today. With our booklet “A change of course: How to build a future in a 1,5° world” we present alternatives of how we can stay within the 1,5 degree limit and achieve climate justice and sustainable development.
The classification of digital health interventions (DHIs) categorizes the different ways in which digital and mobile technologies are being used to support health system needs. Historically, the diverse communities working in digital health—including government stakeholders, technologists, clinicians, implementers, network operators, researchers, donors— have lacked a mutually understandable language with which to assess and articulate functionality. A shared and standardized vocabulary was recognized as necessary to identify gaps and duplication, evaluate effectiveness, and facilitate alignment across different digital health implementations. Targeted primarily at public health audiences, this Classification framework aims to promote an accessible and bridging language for health program planners to articulate functionalities of digital health implementations.
This resource on Monitoring and Evaluating Digital Health Interventions provides step-wise guidance to improve the quality and value of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) efforts in the context of digital health interventions, also commonly referred to as mHealth or eHealth interventions. This Guide is intended for implementers and researchers of digital health activities, as well as policy-makers seeking to understand the various stages and opportunities for systematically monitoring implementation fidelity and for evaluating the impact of digital health interventions.
A book of methods, aids, and ideas for instructors at the village level
An indispensable resource for health educators, this book provides hundreds of methods, aids, and learning strategies to make health education engaging and effective, encouraging community involvement through participatory education.
You can download chapter by chapter free of charge
The previous version (2005) is freely available here
Expert Consensus Validation 2018.
This innovative approach aimed at improving and facilitating the screening, prescribing and monitoring of drug therapy for older patients, is currently being further developed in the area of Clinical Pharmacology at the University of Heidelberg in Mannheim. This approach represents another advance in worldwide research efforts aimed at adding a new dimension to already-existing classification systems and negative listings of potentially inappropriate medications for the elderly.
This guide has been written to provide information and practical advice on developing and delivering local plans an strategies to commission the most effective and efficient older people’s mental health services.Based upon clinical best practice guidance and drawing upon the range of available evidence, it describes what should be expected of an older people’s mental health service in terms of effectiveness, outcomes and value for money.
This publication aims to provide examples of better palliative care practices for older people to help those involved in planning and supporting care-oriented services most appropriately and effectively. Examples have been identifi ed from literature searches and from an international call for examples through various organizations, including the European Association of Palliative Care and the European Union Geriatric Medicine Society. Some examples consider how to improve aspects within the whole health system; specifi c smaller examples consider how to improve palliative care education, support in the community, in hospitals or for specifi c groups of people, such as people in nursing homes and people with dementia and their families. Some examples await rigorous evaluation of effectiveness, and more research is needed in this fi eld, especially the cost–effectiveness and generalizability of these initiatives.
The toolkit's purpose is to:
improve the primary health care response for older persons.
sensitize and educate primary health care workers about the specific needs of their older clients.
provide primary care health workers with a set of tools/instruments to assess older people's health.
raise awareness among primary care health workers of the accumulation of minor/major disabilities experienced by older people.
provide guidance on how to make primary health care management procedures more responsive to the needs of older people's needs.
offer direction on how to do environmental audits to test primary health care centres for their age-friendliness.
The toolkit comprises a number of instruments (evaluation forms, slides, figures, graphs, diagrams, scale tables, country guidelines, exam sheets, screening tools, cards, checklists, etc.) that can be used by primary health care workers to assess and address older persons' health. These resources are meant to supplement and not to replace local and national materials and guidelines
Minimum standards of home care for older people in Red Cross Red Crescent volunteer-based programming in the Europe Zone
This quality standard covers prevention of falls and assessment after a fall in older people (aged 65 and over) who are living in the community or staying in hospital. It describes high-quality care in priority areas for improvement.