Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent conflict between the immediate need for data to inform public health interventions and the ethical imperative to protect individual privacy and ensure informed consent. Epidemiologists often operate in situations where rapid action is crucial, but the methods employed must be legally sound and ethically defensible. The pressure to act quickly can tempt professionals to bypass established protocols, leading to potential breaches of trust and legal repercussions. Careful judgment is required to balance these competing demands. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves obtaining explicit, informed consent from all participants before collecting any identifiable health information for research or surveillance purposes, even in a public health emergency. This approach respects individual autonomy and adheres to fundamental ethical principles of research and data privacy. Specifically, under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in the United States, protected health information (PHI) cannot be disclosed or used without patient authorization, except under specific, narrowly defined circumstances. While public health activities are a permitted use under HIPAA, the collection of new data for a specific study or intervention typically requires consent, especially if it involves more than de-identified aggregate data. This approach ensures that the data collected is ethically sourced and legally compliant, fostering public trust in epidemiological efforts. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves proceeding with data collection without explicit consent, relying on the argument that the public health emergency justifies bypassing consent requirements. This fails to acknowledge that while HIPAA permits certain disclosures for public health activities, it does not grant a blanket exemption for the collection of new, identifiable data for specific research or surveillance projects without authorization. This approach risks violating patient privacy rights and could lead to legal penalties and damage to the reputation of the public health institution. Another incorrect approach is to collect data but then de-identify it immediately without attempting to obtain consent. While de-identification is a crucial privacy protection, the initial collection of identifiable data without consent, especially when not strictly necessary for immediate life-saving intervention and when consent is feasible, is problematic. It bypasses the opportunity to engage with individuals and obtain their voluntary participation, which is a cornerstone of ethical research and data handling. A third incorrect approach is to assume that consent obtained for routine clinical care automatically extends to the use of that data for a separate epidemiological study. Consent for treatment is specific to the clinical encounter and does not inherently grant permission for the secondary use of that information in a research context, particularly if that research involves new data collection or analysis that goes beyond standard public health reporting. This approach misinterprets the scope of clinical consent and infringes upon an individual’s right to control how their health information is used. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes ethical conduct and legal compliance. This involves: 1) Identifying the core objective and the data required. 2) Assessing the legal and ethical implications of data collection methods, particularly concerning privacy and consent. 3) Exploring all feasible options for obtaining data, starting with the least intrusive and most ethically sound. 4) Consulting with legal counsel and ethics review boards when faced with complex situations or potential conflicts. 5) Documenting all decisions and the rationale behind them. In situations involving potential public health emergencies, it is crucial to understand the specific provisions of relevant regulations like HIPAA, which outline permitted uses and disclosures, but also emphasize the importance of authorization for many data-related activities.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the candidate to critically evaluate the effectiveness and appropriateness of various preparation resources for a high-stakes proficiency exam. The challenge lies in discerning which resources are truly aligned with the exam’s advanced applied epidemiology focus and which might offer superficial or misleading guidance. Careful judgment is required to avoid time wastage on ineffective methods and to ensure comprehensive coverage of the exam’s demanding content. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach involves a systematic review of official examination blueprints, syllabi, and recommended reading lists provided by the certifying body. This is correct because these materials are the definitive source of information regarding the scope, depth, and expected proficiency levels for the Advanced Applied Epidemiology Proficiency Verification exam. Adhering to these official guidelines ensures that preparation is directly targeted at the knowledge and skills assessed, maximizing efficiency and effectiveness. Ethical considerations mandate that candidates prepare using materials that accurately reflect the examination’s requirements, avoiding any misrepresentation or undue advantage gained from non-sanctioned resources. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Relying solely on general epidemiology textbooks and online forums without cross-referencing official exam documentation is an incorrect approach. While these resources can provide foundational knowledge, they may not cover the specific applied aspects or the advanced proficiency level tested by this particular exam. Forums, in particular, can contain anecdotal advice or outdated information that is not aligned with current best practices or the exam’s specific objectives, leading to a misallocation of study time and potential gaps in understanding. Focusing exclusively on practice questions from a single, unverified third-party provider is also an incorrect approach. Such question banks may not accurately reflect the difficulty, style, or content of the actual examination. Over-reliance on them can lead to a false sense of security or, conversely, undue anxiety if the practice questions are significantly different from the real exam. This approach fails to ensure comprehensive preparation across all domains tested and may not address the applied nature of the proficiency verification. Prioritizing preparation based on the perceived popularity of study groups or anecdotal recommendations from colleagues, without consulting official exam materials, is an incorrect approach. While peer learning can be beneficial, popularity does not equate to accuracy or relevance for an advanced proficiency exam. This method risks following trends that may not align with the rigorous standards set by the certifying body, potentially leading to a superficial understanding or overlooking critical areas of applied epidemiology. Professional Reasoning: Professionals preparing for advanced proficiency examinations should adopt a structured and evidence-based approach. This involves: 1. Identifying the authoritative source: Always begin with the official examination body’s documentation (e.g., syllabus, blueprint, recommended readings). 2. Cross-referencing and validation: Use supplementary materials to deepen understanding of topics identified in official documents, but always validate their relevance against the official requirements. 3. Strategic resource allocation: Prioritize resources that directly address the exam’s stated objectives and proficiency levels. 4. Active learning and application: Engage in practice that simulates the applied nature of the exam, rather than passive memorization. 5. Continuous self-assessment: Regularly evaluate preparedness against the exam’s criteria to identify and address knowledge gaps.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the immediate need for public health intervention with the ethical and legal obligations to protect individual privacy and ensure data integrity. Missteps can lead to erosion of public trust, legal repercussions, and ineffective public health outcomes. Careful judgment is required to navigate the complexities of data sharing, consent, and the potential for stigmatization. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a multi-pronged strategy that prioritizes ethical data handling and community engagement. This approach begins with establishing clear data governance protocols that align with public health objectives and privacy regulations. It necessitates obtaining informed consent from individuals where feasible and appropriate, particularly for sensitive health information, while also recognizing the legal frameworks that permit data sharing for public health emergencies under specific conditions. Crucially, it involves transparent communication with the affected community about the purpose of data collection, how it will be used, and the safeguards in place to protect their privacy. This approach ensures that interventions are both effective and ethically sound, fostering trust and cooperation. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves immediately disseminating raw, unverified individual-level data to all healthcare providers without a clear data sharing agreement or consent process. This violates privacy regulations and ethical principles by exposing sensitive personal health information without proper authorization or anonymization, potentially leading to discrimination and loss of patient trust. Another unacceptable approach is to delay all data collection and analysis until every single individual has provided explicit, written consent for all potential uses of their data. While consent is vital, in a rapidly evolving public health crisis, such a rigid approach can paralyze necessary investigations and interventions, hindering the ability to identify trends, track disease spread, and implement timely public health measures, thereby jeopardizing broader community health. A third flawed approach is to rely solely on aggregated, anonymized data without any mechanism to link it back to specific geographic areas or demographic groups for targeted interventions. While anonymization is important, if the aggregation is too broad, it can obscure critical localized outbreaks or disparities, making it impossible to direct resources effectively and respond to the specific needs of vulnerable populations. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with understanding the specific public health threat and the data required for effective response. This should be followed by a thorough review of applicable legal and ethical guidelines regarding data privacy, consent, and public health reporting. The next step involves designing data collection and sharing mechanisms that are both compliant and practical, prioritizing anonymization and aggregation where possible, but allowing for necessary linkage when justified by public health necessity and legal authority. Community engagement and transparent communication should be integrated throughout the process to build trust and facilitate cooperation. Finally, continuous evaluation of the data handling practices is essential to ensure ongoing compliance and effectiveness.

