Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39578743›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2024

Frontline clinic perspectives on climate change, human health, and resilience: a national cross-sectional survey.

Tess Wiskel, Thomas T Miles, Mariel Fonteyn, Kristin Stevens, Chelsea Heberlein, Nathaniel Matthews-Trigg, Caleb Dresser, Aaron Bernstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

8 authors.

Tess WiskelDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. twiskel@bidmc.harvard.edu.
Thomas T Miles, Americares, Stamford, CT, USA.
Mariel Fonteyn, Americares, Stamford, CT, USA.
Kristin Stevens, Americares, Stamford, CT, USA.
Chelsea HeberleinHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment, Boston, MA, USA.
Nathaniel Matthews-Trigg, Americares, Stamford, CT, USA.
Caleb DresserDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Aaron BernsteinHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

Biogen A43939
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFrontline clinics - primary care clinics that predominantly serve low-income and socially disadvantaged communities - are facing increasing impacts from climate-related extreme events. This study evaluated staff perspectives at frontline clinics on the health risks of climate change, the impacts of extreme events on their clinics and patients, and their motivators to improve climate resiliency.

methodsA national, cross-sectional survey was conducted of staff working at frontline clinics including administrators, case workers, and providers across the United States. Survey questions assessed clinic and respondent attributes, knowledge of health risks of climate change, preferences for climate change educational and operational resources, and clinic and patient climate impacts and resilience. The survey was distributed electronically to a convenience sample of primary care clinics and to the National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC) and National Association of Free and Charitable Clinics (NAFC) listservs. Data was collected from September to November of 2021. Respondents were current staff who consented to the survey. Responses were collected via Qualtrics, and the statistical analysis was completed using Stata.

resultsA total of 430 surveys were completed representing clinics in 43 states. Most (82.0%) respondents reported human activities were causing climate change. Over half (52.8%) of respondents reported an operational disruption to their clinic from extreme events in the past 3 years, and another 54.4% had plans in place to address risks from extreme events. The most useful resources identified to improve operational resilience were checklists and planning guidance. Over half (52.0%) of respondents reported they were motivated to use these resources to improve clinic preparedness. Most (84.4%) providers and case workers reported that climate change impacted patient health, however only 36.2% discussed health risks with patients, with barriers including more pressing topics and time available. Another 55.7% of respondents reported they were motivated to learn ways to help patients prepare for extreme events.

conclusionsClimate-related extreme events were reported to impact patient health and disrupt frontline clinic operations. Overcoming gaps in knowledge about climate change impacts on health and providing climate educational resources can engender motivation to improve clinic and patient resilience to climate change.

Indexed as

Climate ChangeResilience, PsychologicalAdultAmbulatory Care FacilitiesAttitude of Health PersonnelCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesClimate changeClinic resilienceEducational resourcesExtreme weatherHealthcare deliveryPrimary health

Identifiers

PMID39578743
PMCPMC11583752

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.