Types of identified policies: Paid maternity leave; paid parental/family leave; dual earner policies.

What we know: Paid maternal and parental leave policies had mixed effects on maternal health, reflecting intersectional population characteristics, extent of existing gender inequalities and design of policy (e.g., length of leave) (Naik et al., 2019; Clark et al., 2022). A ‘dual-earner policy model' - commonly associated with the Nordic welfare model - however, was more suggestive of positive maternal outcomes and perceived as a potential action for tackling issues of gender inequity in employment (Naik et al., 2019).

What we know: Mixed effects have been recorded for offering employers financial incentives (e.g., wage subsidies) to employ disabled or chronically ill people, with a need to strike a balance between providing additional employment opportunities without creating a segregated form of employment (Clayton et al., 2012).

What we know: A review from Barbabella et al., (2022) reported on locally-implemented policy approaches in Italy aiming to improve the employment of older workers. While data on efficacy was not reported, these initiatives included financially incentivising employment of older workers, involving older people in social farming projects, investing in intergenerational training programmes, enabling community service hours (particularly in green, culture and care sectors) to help older workers reach minimum pension requirements.

Examples of implementation: A programme in the Autonomous Province of Trento (Italy) helps older workers (53+ for men and 49+ for women), who have been dismissed or unemployed, to reach minimum pension requirements through participation in community service activities. These activities are commonly located within green, culture and care sectors (Barbabella et al., 2022).

What we know: Mitigations strategies within the agricultural sector that involve a combination of technological improvements and reduced livestock production (by 30%) are estimated to lead to a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 if adopted in the UK and São Paulo (Brazil). Co-benefits for health were also noted with estimated reductions of nutrition-related disease by 15% in the UK and 16% in São Paulo (see Friel et al., 2009 in Gao et al., 2018).

What we know: Mendy et al., (2024) suggests there are two forms of mis/disinformation around climate change - i) promoting denialism around the existence of climate change, its anthropogenic (human) causes and impacts on planetary health, and ii) promoting denialism around the necessity to act and respond to climate change. To counter the second form, strategic countermessaging that targets the sources and transmitters of the climate mis/disinformation is essential. Mendy et al., (2024) report that the use of trusted elite cues can drive support for climate mitigation policy and action, referencing studies that have found supportive climate messaging by conservative politicians and military persons can increase support for policy action by conservatives students.