This scenario presents a significant professional challenge due to the inherent tension between public health imperatives and the financial realities of healthcare provision. Balancing the need for evidence-based interventions with the cost-effectiveness and political feasibility of their implementation requires careful judgment and a nuanced understanding of health policy, management, and financing principles. The decision-maker must navigate competing stakeholder interests, resource constraints, and the ethical obligation to improve population health outcomes. The most appropriate approach involves a comprehensive health economic evaluation that integrates epidemiological data with cost-effectiveness analysis. This approach is correct because it systematically assesses the value for money of the proposed intervention, considering both its health benefits and its resource implications. By quantifying the incremental cost per unit of health gain (e.g., Quality-Adjusted Life Year), it provides a robust evidence base for policy decisions. This aligns with principles of efficient resource allocation in public health and is often a prerequisite for securing funding and gaining political support for new health programs. It demonstrates a commitment to evidence-based policymaking and responsible stewardship of public funds. An approach that prioritizes immediate public demand without a thorough cost-benefit analysis is professionally unacceptable. While responsiveness to public concern is important, it can lead to the adoption of interventions that are not cost-effective, potentially diverting resources from more impactful programs. This fails to adhere to principles of efficient resource allocation and may not represent the best use of limited public health budgets. Focusing solely on the perceived political expediency of an intervention, without rigorous evaluation of its public health impact or financial sustainability, is also professionally unsound. Political considerations can be a factor in policy implementation, but they should not override evidence of effectiveness and efficiency. This approach risks implementing programs that are popular but ultimately ineffective or unsustainable, undermining public trust and potentially leading to wasted resources. An approach that exclusively considers the direct costs of the intervention, ignoring the broader economic and social benefits or the costs of inaction, is incomplete and professionally deficient. Health interventions often have downstream economic benefits (e.g., increased productivity, reduced long-term healthcare costs) that are crucial for a holistic assessment of their value. Neglecting these aspects leads to a skewed understanding of the intervention’s true impact and value proposition. Professionals should employ a structured decision-making framework that begins with clearly defining the public health problem and its epidemiological characteristics. This should be followed by a thorough review of existing evidence on potential interventions, including their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Stakeholder engagement is crucial to understand perspectives and potential barriers to implementation. A robust health economic evaluation should then inform the final policy recommendation, considering both clinical and financial implications. Transparency in the evaluation process and clear communication of the rationale behind the decision are essential for building trust and ensuring accountability.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the application of the Advanced Applied Epidemiology Proficiency Verification’s blueprint weighting, scoring, and retake policies in a situation where an individual’s performance is borderline. The challenge lies in interpreting the policy’s intent and application when a candidate falls between passing and failing, and understanding the implications of different scoring interpretations on future opportunities and the integrity of the certification process. Careful judgment is required to ensure fairness, consistency, and adherence to the established framework. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves a thorough review of the official blueprint weighting, scoring, and retake policies, specifically looking for any provisions that address borderline performance or provide a clear mechanism for re-evaluation. If the policy explicitly outlines a process for reviewing individual question performance or allows for a committee review in ambiguous cases, this should be followed. This approach is correct because it prioritizes adherence to the established, documented procedures of the certification body, ensuring transparency and consistency. It respects the established framework designed to maintain the proficiency standards and provides a clear, defensible path for decision-making. Ethical considerations of fairness and due process are met by following the defined rules. