Conquering Today's Health Paradox with the Power of HEAL – An Expert Consensus Report plus Research Priorities and Policymaker Roadmap

A further post will follow with full PR, but the paper is now published:

Article type: Policy Brief
Journal: Frontiers in Public Health - Public Health Education and Promotion
Manuscript ID: 1695757
Received on date: 30 Aug 2025

Abstract

Background. Despite growing scientific evidence and health guidelines, the global health paradox persists, with rising lifestyle-related diseases and escalating healthcare costs exposing the inadequacy of current efforts.

Objective. 3 multidisciplinary congresses were held to generate evidence-based conclusions to tackle the global health paradox.

Methods. 58 experts from 62 entities participated in the international research and knowledge exchange panels. Experts reviewed the latest findings to develop practical strategies, key research and policy priorities, focusing on the “Healthy Eating & Active Living” (HEAL) approach.

Results, Conclusions, and Relevance. The expert consortium endorsed a 33 evidence-based consensual-statement policy roadmap for addressing global health challenges, emphasizing the HEAL approach can significantly contribute to the “Prevention First” appeal and broad ethical, social, ecological, and economic advantages, and eventually policy change.

Wirnitzer KC, Motevalli M, Tanous DR, Drenowatz C, Moser M, Cramer H, Rosemann T, Wagner K-H, Michalsen A, Knechtle B, Fras Z, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Marques A, Mis NF, Stanford FC, Schubert C, Goswami N, Leitzmann C, Fredriksen PM, Ruedl G, Wilflingseder D, Lima RA, Kessler C, Jeitler M, Khan NA, Joulaei H, Fatemi M, Knight A, Kratky KW, Palmer KK, Haditsch B, Jakse B, Kofler W, Pfeiffer T, Cordova-Pozo K, Tortella P, Straub S, Lynch H, Schätzer M, Krishnan A, Fathima A. S, Gatterer L, Kriwan F, Abhishek M, Nandgaonkar H, Nandgaonkar S, Adedara AO, Haro JM, Gericke C, Neumann G, Akhtar A, Rashidlamir A, Thangavelu M, Ngoumou GB, Perpék É, Klaper M, Bhattacharya B, Kirschner W, Bessems KMHH, Jones P, Peoples G, Bescos R, Duftner C, Seifert G (2025). Toward a roadmap for addressing today’s health dilemma–The 101-statement consensus report. Frontiers in Nutrition, Volume 12:1676080. doi:10.3389/fnut.2025.1676080.

 https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2025.1676080

New cit.? "Toward a Roadmap for Addressing Today's Health Dilemma - The 101-Statement Consensus Report"

News - this morning brought provisional acceptance of a paper, and hence a potential new citation. I greatly appreciate being involved with this project. So, fingers-crossed even at this late stage ...

Title: Toward a Roadmap for Addressing Today's Health Dilemma -The 101-Statement Consensus Report 

Submitted By: Katharina C. Wirnitzer

Authors: Katharina C. Wirnitzer, Mohamad Motevalli, Derrick Tanous, Clemens Drenowatz, Maximilian Moser, Holger Cramer, Thomas Rosemann, Karl-Heinz Wagner, Andreas Michalsen, Beat Knechtle, Zlatko Fras, Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga, Adilson Marques, Nataša Fidler Mis, Fatima Cody Stanford, Christian Schubert, Nandu Goswami, Claus - Leitzmann, Per Morten Fredriksen, Gerhard Ruedl, Doris Wilflingseder, Rodrigo Antunes Lima, Christian S. Kessler, Michael Jeitler, Naim Akhtar Khan, Hassan Joulaei, Maryam Fatemi, Andrew Knight, Karl W. Kratky, Kara K Palmer, Bernd Haditsch, Bostjan Jakse, Walter Kofler, Tomas Pfeiffer, Kathya Lorena Cordova-Pozo, Patrizia Tortella, Simon Straub, Heidi Lynch, Manuel Schätzer, Anupama Krishnan, Shahnaz Fathima, Lukas Gatterer, Fabian Kriwan, Mittal Abhishek, Hemant Nandgaonkar, Shalaka Nandgaonkar, Abiola O. Adedara, Josep Maria Haro, Corina Gericke, Gaby Neumann, Aysha Akhtar, Amir Rashidlamir, Madan Thangavelu, Ngoumou Gonza, Éva Perpék, Michael Klaper, Bhaswati Bhattacharya, Werner Kirschner, Kathelijne Bessems, Peter Jones, Gregory E Peoples, Raul Bescos, Christina Duftner and Georg Johannes Seifert

