Why you should try the new 7-30 Climate-Health Emergency Framework

1. The climate-health movement needs to document evidence of impact on health outcomes

The Alliance for Transformative Action on Climate and Health (ATACH), hosted by WHO, launched at COP26.

By early 2026 it had grown from 50 founding members to more than 200, including 103 country members, and it had contributed to the Belem Health Action Plan and to health indicators for the UNFCCC Global Goal on Adaptation.

Its self-evaluation, led by Cambridge Economic Policy Associates, found that over 80% of country members agreed it had made a significant contribution to its mandate.

The same evaluation found that after roughly seven million dollars and three and a half years, no health outcome data of any kind could be discerned.

ATACH operates where commitments are made, with the ear of ministers, negotiators, and WHO leadership.

It does not operate where commitments either reach communities or quietly fail there unseen.

Those are the top and the bottom of the same causal chain, and what the system does not currently have is the rungs between them. Hold that finding:

• Next to the 2025 Lancet Countdown: 13 of 20 indicators at record highs, heat-related mortality at 546,000 deaths a year, a 63% rise since the 1990s.
• Next to the World Bank’s cost-of-inaction projections: by 2050, in low- and middle-income countries alone, 4.1 to 5.2 billion additional disease cases, 14.5 to 15.6 million additional deaths, 8.6 to 20.8 trillion dollars in costs, with sub-Saharan Africa carrying roughly 71% of cases.
• Next to WHO’s projected shortfall of 10 million health workers by 2030, six million of them in climate-vulnerable sub-Saharan Africa.
• And next to the shock that reframes all of it: roughly 70% of global health funding contracted in January 2025.

A demand curve of that size, met by a supply model built on flying experts in and cascading training down hierarchies, at a moment when the money has collapsed and the workforce is short by millions.

The arithmetic does not work.

That is the problem 7-30 was built to address, and the reason a technical officer should read it as an infrastructure proposal rather than as another guidance document.

2. A framework develop by and for community-based health workers in Africa, Asia, and Latin America

7-30 CHEF is grounded in three years of structured listening and learning.

The lineage begins not with climate but with vaccines.

By November 2022, The Geneva Learning Foundation was running a peer learning network of more than 47,000 health practitioners across 93 active country networks.

During the pandemic, more than 6,000 immunization staff from 86 countries built recovery projects together through a COVID-19 peer hub, with more than a third reporting implementation within three months.

The infrastructure existed before the climate question came to the forefront.

In July 2023, a call to action drew 4,700 health workers from 68 countries into two parallel events.

The output, published ahead of COP28, was On the frontline of climate change and health: a health worker eyewitness report, synthesising structured responses from 1,260 registrants and written testimony from more than 1,200 practitioners, almost three-quarters of them sub-national, with 1,028 named contributors in an honour roll.

Teach to Reach itself grew from 2,604 participants in March 2021 to 24,610 registered for its eleventh edition in December 2024.

The participant profile is the part that should interest a planner: 62% work in remote rural areas, 47% with the urban poor, 25% with refugees or internally displaced people, and one in five in areas of active armed conflict.

Half work for government, half for civil society, and most work in facilities and districts.

Alongside them sits the REACH network of more than 4,000 locally led organisations.

The overall network is now more than 80,000 health workers across 137 countries.

In 2025, the listening became a formal instrument.

The Global Climate and Health Survey, announced in The Lancet Global Health with Grand Challenges Canada and the Science for Africa Foundation, made an explicit methodological promise: participatory research reaching the people closest to the crisis, rather than a questionnaire pushed out from headquarters.

It gathered 6,436 responses, of which around 61% came through the Teach to Reach network, which is why it reached the most climate-vulnerable regions at all.

The Teach to Reach partner network behind it spanned 107 organisations across 28 countries, collectively reaching more than 15 million people.

Then, in May 2026, the twentieth report in the Listening and Learning series, Local action to mitigate the impact of the climate crisis on health, asked four plain questions of practitioners.

What exactly happened?

What did you do?

How did you know it worked?

Did the community help, or make things harder?

One hundred detailed accounts from at least 19 countries were published in full, and the responses were sorted into a taxonomy of two families of response and 17 distinct kinds of action.

Fourteen recommendations and eight findings were drawn from it.

7-30 CHEF is what happens when that taxonomy is turned into something a district team can execute before the next extreme weather event harms the community.