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be to unilaterally adjust the passing score based on a perceived difficulty of the examination or the candidate’s overall perceived knowledge, without explicit policy authorization. This fails to adhere to the established scoring rubric and undermines the standardized nature of the proficiency verification. It introduces subjectivity and bias, potentially compromising the credibility of the certification. Another incorrect approach would be to immediately deny the candidate the opportunity to retake the examination without a clear policy basis for such a denial, especially if the policy allows for retakes under certain conditions. This could be seen as punitive and inconsistent with the stated retake policies. Finally, an incorrect approach would be to rely on informal discussions or anecdotal evidence about the examination’s difficulty rather than the official scoring and retake policies. This disregards the formal governance of the certification process and can lead to arbitrary or inconsistent decisions. Professional Reasoning: Professionals facing such situations should first consult the official documentation governing the examination, including the blueprint, scoring guidelines, and retake policies. They should identify any clauses related to borderline performance, appeals, or re-evaluation. If the policies are unclear, the next step should be to seek clarification from the relevant governing body or committee responsible for the certification. Decisions should always be grounded in the established policies and procedures to ensure fairness, consistency, and the integrity of the proficiency verification process.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent tension between the need for rapid public health intervention and the ethical imperative to ensure data privacy and informed consent. Public health emergencies often necessitate swift action, but this must be balanced against individual rights and established data protection principles. The epidemiologist must navigate these competing demands, ensuring that any data collection or dissemination is both effective for disease control and legally and ethically sound. The potential for stigmatization and the misuse of sensitive health information further complicates the decision-making process, requiring careful consideration of the downstream consequences of any proposed action. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a multi-pronged approach that prioritizes immediate public health needs while rigorously adhering to ethical and legal frameworks. This includes promptly initiating contact tracing and case investigation using established protocols, which are designed to identify infected individuals and their contacts efficiently. Simultaneously, it requires transparent communication with affected individuals about the purpose of data collection, the nature of the information being gathered, and how it will be used and protected. Obtaining informed consent, where feasible and appropriate within the emergency context, is crucial. Furthermore, data anonymization and aggregation techniques should be employed before any broader dissemination of findings to protect individual privacy. This approach aligns with core public health ethics, which emphasize beneficence (acting in the best interest of the population) and respect for persons (upholding individual autonomy and privacy), as well as relevant data protection regulations that mandate lawful and fair processing of personal data. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Disseminating raw, identifiable case data to the public without consent or anonymization is ethically and legally unacceptable. This violates fundamental principles of data privacy and confidentiality, potentially leading to stigmatization, discrimination, and a breach of trust between the public and health authorities. It also fails to adhere to data protection regulations that require lawful processing and protection of personal health information. Focusing solely on immediate containment without considering the ethical implications of data handling or the need for public trust undermines the long-term effectiveness of public health efforts. While rapid response is vital, neglecting ethical considerations can erode public cooperation, making future interventions more difficult. This approach disregards the principle of respect for persons and can lead to unintended negative consequences for individuals and communities. Delaying all data collection and analysis until perfect, comprehensive consent can be obtained from every individual would be professionally irresponsible in a rapidly evolving public health crisis. While consent is important, public health emergencies often necessitate a pragmatic approach where the collective good and the urgency of the situation may require data collection under specific legal provisions for public health purposes, with subsequent efforts to inform and obtain consent where possible. This approach prioritizes an absolute interpretation of consent over the immediate need to control a potentially devastating outbreak. Professional Reasoning: Professionals facing such dilemmas should employ a structured decision-making process. First, clearly define the public health objective and the urgency of the situation. Second, identify all relevant ethical principles and legal requirements, including data protection laws and public health mandates. Third, evaluate potential approaches against these principles and laws, considering the potential benefits and harms of each. Fourth, consult with relevant stakeholders, including legal counsel, ethics committees, and public health leadership, to ensure a well-informed and defensible decision. Finally, document the decision-making process and the rationale behind the chosen course of action.