Journal: Frontiers in Nutrition, section Food Policy and Economics

Research Topic: Sustainable Approaches to Public Health Via Food Policy Actions

Accepted on: 10 Sept 2025

I will (hopefully) be able to add more details (abstract - - formatted ...) as they become available. 

Paper: "Obtaining Consensus in Psychotherapy: What Holds Us Back?" c/o Goldfried

In respect to Goldfried's paper and the disciplines of psychology, psychiatry and psychotherapy; please also consider research as it applies to all, across the domains of Hodges' model. Hence, to include: objective, subjective, methods, methodology, quantitative, qualitative, communication, meaning, integration, data, information, policy, autonomy, accessibility (to therapy) and agency. As per the review of Kinchin - to be completed next post, it is the links/relationships to be made and understood between these concepts that are fundamental.

"There are at least three problematic issues that seem to contribute to the difficulty we have in obtaining a consensus within the field of psychotherapy: The first involves our long-standing practice of solely working within theoretical orientations or eclectic combinations of orientations. More-over, not agreeing with those having other frameworks on how to bring about therapeutic change results in the prolif-eration of schools of therapy (Goldfried, 1980). The second issue involves the longstanding gap between research and practice, where many therapists may fail to see the relevance to their day-to-day clinical practice and also where many researchers do not make systematic use of clinical observations as a means of guiding their research (Gold-fried, 1982). The third issue is our tendency to neglect past contributions to the field (Goldfried, 2000). We do not build on our previous body of knowledge but rather rediscover what we already know or—even worse—ignore past work and replace it with something new. What follows is a description of how these three issues prevent psychotherapy from achieving a consensus, after which there will be a consideration of some possible steps that might be taken in working toward a resolution of these issues." p.484.

INDIVIDUAL

|

INTERPERSONAL : SCIENCES

HUMANISTIC ---------------------------------------------- MECHANISTIC

SOCIOLOGY : POLITICAL

|

GROUP - POPULATION

Psychotherapy (Schools) Waves? 3rd Wave of CBT? Patient (as Self, Client, Person) Therapist (as Self, Person) Clinical Psychology Occupational Psychology et al... Psychological problems person-centeredness meta-cognition, reflection ... (see list, p.488) (my) PURPOSE	Theoretical orientation(s) empirical, experiential Biological Psychiatry 'medical model'  clinical training (ref to 'the' manual, protocol) THERAPY :: RESEARCH PROCESS
Therapeutic alliance  COMMUNICATION Therapeutic change Other (as patient, subject) History (benefiting from lessons learned) Social change, expectations "the sociology of science" p.486 PRACTICE	Curricula (as political entities) supervision, governance, professionalism funding access to therapy selection criteria (for therapy, gate keeping [self-assessment as exclusion?], studies) POLICY

Goldfried, M.R. Obtaining consensus in psychotherapy: What holds us back? Am Psychol. 2019 May-Jun;74(4):484-496. doi: 10.1037/amp0000365

Jones, P. (1996) An overarching theory of health communication? Health Informatics Journal,2,1,28-34.

2020 Clear Vision - 4 - Clear Care

Care concept ink *

To highlight Care - Assessment, Plan, Intervention, Evaluation, Co-Production through
improved engagement and formulation

Care concept ink

(enhance)

Vs.