Every preparedness action in the field guide traces to a documented practice: mapping the catchment area, building one integrated hazard plan, pre-authorising adaptations, building relationships before the event, naming the most vulnerable, establishing a baseline.

3. Are health workers ignorant local actors who need to be taught climate science? Or are they leaders whose local knowledge of climate impacts on health is vital to the community?

A global technical officer’s real objection to 7-30 is rarely about the seven days.

A framework assembled from practitioner accounts looks, from a distance, like a framework assembled from anecdote.

As Reda Sadki put it to the Centre for Planetary Health at LSHTM: for anyone trained in epidemiology the word “anecdote” sets off alarm bells, for good reason, recall bias, selection bias, no denominators.

“A nurse in Bangladesh noticing ‘more heatstroke’ is a signal, not a prevalence study. We are not claiming it is.”

The argument is about aggregation and speed.

There are two ways to answer the questions such signals raise.

One is long-term rigorous study over decades.

The other is to recognise that the aggregate pattern formed by thousands of such signals offers a speed and granularity that traditional studies cannot match, functioning as a massive distributed sentinel surveillance system.

Imperfect against a controlled trial.

But the comparison is not with a trial.

It is with waiting years for definitive answers while the damage that would make those findings moot is already done.

1. What the formal literature misses has a name. Sadki calls it the dark matter of implementation: hyperlocal adaptation, social and economic disruption, hidden mental health burdens in communities with no formal services, community coping mechanisms, subtle changes in vector behaviour. The Lancet Countdown can establish that heat-related mortality is rising. It cannot tell a district health officer which building becomes the temporary clinic when the road floods, or which fisherman owns the pirogue that carries seasonal malaria drugs to a cut-off village.
2. The gap is measurable, not rhetorical.Reading Klepac and colleagues’ scoping review of 511 papers on climate change, malaria, and twenty neglected tropical diseases published between 2010 and 2023, Luchuo Bain and Reda Sadki found that only a small minority addressed mitigation and fewer still addressed adaptation. If the formal literature is that thin on what to actually do, the experiential knowledge of the people already doing it is not a luxury.
3. The claim to authority is narrow and precise. At the COP28 Health Pavilion, Charlotte Mbuh, an immunization worker with more than fifteen years in Cameroon’s Ministry of Health, answered the sceptics directly: “Unlike scientists or global agencies, we cannot be dismissed as experts from on-high. What we know, we know because we are here every day. We are part of the community.” She did not claim that health workers are climate scientists. She claimed that presence produces a kind of knowledge that an expert from on-high can never hold.
4. The philosophical grounding is explicit. The work draws on Donald Schön’s knowing-in-action, James Scott’s metis, Aristotle’s phronesis, and Miranda Fricker’s epistemic injustice, the wronging of someone in their capacity as a knower, connected to the decolonisation arguments of Abimbola and Pai and Bhakuni and Abimbola. Its sharpest formulation comes from Brazil’s First National Seminar on Indigenous Health and Climate Change, where Putira Sacuena described a small frog in the Xingu territory whose silence, across generations, preceded outbreaks of respiratory illness and diarrhoea: what you call anecdote, we call ancestral science.
5. And the discipline is what makes it credible. The argument does not ask to replace scientific method. It asks to widen what counts as evidence and to build the methods that let different ways of knowing inform each other.The eyewitness report states plainly that the experiences are not intended to prove that climate change is happening or that it affects health, because rigorous science has already done that. Their value is to show how it lands locally.

Where a worker’s account and the routine data disagree, the reports asks why.

Limitations, self-reported, unverified, drawn from a self-selecting group of committed experience-sharers, are printed, not buried.

For a technical officer, the practical consequence is this: 7-30’s evidence base is not a substitute for surveillance.

It is a proposal to add a sensor layer where your surveillance is thinnest and slowest, with the epistemic status of that layer stated honestly on the page.

4. How can the 7-30 Climate-Health Emergency Framework make a difference for health outcomes?

The second radical element is a claim about causation, and it is the one that matters most for whether any framework, yours or ours, reaches a community.

The dominant model treats health workers as a deficit to be corrected: aware but unprepared, therefore train them.