This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires balancing the immediate need for program improvement with the ethical and regulatory obligations to ensure data integrity, privacy, and equitable application of interventions. The program’s success hinges on accurate data, but the pressure to demonstrate impact can lead to shortcuts that compromise these principles. Careful judgment is required to navigate the complexities of data interpretation, resource allocation, and stakeholder expectations. The most appropriate approach involves a systematic, evidence-based evaluation of the existing program’s effectiveness and the identification of specific data gaps or biases that hinder optimal planning. This entails a thorough review of current data collection methods, analysis of existing outcome measures, and a qualitative assessment of program implementation fidelity. Based on this comprehensive understanding, targeted improvements to data collection, analysis, and program components can be designed and piloted. This approach is correct because it adheres to the principles of robust program evaluation, which demand that interventions be informed by reliable data and that any changes be systematically tested before widespread implementation. It respects the ethical imperative to avoid interventions based on flawed evidence and aligns with best practices in public health program planning, which emphasize data-driven decision-making and continuous quality improvement. An approach that prioritizes immediate, broad-scale program changes based on preliminary or incomplete data is professionally unacceptable. This fails to acknowledge the potential for misinterpretation of early findings and could lead to the misallocation of resources or the implementation of ineffective strategies. It also risks exacerbating existing inequities if the data used to justify the changes is itself biased. Another professionally unacceptable approach is to focus solely on collecting more data without a clear plan for how that data will inform program adjustments or address the identified challenges. This can lead to data overload and a failure to translate information into actionable insights, ultimately hindering program progress and wasting valuable resources. Finally, an approach that relies on anecdotal evidence or stakeholder opinions without rigorous data analysis to guide program planning is ethically and professionally unsound. While stakeholder input is valuable, program decisions must be grounded in objective, verifiable data to ensure effectiveness and equity. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with clearly defining program goals and desired outcomes. This is followed by a critical assessment of existing data and evaluation methods to identify strengths and weaknesses. Based on this assessment, a plan for data enhancement and program adaptation should be developed, incorporating pilot testing and iterative refinement. Throughout this process, ethical considerations, including data privacy, equity, and transparency, must be paramount.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires an individual to navigate the specific requirements for advanced proficiency verification in applied epidemiology without having directly engaged in the types of activities typically assessed. The core challenge lies in demonstrating competence and readiness for advanced practice when the usual pathways to that demonstration are not fully met. Careful judgment is required to identify the most appropriate and ethically sound method to pursue verification, ensuring that the process is both valid and respects the integrity of the verification framework. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves proactively seeking guidance from the relevant professional body or certifying authority regarding alternative pathways or supplementary evidence that can be used to meet the eligibility criteria for Advanced Applied Epidemiology Proficiency Verification. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the individual’s situation by engaging with the established system for verification. It demonstrates a commitment to meeting the required standards through legitimate channels, respecting the purpose of the verification process, which is to ensure a high level of applied epidemiological competence. This proactive engagement allows for a tailored assessment of the individual’s existing skills and experience against the proficiency requirements, potentially identifying ways to bridge any gaps through targeted professional development or the presentation of relevant, albeit non-traditional, evidence. It upholds ethical principles by seeking transparency and adherence to the stated goals of the proficiency verification. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Pursuing verification without acknowledging the discrepancy in direct experience, by misrepresenting past roles or assuming existing qualifications are sufficient without explicit confirmation, represents a significant ethical failure. This approach undermines the integrity of the proficiency verification process, which is designed to assess practical, advanced skills. It is professionally unacceptable as it relies on deception or a misunderstanding of the requirements, potentially leading to an invalid certification. Another incorrect approach would be to abandon the pursuit of advanced verification altogether without first exploring all available avenues for demonstrating proficiency. While this avoids misrepresentation, it fails to uphold the professional aspiration for growth and the potential to contribute at a higher level, and it does not engage with the established mechanisms for professional development and recognition. A third incorrect approach would be to seek verification through informal or unaccredited channels. This is professionally unsound because it bypasses the established standards and oversight of the recognized certifying body, rendering any claimed proficiency meaningless and potentially misleading to employers or the public. Professional Reasoning: Professionals facing a similar situation should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes integrity, transparency, and adherence to established professional standards. The first step is to thoroughly understand the stated eligibility criteria for the desired proficiency verification. If there appears to be a mismatch between one’s experience and these criteria, the next crucial step is to proactively contact the certifying body for clarification and to inquire about any alternative pathways or supplementary evidence that might be acceptable. This demonstrates a commitment to meeting the standards ethically and effectively. Professionals should always aim to build their case on verifiable evidence and honest self-assessment, rather than attempting to fit their experience into a mold it does not perfectly match or seeking shortcuts that compromise the validity of the process.

