The WHO Constitution states its main objective as "the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health". Headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, it has six regional offices and 150 field offices worldwide.The WHO was established on 7 April 1948. The first meeting of the World Health Assembly (WHA), the agency's governing body, took place on 24 July of that year. The WHO incorporated the assets, personnel, and duties of the League of Nations' Health Organization and the Office International d'Hygiène Publique, including the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Its work began in earnest in 1951 after a significant infusion of financial and technical resources.The WHO's mandate seeks and includes: working worldwide to promote health, keeping the world safe, and serve the vulnerable. It advocates that a billion more people should have: universal health care coverage, engagement with the monitoring of public health risks, coordinating responses to health emergencies, and promoting health and well-being. It provides technical assistance to countries, sets international health standards, and collects data on global health issues. A publication, the World Health Report, provides assessments of worldwide health topics. The WHO also serves as a forum for discussions of health issues.The WHO has played a leading role in several public health achievements, most notably the eradication of smallpox, the near-eradication of polio, and the development of an Ebola vaccine. Its current priorities include communicable diseases, particularly HIV/AIDS, Ebola, COVID-19, malaria and tuberculosis; non-communicable diseases such as heart disease and cancer; healthy diet, nutrition, and food security; occupational health; and substance abuse. Its World Health Assembly, the agency's decision-making body, elects and advises an executive board made up of 34 health specialists. It selects the director-general, sets goals and priorities, and approves the budget and activities. The current director-general is Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus of Ethiopia.The WHO relies on contributions from member states (both assessed and voluntary) and private donors for funding. Its total approved budget for 2020–2021 is over $7.2 billion, of which the majority comes from voluntary contributions from member states. Contributions are assessed by a formula that includes GDP per capita. Among the largest contributors were Germany (which contributed 12.18% of the budget), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (11.65%), and the United States (7.85%).Since the late 20th century, the rise of new actors engaged in global health such as the World Bank, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and dozens of public-private partnerships for global health have weakened the WHO's role as a coordinator and policy leader in the field.
Summary: Background: Cervical cancer is largely preventable, yet major gaps persist in detection and timely management of cervical precancer, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Using data from the ESTAMPA multicentric study, we derived stratified absolute risk estimates for cervical precancer and cancer based on HPV testing, cervical cytology, and colposcopic impression. Methods: ESTAMPA is a multicenter cervical cancer screening study (NCT01881659) that recruited women aged 30–64 years across 12 centres, comprising primary and secondary care facilities, hospitals, laboratories, and universities, across nine Latin American countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay. The aims of the study were (1) to investigate the performance of emerging cervical cancer screening and triage techniques among women 30 years and older and (2) to evaluate the feasibility of different approaches for implementation of organised HPV-based screening programmes. Women were screened with HPV testing and cervical cytology. Those with positive screening results were referred to colposcopy using a standardised protocol including colposcopic impression, directed biopsies, and treatment as indicated. Women with normal colposcopy or histology less than CIN2 were recalled after 18 months for repeat HPV testing and colposcopy if HPV-positive. Absolute risks of histologically confirmed CIN3+ detected at baseline or follow-up were estimated integrating HPV testing, cytology, and colposcopic impression. Findings: Between December 12, 2012, and August 31, 2022, 44,135 women with a valid HPV test were included, of whom 6236 (14.1%) were HPV-positive. Overall, 764 CIN3+ lesions were detected (1.73%; 95% CI 1.61–1.86). CIN3+ risk was 12.0% (747/6236; 95% CI 11.2–12.8) among HPV-positive women compared with 0.04% (17/37,899; 95% CI 0.03–0.07) among HPV-negative women. Among HPV-positive women, risk increased with cervical cytological severity, reaching 62.9% (95% CI 57.1–68.5) for HSIL+, 22.4% (95% CI 18.4–26.8) for LSIL, and 19.1% (95% CI 15.1–23.6) for ASC-US; a positive colposcopic impression further increased CIN3+ risk to 70.2% (95% CI 64.1–75.9), 28.5% (95% CI 23.5–34.0), and 24.5% (95% CI 19.4–30.2), respectively. Among HPV16/18-positive women, CIN3+ risk was 32.8% (95% CI 28.9–37.0) increasing to 46.2% (95% CI 40.8–51.6) when abnormal colposcopy was present. Interpretation: We confirmed a high underlying risk of CIN3+ in the Latin American population, with risk strongly stratified by HPV positivity, increasing cervical cytological severity, and positive colposcopic impression. These estimates may support WHO-aligned cervical screening and risk-based management strategies in LMICs and contribute to accelerating cervical cancer elimination. Funding: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO); UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP/WHO); Pan American Health Organization (PAHO); US National Cancer Institute (NCI); NCI Center for Global Health; National Agency for the Promotion of Research, Technological Development and Innovation and National Cancer Institute of Argentina; National Cancer Institute of Colombia; Costa Rican Social Security Fund (CCSS); National Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT), Paraguay; and other local funders.