• The 2025 Lancet Countdown moved substantially toward recognising local knowledge, integrating frontline testimonials from Teach to Reach into country profiles and stating that community-led actions are more likely than top-down interventions to maximise health benefits, while still framing health workers as people to be educated because they are unprepared.
• The same critique applies to Haines and colleagues on primary health care in a changing climate, which treats the workforce as recipients of training rather than as creators of knowledge.
• The deficit model has a measurable failure mode. Cascade training fails because information degrades at each transfer and because the constraint was never information.
• Across programmes on immunization, malaria, NTDs, mental health, and radiation safety, the level of factual knowledge participants bring is rarely the binding constraint.
• The binding constraints are isolation from peers facing the same problem, no time to reflect on practice, no support during implementation, and the absence of anything that validates professional agency against institutional resistance.

7-30 is designed against those constraints rather than against an information gap, which is why its implementation pathway is a weekly rhythm rather than a curriculum.

In the Impact Accelerator, a 7-30 framework user sets one concrete goal on Monday, checks in with peers on Wednesday, and reports what happened on Friday, including what failed, then sets the next goal with that experience behind them.

Expert guides sit beside the process rather than run it.

Three features of this design should interest a sceptical technical officer specifically.

1. It increases adherence to your guidance rather than competing with it. Every Accelerator participant commits to work toward national goals, with supervisor approval, using the best available global knowledge. The mechanism has been shown to raise adherence to proven protocols, such as WHO heat-stress and malaria guidance. It transforms adherence from a wish expressed in a capital city into a practice in a district. Guidance that currently lingers on shelves acquires a delivery route.
2. It runs in two directions. This is double-loop learning in an operational sense: the first loop improves action within the existing frame, the second interrogates the frame itself.If national planners and international experts are willing to listen, they hear back both how implementation actually works and where the global standard needs revision. The three-year partnership with the Global Consortium on Climate and Health Education at Columbia University, the largest academic network for climate and health education, builds exactly this two-way path: practitioners move from expert-led courses into peer support for application, and what they encounter in the field informs what the Consortium teaches.
3. It produces attribution evidence of a specific kind. The measurement system uses TGLF’s value-creation framework, measuring change across five dimensions benchmarked against a 2022 global baseline of 10,095 participants from 99 countries and tracked at 30 and 90 days. Participants document a measurable baseline before acting, record weekly actions and observed changes, and then must make an explicit attribution argument to peers who know their setting, their constraints, and their previous actions. Those peers ask which actions produced which results, why the change would not have happened otherwise, and what evidence supports it. Self-report is unreliable when someone works alone.It becomes considerably more disciplined when it must survive colleagues who cannot be deceived by overclaiming.

This is the same logic the framework applies to detection: peer validation converts observation into evidence.

The comparative results, which should always be cited with their basis stated: measured against conventional technical assistance and cascade training, implementation roughly seven times faster at roughly 90% lower cost.

These derive substantially from a 2019 immunization cohort with independent measurement against a comparison group.

In a TGLF country implementation (with Gavi support) led by the Ministry of Health in Côte d’Ivoire, 82% of participants continued using the method without further support and 78% stated they needed no further external assistance.

What this amounts to is a different answer to the question of who the leaders are, and how to recognize and support the leadership that is already saving lives.

Two examples illustrate this:

• In Côte d’Ivoire, communities identified stagnant water as a malaria risk and organised youth-led clean-up committees, with a locally measured drop in cases.
• In Cameroon, communities cleaned gutters to stop water stagnating. No one in the capital, and certainly no one in Geneva or Seattle, knew about these initiatives. 7-30 exists so that the next such action is planned, resourced, documented, and connected, rather than invisible.

5. So how can I use the 7-30 framework?

Two numbers anchor a three-phase cycle.

Number	Target	Phase
7	Within 7 days of a seasonal or forecast trigger, the local area is confirmed prepared: risks reviewed, plan active, responsibilities clear, peer support activated, community links ready. For rapid-onset hazards, this readiness must already exist before the event.	Preparedness
30	Within 30 days of event onset, essential services are restored or adapted to a stable baseline, changes documented, lessons analysed, resilience actions under way.	Recovery

Response occupies the space between the anchors and is measured by whether the necessary components were activated in time, seven of them, from heightened surveillance and access continuity to community communication and staff protection, not by elapsed days.

Four ideas shape the guide.

1. Climate change acts through familiar problems: malaria arriving earlier, diarrhoeal disease intensifying after floods, undernutrition after crop loss, antenatal care collapsing when roads are cut. No new disease list is needed. What is needed is the discipline to notice the familiar happening at the wrong time, place, or intensity, and to treat that observation as a legitimate trigger, a position consistent with Otto and colleagues’ argument that extreme weather should be defined by impacts on climate-vulnerable communities rather than by meteorological criteria alone.
2. Local solutions are assets, not coping failures: canoes, motorbikes, women’s savings groups, WhatsApp consultations, volunteer transport, community-built health posts are part of the real health system.
3. Support is built in: field actions are paired with decision rights, financing pathways, and worker protection.
4. Trust is central. The accounts behind the framework identify it as the one thing supplies and logistics cannot fix: where trust was absent, temporary clinics, supplies, and volunteers could not overcome community refusal to engage. Trust cannot be procured or authorised mid-crisis. It can have a budget line, a target, and a person responsible for it, and none of the contributors described having one.

6. How does 7-30 integrate into a government’s health system?

7-30 embeds in health national adaptation plans, vulnerability and adaptation assessments, and emergency preparedness plans nationally.

In district preparedness plans, seasonal risk planning, service continuity plans, and after-action processes subnationally.

And as a shared operational scaffold at facility and community level.

Government sets policy, standards, financing rules, data architecture, and escalation triggers.

The framework is tool-agnostic by design: its annex describes one tested implementation pathway and states explicitly that any structure delivering the same four functions can serve instead.

7. What it asks of planners, managers, and funders

1. Settle decision rights in writing before the season. For each likely adaptation, alternative transport, temporary relocation of a service, telemedicine, supply redistribution, small local spending, agree who authorises it, to what limit, and who acts if that person is unreachable. Then answer the hard question: what may a frontline worker do on their own judgment when no supervisor can be reached, and how will that decision be backed rather than penalised? Ambiguity here slows action and exposes workers to blame for reasonable improvisation.
2. Match the money to the speed of the shock. Small, flexible, locally controlled contingency sums, with simple limits and a fast release route, aligned to existing disaster risk financing rather than run as a parallel channel. Conventional grant cycles arrive on the timeline of a grant, not of a flood.
3. Stop externalising adaptation onto the poorest actors. The most uncomfortable finding in the practitioner evidence is that health workers pay personally: the midwife in Tarime hires her own motorbike; Keku Evans De-Clerk in Ho West spends four days travelling between communities. These costs are invisible to managers and donors unless someone counts them, and counting them is the first step to having them reimbursed. 7-30 therefore makes out-of-pocket cost per event, and the proportion compensated, a governance indicator.
4. Fund trust on the trust timeline. A twelve-month cycle is shorter than the time it takes to build trust in a community that has been let down before. Multi-year, presence-based financing is not generosity. It is the precondition for everything else in the framework working.
5. Recognise, fund, and protect what already works. The job of policy is not to invent an exotic new programme but to recognise the pirogues, drones, mobile clinics, mutual-aid funds, community-built health centres, and WhatsApp antenatal care that are already carrying the response. A plan that fails to name the women’s solidarity fund and the canoe operator is planning against a health system that does not exist.

8. Seven limitations, caveats, and considerations

1. The numbers are operational conventions, not evidence-derived thresholds. Seven and thirty were chosen because they generate action and fit local scorecards. Impacts including malnutrition, mental health, and livelihood harms extend far beyond 30 days, so the marker risks signalling closure while burdens persist. It confirms that services are stable and resilience work has begun. It does not declare recovery finished.
2. The health-outcome claim is a hypothesis. Gains in speed, cost, and sustainability are process and adoption measures, not validated reductions in morbidity or mortality. No evaluation in this space has yet produced the attribution evidence that would settle the question.
3. The projection is a projection. The estimate that growing the network from 80,000 to one million health workers by 2030 could save seven million lives at under two dollars per life is described by its author as an aggressive back-of-the-envelope calculation resting on pilot data and on assumptions about scale and attribution. It is offered as a reason to fund rigorous research, not as a finding.
4. Health worker protection is underweight relative to a literature that treats physical, mental, and occupational harms to the workforce as central.
5. The framework leans on one organisation’s peer learning system as its operational spine, which raises a generalizability question that a plural tool ecosystem does not face. The annex exists to make that spine substitutable.
6. Peer learning cannot dissolve structural constraints. Financing facilitation and country-level implementation are the weakest links even for well-resourced global platforms, and structural asymmetries in policy and knowledge production are not a training problem. Autonomy is the goal. As long as resources and decision-making power remain concentrated in global centres, it cannot be reached by flipping a switch.
7. The evidence base inherits the field’s distortions. Knowledge production remains dominated by Global North institutions, non-English and Southern-authored research is systematically excluded from global syntheses, and fewer than 30% of health adaptation studies consider gender while under 1% include disability.

References

1. Abimbola S, Pai M. Will global health survive its decolonisation? Lancet. 2020;396(10263):1627-1628. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32417-X
2. Ahimbisibwe A, et al. Climate change, health and environmental policy in Africa: structural constraints, regional disparities and global inequities. Frontiers in Public Health. 2026. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2026.1816888/full
3. Bain LE, Sadki R. Klepac and colleagues’ scoping review of climate change, malaria and neglected tropical diseases: what about the epistemic significance of health worker knowledge? The Geneva Learning Foundation; 2024. https://doi.org/10.59350/n8r6f-46t95
4. Bhakuni H, Abimbola S. Epistemic injustice in academic global health. Lancet Global Health. 2021;9(10):e1465-e1470. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00301-6
5. Domingo A, Little M, Beggs B, Brubacher LJ, Lau LL, Dodd W. Examining the role of community health workers amid extreme weather events in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review. Public Health. 2024;234:133-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2024.07.023
6. Ebi KL, Vanos J, Baldwin JW, Bell JE, Hondula DM, Errett NA, et al. Extreme weather and climate change: population health and health system implications. Annual Review of Public Health. 2021;42:293-315. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-012420-105026
7. Fricker M. Epistemic injustice: power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
8. Gasparri G. Evaluation of the ATACH 2024-2028 strategy. Alliance for Transformative Action on Climate and Health; 2026. https://www.atachcommunity.com/fileadmin/user_upload/ATACH_Evaluation_Final_Report.pdf
9. Haines A, Kimani-Murage EW, Gopfert A. Strengthening primary health care in a changing climate.
10. Lancet. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)02193-7
11. Jacobson J, Brooks A, Mbuh C, Sadki R. Learning from frontline health workers in the climate change era. 2023. https://doi.org/10.59350/svf4x-73h90
12. Jones I, Mbuh C, Sadki R, Eller K, Rhoda D. On the frontline of climate change and health: a health worker eyewitness report. Geneva: The Geneva Learning Foundation; 2023. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10204660
13. Jones I, Njua Mbuh C, Steed I, Sadki R. Teach to Reach 11: local action to mitigate the impact of the climate crisis on health. Geneva: The Geneva Learning Foundation; 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18246203
14. Jones I, Njua Mbuh C, Steed I, Sadki R. Teach to Reach 11: actions locales face à l’impact du changement climatique sur la santé. Geneva: The Geneva Learning Foundation; 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19069576
15. Lusambili A, et al. Aware but unprepared: the impact of climate change on healthcare workers and service delivery in Africa – a scoping review. Frontiers in Public Health. 2026;13:1693703. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1693703
16. Mbuh C. Climate change is a threat to the health of the communities we serve: health workers speak out at COP28. The Geneva Learning Foundation; 2023. https://doi.org/10.59350/1arzs-qjg17
17. McMahon SA, et al. Adapting to climate change: strategies and perspectives from humanitarian health workers – a qualitative study. Journal of Climate Change and Health. 2024. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667278224000762
18. Otto FEL, et al. Extreme weather should be defined according to impacts on climate-vulnerable communities. Nature Climate Change. 2024;14:1010-1012. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01983-7
19. Perreault-Carranza T, Ni V, Savoie J, Saucier J, Frenette J, Jbilou J. Core competencies of the public health workforce in climate change and extreme weather events preparedness, response, and recovery: a scoping review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2024;21(9):1233. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21091233
20. Sadki R. Critical evidence gaps in the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change. 2024. https://doi.org/10.59350/nv6f2-svp12
21. Sadki R. Health at COP29: workforce crisis meets climate crisis. 2024. https://doi.org/10.59350/sdmgt-ptt98
22. Sadki R. Knowing-in-action: bridging the theory-practice divide in global health. 2024. https://doi.org/10.59350/4evj5-vm802
23. Sadki R. Strengthening primary health care in a changing climate. 2024. https://doi.org/10.59350/5s2zf-s6879
24. Sadki R. The cost of inaction: quantifying the impact of climate change on health. 2024. https://doi.org/10.59350/gn95w-jpt34
25. Sadki R. What is double-loop learning in global health? 2024. https://doi.org/10.59350/s4xtw-b7274
26. Sadki R. Why does cascade training fail? 2024. https://doi.org/10.59350/j8vg0-yng46
27. Sadki R. Climate change and health: a new peer learning programme by and for health workers from the most climate-vulnerable countries. 2025. https://doi.org/10.59350/redasadki.21339
28. Sadki R. Climate change and health: what the Lancet Countdown says about the value and significance of local knowledge and action. 2025. https://doi.org/10.59350/n60dq-8kt44
29. Sadki R. Colonization, climate change, and indigenous health: from Algiers to Acre. 2025. https://doi.org/10.59350/9h6mv-fk248
30. Sadki R. Development is adaptation: Bill Gates’s shift is actually about linking climate change and health. 2025. https://doi.org/10.59350/8e2je-10a04
31. Sadki R. Implementation science for planetary health. 2025. https://doi.org/10.59350/jqej4-ett48
32. Sadki R. What is The Geneva Learning Foundation’s Impact Accelerator? 2025. https://doi.org/10.59350/redasadki.21161
33. Sadki R. WHO Global Conference on Climate and Health: new pathways to overcome structural barriers blocking effective climate and health action. 2025. https://doi.org/10.59350/redasadki.21322
34. Sadki R. A short history of the first five years of Teach to Reach. 2026. https://doi.org/10.59350/nhy29-m3j36
35. Sadki R. Climate change and health: 14 recommendations for health workers, national planners, and global partners. 2026. https://doi.org/10.59350/hs8am-cn216
36. Sadki R. Climate change and health: 8 take-aways from community-based responses. 2026. https://doi.org/10.59350/fxxec-dxj41
37. Sadki R. Climate change and health: from flood to funder and from rhetoric to action. 2026. https://doi.org/10.59350/yamtp-9dw88
38. Sadki R. Health workers are already responding to climate change: a new partnership links expert-led climate and health education with frontline peer learning. 2026. https://doi.org/10.59350/qyg9k-p6g91
39. Sadki R. How to measure real-world outcomes in learning initiatives. 2026. https://doi.org/10.59350/btfdf-1bf06
40. Sadki R. Lessons in resilience: what health workers in Africa, Asia, and Latin America know and do in response to worsening climate change impacts on their communities. 2026. https://doi.org/10.59350/bc869-5z763
41. Sadki R. The road to transformative action on climate and health: what we can learn from the ATACH evaluation. 2026. https://doi.org/10.59350/q6fdv-0q242
42. Sanchez JJ, Gitau E, Sadki R, Mbuh C, Silver K, Berry P, et al. The climate crisis and human health: identifying grand challenges through participatory research. Lancet Global Health. 2025;13:e199-e200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(25)00003-8
43. Schön DA. Knowing-in-action: the new scholarship requires a new epistemology.Change. 1995;27(6):27-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1995.10544673
44. The Geneva Learning Foundation. Information brief for partners, November 2022. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7316466
45. Umbelino-Walker I, Szylovec AP, Dakam BA, Monglo A, Jones I, Mbuh C, Sadki R, Brooks A. Towards a sustainable model for a digital learning network in support of the Immunization Agenda 2030: a mixed methods study with a transdisciplinary component. PLOS Global Public Health. 2024;4:e0003855. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0003855
46. Uribe JP, Rabie T. The cost of inaction: quantifying the impact of climate change on health in low- and middle-income countries. Washington DC: World Bank; 2024. https://doi.org/10.1596/42419
47. Watkins KE, Sadki R, Kim K, Suh B. Changing learning paradigms in a global health agency. In: Evidence-based initiatives for organizational change and development. IGI Global; 2019:693-703. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-6155-2.ch050
48. Watkins KE, Sandmann LR, Dailey CA, Li B, Yang S-E, Galen RS, Sadki R. Accelerating problem-solving capacities of sub-national public health professionals: an evaluation of a digital immunization training intervention. BMC Health Services Research. 2022;22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08138-4
49. Wenger E, Trayner B, de Laat M. Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: a conceptual framework. Heerlen: Open University of the Netherlands; 2011.
50. World Health Organization. Operational framework for building climate resilient health systems. Geneva: WHO; 2015. World Health Organization.
51. Operational framework for building climate resilient and low carbon health systems. Geneva: WHO; 2023.