ArticleBMC public health2025
Including climate change in community-based obesity prevention interventions: a qualitative exploration of the perspectives of Australian funders.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCommunity-based obesity prevention interventions (CBOPIs) demonstrate promise as effective, cost-effective approaches to prevent obesity. Whilst CBOPI actions often focus on obesity-related outcomes, they may also have positive impacts on climate change. Actions that simultaneously address obesity and climate change are known as double-duty actions. For example, switching to active modes of transport benefits individual health, while also reducing emissions from vehicle use. Support from CBOPI funding decision-makers is crucial for intervention success; the factors influencing funding decisions are currently not well understood. This study aimed to identify factors that influence funding decisions within organisations, to determine whether funders recognise double-duty actions in CBOPIs, and which double-duty actions are preferred.
methodsPotential participants with CBOPI funding decision-making roles were purposively sampled and invited to participate. Potential interview participants from government and non-government organisations were identified by search engine (Google) and invited via email to partake in an interview. Sixty-five invites were emailed and seven interviews with eight participants were conducted between April-May 2023. The participating stakeholders all had health roles; four State-wide and four local government. Semi-structured interviews with eight participants were conducted over Zoom between February-May 2023. Interviews were transcribed using Zoom Transcription and analysed with the assistance of NVivo. Reflexive Thematic Analysis underpinned the data analysis and the Social Ecological Model was used to further develop the theory.
resultsResults suggested that participants recognised double-duty actions and believed inclusion of climate change action in CBOPIs would improve both intervention outcomes and participant acceptability. However, participants believed that stringent funding models limit flexibility to include climate change action. This could be mitigated by incorporating climate change into strategic health plans. Community partnerships may also be an effective tool to enhance double-duty actions in CBOPIs, as they allow participants to tailor interventions to community concerns including climate change.
conclusionCBOPIs that use double-duty actions to intentionally target obesity prevention and climate change action may play an important role in addressing two critical public health issues at the community level. Whilst CBOPI funders are supportive of double-duty actions, modifications from strategy and partnerships may be required to realise the successful implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.