scholarly journals Science Policy to Advance a Climate Change and Health Research Agenda in the United States

Author(s):  
Jaime Madrigano ◽  
Regina A. Shih ◽  
Maxwell Izenberg ◽  
Jordan R. Fischbach ◽  
Benjamin L. Preston

Climate change is thought to be one of the greatest public health threats of the 21st century and there has been a tremendous growth in the published literature describing the health implications of climate change over the last decade. Yet, there remain several critical knowledge gaps in this field. Closing these gaps is crucial to developing effective interventions to minimize the health risks from climate change. In this commentary, we discuss policy trends that have influenced the advancement of climate change and health research in the United States context. We then enumerate specific knowledge gaps that could be addressed by policies to advance scientific research. Finally, we describe tools and methods that have not yet been fully integrated into the field, but hold promise for advancing the science. Prioritizing this advancement offers the potential to improve public health-related policies on climate change.

Author(s):  
Nicholas Watts

This is an advance summary of a forthcoming article in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science. Please check back later for the full article. There are three important linkages to explore between climate change and health in terms of potential policy responses. The first of these linkages relates to the impacts on health resulting from climate change. In 2009, The Lancet described climate change as “the greatest global health threat of the 21st century,” referencing the direct and indirect effects it is having on public health. While a number of impacts are directly observable (i.e., an increased frequency and severity of many extreme weather events), others are more indirect, being mediated through environmental and social systems (i.e., the health complications associated with mass migration or violent conflict). Further, it is well understood that resilience and adaptive capacity play an important role in reducing these impacts—often leaving low-income communities worse off than most. The second important linkage between climate change and health relates to the co-benefits of mitigation and adaptation. Policy responses to climate change will inevitably come with both intended and unforseen externalities and “side-effects” (both positive and negative). Traditional public health tools, such as health impact assessment, can be valuable in identifying and understanding these co-benefits to better guide policy. Indeed, many of the mitigation solutions yield substantial benefits for public health: switching away from coal-fired power plants as an energy choice improves cardiovascular and respiratory health; designing cities which are cycle- and pedestrian-friendly increases rates of physical activity (helping to tackle obesity, diabetes, many cancers, and heart disease) while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. Finally, the health system itself has an important role in responding directly to climate change. This is frequently understood in terms of a health facility’s ability to withstand and respond to the impacts of climate change, and to the adaptive capacity of the health system itself. But there is also a role for the health system to play in reducing its own emissions. In countries like the United Kingdom and the United States, the formal health system is responsible for as much as 3–8% of national emissions, and has subsequently made commitments to reduce its environmental impact. A 2013 review of the UK National Health Service’s carbon footprint indicated that as much as 60% of this came from procurement, 17% from building energy, and 13% from health system–related transport. A number of the solutions available are often designed in a way that improves patient outcomes and satisfaction, while reducing the costs of healthcare. In low- and middle-income countries, the focus is placed on ensuring access to reliable electricity, a task well suited to decentralized micro-grids with sustainable power generation. Academic literature on the topic of health and climate change has expanded rapidly in recent years and includes the 2009 and 2015 Lancet Commissions on health and climate change, the 2010 series on the health co-benefits of mitigation, and the 2014 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 5th Assessment Report.


2017 ◽  
pp. 1415-1429
Author(s):  
Michelle Lee D'Abundo ◽  
Stephen L. Firsing III ◽  
Cara Lynn Sidman

Education and health are among the most salient issues facing Americans today. The field of public health has moved away from a physical health medical model to a more well-being focused quality-of-life perspective. K-20 curriculums in the United States need to reflect this ideological shift. In this chapter, content-focused curriculums with process-focused health behavior change-oriented learning are proposed as a strategy to promote well-being. Other issues that need to be addressed in the current education system are that the delivery of health-related curriculums is often inconsistent and taught by untrained personnel. Well-being-focused curriculums delivered online can provide consistency to improve the quality of health courses. This innovative approach has the potential to improve educational and health outcomes for K-20 curriculums while addressing public health issues by promoting well-being and quality-of-life for children and adults throughout the United States.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (21) ◽  
pp. 11699
Author(s):  
Abigail Abrash Walton ◽  
Janine Marr ◽  
Matthew J. Cahillane ◽  
Kathleen Bush

Climate change-related natural disasters, including wildfires and extreme weather events, such as intense storms, floods, and heatwaves, are increasing in frequency and intensity. These events are already profoundly affecting human health in the United States and globally, challenging the ability of communities to prepare, respond, and recover. The purpose of this research was to examine the peer-reviewed literature on community resilience initiatives in one of the most densely populated and economically important regions, the Northeastern United States, and to identify evidence-based interventions and metrics that had been field-tested and evaluated. This paper addresses two critical gaps in the literature: (1) what strategies or interventions have been implemented to build or enhance community resilience against climate change-related natural disasters; and (2) what metrics were used to measure community resilience as an outcome of those strategies or interventions? This review provides a succinct list of effective interventions with specific health outcomes. Community or state-level health officials can use the results to prioritize public health interventions. This review used existing database search tools to discover 205 studies related to community resilience and health outcomes. Methods set criteria to assess if interventions were able to measure and change levels of community resilience to the health impacts associated with a changing climate. Criteria included: (a) alignment with the United States’ National Preparedness Goal for reducing risks to human health and for recovering quickly from disasters; (b) derived from publicly available data sources; (c) developed for use by communities at a local scale; and (d) accessible to modestly resourced municipalities and county health agencies. Five (5) peer-reviewed, evidence-based studies met all of the selection criteria. Three of these articles described intervention frameworks and two reported on the use of standardized tools. Health-related outcomes included mental health impacts (PTSD/depression), mental stress, emergency preparedness knowledge, social capital skills, and emergency planning skills. The paper recommends the COAST project, COPEWELL Rubric for self-assessment, and Ready CDC intervention as examples of strategies that could be adapted by any community engaged in building community resilience.


2021 ◽  
Vol 111 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-163
Author(s):  
Michelle L. Bell ◽  
Kelvin C. Fong

Objectives. To investigate the rate of manuscript submission to a major peer-reviewed journal (American Journal of Public Health) by gender, comparing periods before and during the pandemic. Methods. We used data from January 1 to May 12, 2020, and defined the start of the pandemic period by country as the first date of 50 or more confirmed cases. We used an algorithm to classify gender based on first name and nation of origin. We included authors whose gender could be estimated with a certainty of at least 95%. Results. Submission rates were higher overall during the pandemic compared with before. Increases were higher for submissions from men compared with women (41.9% vs 10.9% for corresponding author). For the United States, submissions increased 23.8% for men but only 7.9% for women. Women authored 29.4% of COVID-19–related articles. Conclusions. Our findings suggest that the pandemic exacerbated gender imbalances in scientific research.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document