Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jul 1;25(1):956.
doi: 10.1186/s12909-025-07450-x.

Conceptual frameworks, competencies, contents and teaching methods in planetary health education for health students and professionals: a global systematic scoping review

Carme Carrion  1   2   3 , Camilla Alay Llamas  4 , Eka Dian Safitri  5 , Carola Domènech-Panicello  6   7   8 , George S Downward  4 , Ardi Findyartini  5 , Nadia Greviana  5 , Indah Kartika Murni  9 , Sie Meng Lee  4 , Mireia Llimós  10 , Ariadna Moreno  6   7   10 , Shannon Leigh O'Brien  6   7   8 , Isabel Ruiz-Mallén  11 , Diantha Soemantri  5 , Indah Suci Widyahening  5 , Respati Wulansari Ranakusuma  5 , Dewi Yunia Fitriani  5 , Cristina O'Callaghan-Gordo  6   7   8   10   12
Affiliations

Conceptual frameworks, competencies, contents and teaching methods in planetary health education for health students and professionals: a global systematic scoping review

Carme Carrion et al. BMC Med Educ. .

Abstract

Background: Planetary Health studies the impact of the global environmental crisis on health. Urgent transdisciplinary, intersectoral, and holistic solutions adapted to local realities are needed. Designing training programs attuned to contextual needs of diverse groups and geographical areas is crucial. Planetary health programs are emerging worldwide, but little is known about their scope and learning outcomes. A systematic scoping review is needed to shed light on the state of planetary health education.

Objectives: This review aims to identify existing frameworks, competencies, content, and teaching methods in planetary health education.

Methods: Following PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, we included studies targeting undergraduate and postgraduate students, focusing on skills, knowledge, and abilities related to planetary health, published in English or Spanish. No exclusions were made based on geographic area, study design, or publication period. Databases consulted were MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest. Selection and data extraction processes were conducted systematically.

Results: We included 73 articles, with 88% from high-income countries and 49% focused on health professionals. Conceptual frameworks identified include "One Health," "Sustainable Development Goals," and the "Planetary Health Education Framework." Transversal skills (complex problem-solving, systemic thinking, collaboration, interdisciplinary) and specific competencies (understanding health interactions with climate change, pollution) were outlined in 45% of studies. Half of the studies described 23 general topics and 93 specific content areas. Teaching methods included in-person (59%), virtual (12%), and hybrid models (29%).

Conclusions: This review highlights the heterogeneity in conceptual frameworks, competencies, content, and teaching methods in planetary health education for health professionals. Future research should focus on developing and evaluating evidence-based educational models to address the evolving challenges of planetary health. Recommendations include enhancing collaboration among stakeholders and integrating innovative teaching methods to improve planetary health education.

Trial registration: The protocol has been registered in the Open Science Framework database (registration number: osf.io/h2b3j, March 2024).

Clinical trial number: not applicable.

Keywords: Capacity building; Curriculum development; Education; Health professionals; Instructional design; Planetary Health; Systematic scoping review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: “Not applicable”. Consent for publication: “Not applicable”. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA diagram – Selection of studies
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Graphical representation of the most frequently used conceptual frameworks identified in the included studies (*). SDG: Sustainable Development Goals; DPSIR: Drivers, Pressures, State, Impact, Responses; 5Ps: People, Planet, Priority, Practice, Parity
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Whitmee S, Haines A, Beyrer C, Boltz F, Capon AG, De Souza Dias BF, et al. Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: report of the Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission on planetary health. Lancet. 2015. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60901-1. - PubMed
    1. McGinnis R, Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J, Behren WW. The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. Demography. 1973
    1. Nations U. UN chronicle. [Cited 2023 Nov 19]. As the World’s Population Surpasses 8 Billion, What Are the Implications for Planetary Health and Sustainability? Available from: https://www.un.org/en/un-chronicle/world-population-surpasses-8-billion-....
    1. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS, Lambin E, et al. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc. 2009. 10.5751/ES-03180-140232.
    1. Rockström J, Gupta J, Qin D, Lade SJ, Abrams JF, Andersen LS, et al. Safe and just Earth system boundaries. Nature. 2023;619(7968):102–11. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources