Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41648718›Full record

ReviewThe journal of climate change and health

A review of studies assessing the benefits of clean air and climate mitigation policies for child and adult health.

Frederica Perera, Kathleen Lau

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The journal of climate change and health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Frederica PereraColumbia Center for Children's Environmental Health, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Kathleen LauColumbia Center for Children's Environmental Health, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: We sought to review the body of evidence on the health benefits of climate mitigation and clean air policies aimed at curbing emissions from fossil fuel sources. Methods: We have built on and updated a prior review by Picetti et al. [1] of 16 peer-reviewed studies that focused primarily on child and adolescent health outcomes related to climate mitigation policies. We include the findings of 26 studies of the health benefits of clean air or climate policies, presenting estimates of the numbers of avoided cases of mortality or morbidity in infants, children, and/or adolescents, as well as adult illness or mortality when included in the same study. Where available, details on the economic savings associated with the avoidance of cases (13 studies) and distribution of benefits across racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups (4 studies) are presented. Results: All 26 studies found positive and substantial impacts of climate and clean air policies on the health of children and adults, along with substantial associated cost savings (reported in half of the studies). The benefits are likely to be serious undercounts as most studies included a limited suite of outcomes: economic savings generally considered only short-term costs; and the health benefits of climate policies were estimated as "co-benefits" of reduced air pollution, omitting those from fewer climate "shocks". Conclusions: The results of this review show positive and substantial benefits of climate and clean air policies and should incentivize and inform future policies to mitigate fossil-fuel related climate change and air pollution.

Indexed as

BenefitsChildrenClimateEnvironmentHealthPolicy

Identifiers

PMID41648718
PMCPMC12851194

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.