The review process indicates that a small manufacturing plant has been experiencing a cluster of respiratory illnesses among its workers. Initial reports suggest a potential link to airborne particulate matter released during a specific production process involving the grinding of a novel composite material. The plant manager, concerned about potential regulatory action and employee morale, has requested an immediate assessment. This scenario is professionally challenging due to the urgency of the situation, the potential for significant health impacts on workers, and the need to balance immediate action with thorough scientific investigation and regulatory compliance. The manager’s desire for a swift resolution must be tempered with the ethical obligation to protect worker health and adhere to established occupational health and safety protocols. The best approach involves a multi-faceted strategy that prioritizes worker safety while initiating a systematic investigation. This includes immediately implementing interim control measures to reduce exposure, such as enhanced ventilation and personal protective equipment, while simultaneously launching a comprehensive environmental and occupational health assessment. This assessment should involve air sampling, medical surveillance of affected workers, and a detailed review of the production process and material safety data sheets. This approach is correct because it aligns with the fundamental principles of occupational health and safety, which mandate proactive risk management and the protection of worker well-being. Specifically, it adheres to the general duty clauses found in occupational health and safety legislation, which require employers to provide a safe working environment, and the principles of industrial hygiene, which advocate for the hierarchy of controls (elimination, substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment). An incorrect approach would be to dismiss the reported illnesses as unrelated to the workplace without conducting any investigation. This fails to uphold the employer’s duty of care and disregards the potential for a significant occupational health hazard. Ethically, it demonstrates a lack of concern for employee health and safety. Another incorrect approach would be to solely focus on implementing personal protective equipment without addressing the source of the exposure or improving engineering controls. While PPE is a component of the hierarchy of controls, relying on it as the primary solution without investigating and mitigating the root cause is insufficient and potentially masks a more serious underlying issue, violating the principle of addressing hazards at their source. A further incorrect approach would be to delay any intervention or investigation until a formal complaint is filed by a regulatory agency. This reactive stance is professionally unacceptable as it prioritizes compliance avoidance over proactive worker protection and demonstrates a disregard for the immediate health risks faced by the workforce. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with recognizing and acknowledging potential hazards, followed by a rapid risk assessment. This involves gathering initial information, prioritizing immediate protective measures, and then initiating a thorough, evidence-based investigation. Transparency with workers regarding findings and implemented measures is also crucial. The process should be guided by established occupational health and safety standards and ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a significant professional challenge due to the inherent power imbalance between public health officials and community members, particularly when addressing sensitive health issues like vaccine hesitancy. Effective community engagement requires building trust, respecting autonomy, and ensuring equitable access to information and decision-making processes. Failure to do so can lead to mistrust, resistance, and ultimately, poorer health outcomes for the community. Careful judgment is required to navigate diverse perspectives, cultural nuances, and potential misinformation while adhering to ethical principles of public health practice. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach involves a multi-faceted strategy that prioritizes building trust and empowering the community. This includes establishing genuine partnerships with trusted community leaders and organizations, co-designing communication materials that are culturally relevant and accessible, and creating safe spaces for open dialogue where concerns can be voiced and addressed without judgment. This approach aligns with ethical principles of community-based participatory research and public health communication, emphasizing respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. It acknowledges that effective health promotion is not a top-down directive but a collaborative process that respects local knowledge and lived experiences. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be to solely rely on disseminating factual information through mass media channels without engaging the community directly. This fails to acknowledge the social and psychological factors that contribute to health behaviors and can be perceived as paternalistic, alienating those who are already skeptical. It neglects the importance of tailored messaging and trusted messengers, which are crucial for overcoming barriers to health information uptake. Another incorrect approach would be to implement a top-down educational campaign that dictates health behaviors without seeking community input or addressing underlying concerns. This approach disregards the principle of community self-determination and can foster resentment and resistance. It assumes that the public health authority possesses all the necessary knowledge and that the community is merely a passive recipient of information, which is a flawed premise for effective health promotion. A further incorrect approach would be to dismiss community concerns as irrational or misinformed without attempting to understand their origins or validate their experiences. This can shut down communication channels and deepen mistrust. Public health professionals have an ethical obligation to engage with diverse perspectives respectfully, even when they differ from scientific consensus, to identify common ground and build bridges for future collaboration. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a framework that begins with understanding the community’s context, values, and existing knowledge. This involves active listening, building relationships with key stakeholders, and co-creating interventions. Decision-making should be guided by principles of ethical public health practice, including respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice, ensuring that interventions are culturally appropriate, equitable, and sustainable.