Non-Care concept ink

(reduce)

*A definition of collaborative care, co-production and health literacy ... could involve assurance as to whether a particular concept has significance for the patient/carer/guardian.


My source:
https://youtu.be/B2FDbGUzNRI

In a series of videos from BMJ, Prof. Maarten Boers will show you how to choose and design better graphs and tables.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXU14EQbU_V9JpmolAKsaCC0VjJzbxzAN

Multiplistic- Thinking checks and balances [IV]

Johnson’s main source Perry (1970) is developmental in tracing a learner's journey from a dualist tendency, through to multiplistic and the third stage which is relativistic thinking. Having related dualistic thinking to Hodges' model, now it is the turn of the multiplistic.

Just as the axes of Hodges' model can be matched to dualistic thinking (followed by the domains), so the model's four care (or knowledge) domains immediately suggest multiple forms of explanation. Reasoning and reaching an understanding about something is what we usually think of as knowledge. The dualistic brought home the actuality of facts. The age of information technology provides a virtual ocean of facts, knowledge, data, information, wisdom. There is the buzz of the advertisers and social media and their influence on what we think and believe. Family, friends, community, culture all have their influence. We recognise the notion of common sense and tacit knowledge. When knowledge is viewed as content (and we avoid the key matter of access) this is a neutral position, but this neutrality changes irrevocably when context is introduced; when questions of ownership, disciplines and the knowledge of individual and community arise. Who knows? How is their knowledge demonstrated? Why should I/we listen to them? Staying with the political domain the further progression to relativistic thinking becomes apparent. There is the view of the doctor, nurse, social worker, allied health professional as an advocate who is not strictly independent and the representative who is.

As the term 'multiplistic' (and pluralistic) suggests the learner develops an appreciation that there is not necessarily a single answer but several. As Johnson (1994) notes, when an answer is provided, even if this is a voice of authority it is not necessarily correct. There is a distinction to be made between there being potentially many answers and many sources for answers.

The same properties attributed to knowledge objective and subjective (dualism in thought and action) also has a bearing here. From: The logic and evidence of a randomised controlled trial; To: the politics of dogma - “Well, this is the way we have always done it!” There are many types and degrees of quality attributed to knowledge. Debate is ongoing about the definition and meaning of bit, data, information, knowledge and wisdom. Is there a hierarchy there? Where would you put dualist and multiplistic thinking in this mix? Is that a valid question? No? Would you reconsider and proffer an answer if (and to follow) the wise amongst us are experts in relativistic thinking?

Bringing multiplistic thinking to a conclusion frequently and routinely demands a consensus being reached and teamwork. Multiplistic thinking and approaches (pluralism) also tends to throw light on constraints that dualistic views might ignore, or by definition have no need to take account of. So dualism can engender bias, even foster blatant prejudice, in comparison to the context of consensual management for example, which is invariably richer, open, continuous and requires self-awareness and awareness of the other. This is not a vote for consensus, to many it is a game and contention often remains.

Decision making as a process and the many ‘logics’ that people try to apply become evident and the varying quality of the same. Communities of practice have their own terminology. As a learner expands their vocabulary and acquires conceptual knowledge they are able to make the transition from novice, beginner ... to proficient learner (Benner, 1984). The aforementioned virtual realm can processes and produces terminologies of its own, so-called folksonomies. This is one of the multiplicities the learner must literally come to terms with. Hodges' model as a conceptual framework and one or more conceptual spaces is ideally suited to support this learning and learning to learn.

Johnson, D.D. (1994). Dualistic, Multiplistic, and Relativistic Thinking as it Relates to a Psychology Major. Honors Theses. Paper 202.
http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/uhp_theses/202/

Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Benner, P. (1984). From novice to expert: Excellence and power in clinical nursing practice. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley, pp. 13-34.

Thinking checks and balances [I]

Dualistic- thinking checks and balances [II]

Dualistic- thinking checks and balances [III] (or: The-hyphen)

See also:
Jones, P. (1996) Humans, Information, and Science, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 24(3),591-598.