Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23634220›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2013

The effectiveness of public health interventions to reduce the health impact of climate change: a systematic review of systematic reviews.

Maha Bouzid, Lee Hooper, Paul R Hunter

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Knowledge Gaps and Research Priorities on the Health Effects of Heatwaves: A Systematic Review of Reviews.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Digital health for climate change mitigation and response: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    Article
  12. Progress of Local Health Department Planning Actions for Climate Change: Perspectives from California, USA.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  13. Overcoming Barriers to Successful Climate and Health Adaptation Practice: Notes from the Field.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  14. Health Interventions for Preventing Climate-Sensitive Diseases: Scoping Review.Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2022
    Article
  15. Science Policy to Advance a Climate Change and Health Research Agenda in the United States.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Integrating Public Health into Climate Change Policy and Planning: State of Practice Update.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Review
  19. Social cohesion and passive adaptation in relation to climate change and disease.Global environmental change : human and policy dimensions · 2019
    Article
  20. Climate Change, Health and Existential Risks to Civilization: A Comprehensive Review (1989⁻2013).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Maha BouzidNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, United Kingdom.
Lee Hooper
Paul R Hunter

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClimate change is likely to be one of the most important threats to public health in the coming years. Yet despite the large number of papers considering the health impact of climate change, few have considered what public health interventions may be of most value in reducing the disease burden. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of public health interventions to reduce the disease burden of high priority climate sensitive diseases. METHODS AND

findingsFor each disease, we performed a systematic search with no restriction on date or language of publication on Medline, Web of Knowledge, Cochrane CENTRAL and SCOPUS up to December 2010 to identify systematic reviews of public health interventions. We retrieved some 3176 records of which 85 full papers were assessed and 33 included in the review. The included papers investigated the effect of public health interventions on various outcome measures. All interventions were GRADE assessed to determine the strength of evidence. In addition we developed a systematic review quality score. The interventions included environmental interventions to control vectors, chemoprophylaxis, immunization, household and community water treatment, greening cities and community advice. For most reviews, GRADE showed low quality of evidence because of poor study design and high heterogeneity. Also for some key areas such as floods, droughts and other weather extremes, there are no adequate systematic reviews of potential public health interventions.

conclusionIn conclusion, we found the evidence base to be mostly weak for environmental interventions that could have the most value in a warmer world. Nevertheless, such interventions should not be dismissed. Future research on public health interventions for climate change adaptation needs to be concerned about quality in study design and should address the gap for floods, droughts and other extreme weather events that pose a risk to health.

Indexed as

Climate ChangeReview Literature as TopicAnimalsCommunicable Disease ControlCommunicable DiseasesHeat-Shock ResponseHumansPublic Health

Identifiers

PMID23634220
PMCPMC3636259

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.