Limited evidence exists on the combined effects of lifestyle factors on breast cancer (BC) risk, particularly in developing countries. This study aimed to investigate the association between adherence to the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR) cancer prevention recommendations and BC risk among Moroccan women. We conducted a large case-control study including 1,400 cases and 1,400 matched controls (by age and place of residence) between 2019 and 2023. A structured general questionnaire and a validated Food Frequency Questionnaire were used for data collection. Adherence to cancer prevention recommendations was assessed using a score ranging from 0 to 7, comprising seven components covering dietary patterns, physical activity, healthy weight, and breastfeeding. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate OR and 95 % CI, accounting for potential confounding variables. For each one-point increase in the WCRF/AICR adherence score, the odds of BC decreased by 67 % overall (OR = 0·33; 95 % CI: 0·29-0·37). This inverse association was consistent among both premenopausal women (OR = 0·29; 95 % CI: 0·24-0·35) and postmenopausal women (OR = 0·35; 95 % CI: 0·30-0·41). Analysis of individual recommendations indicated that physical activity, maintaining a healthy weight, breastfeeding, consuming a plant-rich diet, and limiting the intake of fast and other processed foods were the main drivers of the observed inverse association with BC. In conclusion, greater adherence to the WCRF/AICR recommendations is associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer in Morocco. Prevention strategies should incorporate comprehensive interventions targeting multiple lifestyle factors.
BACKGROUND:The World Health Organization (WHO) currently endorses several commercial interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs); policy updates are needed given the development of new tests. We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to compare sensitivity, specificity, and agreement of newly commercialized IGRAs with WHO-endorsed IGRAs. METHODS:Databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched for studies published from 1 February 2021 to 30 September 2024, then again up to 16 December 2025. We included cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control studies and assessed risk of bias using QUADAS-2. The primary outcomes were pooled differences in sensitivity, specificity, and agreement between the new IGRAs and WHO-endorsed IGRAs. RESULTS:From 3039 records screened, 39 reports (36 published) describing 8 new IGRAs met eligibility: STANDARD E TB-Feron, LIAISON XL Analyzer (chemiluminescence immunoassay [CLIA]), Ichroma IGRA-TB, STANDARD F TB-Feron, VIDAS TB-IGRA, ASACIR.TB, Wantai CLIA, and AdvanSureI3 TB-IGRA. STANDARD E TB-Feron had nonsignificantly lower sensitivity (-2.8% [95% confidence interval {CI}, -11.8% to 6.2%]) and specificity (-3.6% [95% CI, -10.0% to 2.7%]), with kappa of 0.802 (95% CI, .729-.874]), compared to QFT-Plus. For LIAISON XL Analyzer, the specificity was 0.1% higher (95% CI, -6.2% to 6.4%) than QFT-Plus/QFT-GIT, with a pooled kappa of 0.846 (95% CI, .814-.878). CONCLUSIONS:Two of the 8 new tests reviewed showed promising accuracy and high agreement with WHO-endorsed IGRAs. The overall certainty of evidence remains low due to risk of bias and imprecision. High-quality, independent studies in diverse populations and settings are needed to inform future WHO recommendations for tuberculosis infection tests. Clinical Trials Registration. PROSPERO (CRD42024544404).
Regularly updating repositories of air pollution impacts on health is essential for evidence-based policies, interventions, and progress monitoring. However, this is often time-consuming and labour-intensive. Automation can ensure up-to-date evidence; reduce retrieval, screening time, and costs; and make information accessible to non-academic stakeholders. This study investigated whether a machine learning approach can perform any stages of a traditional scoping review on the health impacts, policies, and interventions related to air pollution due to domestic waste burning. A traditional approach was conducted in parallel with machine learning methods enabling a comparison of the efficiency and quality of the partially automated approach against the manual review. Findings from the two approaches were compared and the final set of included articles were considered for (1) reported impacts of waste burning on health outcomes and (2) recommendations on solutions and interventions to prevent/reduce adverse effects on health from waste burning. We found a range of health impacts associated with waste burning, including low birth weight, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, adverse respiratory outcomes like asthma and wheeze, cancer risk, and mortality. Few studies proposed solutions or evaluated the effectiveness of interventions. The ML approach showed a tendency towards false positives, which are preferable to false negatives (where relevant papers were excluded). Results showed that the model can conduct initial searches and decisions for the review. However, the articles included in the model should be screened manually for final acceptance. Therefore, we propose a hybrid approach be used until the automated model can be further refined.
