The results produced seven key principles and corresponding interventions. Among other things, it highlighted the importance of economic well-being and self-efficacy, as well as the reduction of barriers to implementation, such as stigma and lack of adequate resourcing. Two key tensions were apparent-namely, the un/acceptability of coercion and the role of traditional and faith-based modalities in an HRBA to mental health care and psychosocial support.South African women experience some of the highest rates of depression and anxiety globally. Despite South Africa's laudable human rights commitments to mental health in law, perinatal women are at high risk of common mental disorders due to socioeconomic factors, and they may lack access to mental health services. We used a right to mental health framework, paired with qualitative methods, to investigate barriers to accessing perinatal mental health care. Based on in-depth interviews with 14 key informants in South Africa, we found that (1) physical health was prioritized over mental health at the clinic level; (2) there were insufficient numbers of antenatal and mental health providers to ensure minimum essential levels of perinatal mental health services; (3) the implementation of human rights-based mental health policy has been inadequate; (4) the social determinants were absent from the clinic-level approach to mental health; and (5) a lack of context-specific provider training and support has undermined the quality of mental health promotion and care. We offer recommendations to address these barriers and improve approaches to perinatal mental health screening and care, guided by the following elements of the right to mental health progressive realization; availability and accessibility; and acceptability and quality.The First 1,000 Days approach highlights the importance of adequate nutrition in early life-from conception to a child's second birthday-for good development and growth throughout the child's life and potentially onto their own offspring. The approach has been highly influential in mobilizing policy attention and resources to improve maternal and infant nutrition in global health and development. This paper undertakes a critical review of this approach from a gendered human rights lens, finding that the theoretical underpinnings implicitly reflect and reproduce gender biases by conceptualizing women within a limited scope of reproduction and child care. We explore the processes of systemic neglect through Pierre Bourdieu's theories on how social structures are reproduced. Understanding theory is important to the governance of global health, how we frame priorities, and how we act on them. Revisiting influential theories is a means of accountability to ensure inclusiveness and to reduce gender and health inequities in research. We argue that a greater focus on women could increase the potential impact of nutrition interventions.COVID-19 has highlighted the responsibilities of states under the International Health Regulations (IHR), as well as state accountability in case of a breach. These approaches and dimensions are valuable, as many COVID responses have breached human rights. We should also look beyond this crisis and address country preparedness for effective and equitable responses to future infectious disease outbreaks. This paper assesses countries' international legal obligations to be prepared to respond to this and future public health emergencies. It does so from the perspective of the right to health, in interaction with the IHR. We analyze the functional relationship between the right to health and the IHR, focusing in particular on "core obligations" under the right to health and "core capacities" under the IHR. We find considerable parallels between the two regimes and argue in favor of more cross-fertilization between them. This regime interaction may enrich both frameworks from a normative perspective while also enhancing accountability and public health and human rights outcomes.This paper proposes the concept of autonomous health movements, drawing on an analysis of harm reduction in the United States and self-managed abortion globally. Harm reduction and self-managed abortion appear in the professional literature largely as evidenced-based public health strategies, more than as social movements. However, each began at the margins of the law as a form of direct action developed by activists anchored in social justice movements and working in community contexts independent of both state and institutional control according to a human rights perspective of bodily integrity and autonomy. An analysis of the history and dynamics of harm reduction and self-managed abortion as social movements underlies the proposed framework of autonomous health movements, and additional potential examples of such movements are identified. The framework of autonomous health movements opens up new pathways for thinking about the development of autonomous, community-based health strategies under conditions of marginalization and criminalization.Digital health technologies have been heralded as a critical solution to challenges and gaps in the delivery of quality health care and essential to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Yet they also present threats to privacy and confidentiality, which can lead to discrimination and violence, resulting in violations of the rights to health, housing, employment, freedom of assembly, expression, protection from arbitrary detention, bodily autonomy, and security. More broadly, without proper planning and safeguards, digital health technologies can contribute to expanding health inequity, widening the "digital divide" that separates those who can and cannot access such interventions.  https://www.selleckchem.com/products/gsk-j4-hcl.html  This article outlines key harms related to digital technologies for health, as well as ethical and human rights standards relevant to their use. It also presents several strategies for mitigating risks from digital health technologies and reviews mechanisms of accountability, including recent judicial rulings.The COVID-19 pandemic has led policy makers to expand traditional public health surveillance to take advantage of new technologies, such as tracking apps, to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2. This article explores the human rights dimensions of how these new surveillance technologies are being used and assesses the extent to which they entail legitimate restrictions to a range of human rights, including the rights to health, life, and privacy. We argue that human rights offer a crucial framework for protecting the public from regulatory overreach by ensuring that digital health surveillance does not undermine fundamental features of democratic society. First, we describe the surveillance technologies being used to address COVID-19 and reposition these technologies within the evolution of public health surveillance tools and the emergence of discussions concerning the compatibility of such tools with human rights. We then evaluate the potential human rights implications of the surveillance tools being used today by analyzing the extent to which they pass the tests of necessity and proportionality enshrined in international human rights law.