A new scoping review looked at how health literacy and competence are described when it comes to planetary, climate, and environmental health. The authors combined ideas from 28 existing studies and identified 17 health literacy and competence concepts. The review did not involve patients or test any program, and no sample size or setting was reported.
From these concepts, the authors built a framework they call professional planetary health literacy, or PROF-PHL. It organizes core competences across four dimensions: access, understand, appraise, and apply. The idea is that health professionals would be able to find, grasp, judge, and use environment-related health information.
The authors say the framework could help training programs for health professionals include environment-related health competences. No safety concerns were reported, but none were looked for, since this was not a treatment study.
The main reason to be careful is that the framework is a conceptual synthesis. It has not been tested in real training programs or with real health workers, so the authors say it still needs empirical validation. For now, this is an early organizing idea, not proof that it improves practice or health outcomes.
Common questions
What is the PROF-PHL framework?
PROF-PHL stands for professional planetary health literacy. It is a framework built from 17 health literacy and competence concepts found across 28 existing studies. It groups core competences into four dimensions: access, understand, appraise, and apply. The authors suggest it could help shape training for health professionals on environment-related health topics.
Has this framework been tested?
No. The authors describe it as a conceptual synthesis, meaning it was built by combining ideas from existing studies rather than by testing a program. They state that the framework requires empirical validation. So it is an early organizing idea, not evidence that it changes training or health outcomes.
Who might this framework be for?
The review focuses on health professionals and their training. The authors say the framework could support integrating environment-related health competences into professional training programs. It was not designed or tested for patients or the general public, and the review did not report a sample size or setting.
Were any safety concerns reported?
No adverse events or safety issues were reported. However, this was not a treatment study, so safety was not measured or looked for. The review did not test an intervention in people, so questions about side effects or risks do not directly apply to this work.
