ArticleThe journal of climate change and health
Advancing and integrating climate and health policy in the United States: Insights from national policy stakeholders.
Article 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Content Analysis of Physical Activity and Priority Climate Action Plans Across US States.Journal of physical activity & health · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Many experts have called for integrating climate policy with health policy. We investigated U.S. federal policy stakeholders' views on these goals and strategies for achieving them. Materials and methods: We conducted 65 semi-structured interviews from January 2024 to April 2024 with stakeholders working on climate policy, health policy, the climate-health intersection, and related areas. We performed a qualitative content analysis of these interviews. Results: Most stakeholders perceived that federal climate policy and health policy were mostly separate, but were becoming more integrated. They believed further integration could increase support for climate policy and maximize its health benefits. Barriers included lack of funding; competing priorities; conservative opposition; low public awareness; lack of data; and silos in federal agencies and professional communities. Opportunities included growing awareness and policy support; new funding sources, data, and technologies; the president's ability to take executive actions; policy windows in diverse sectors, including agriculture, transportation, and housing; and potential healthcare cost savings. Proposed strategies included enhancing communication, education, and research; strengthening intra- and interagency initiatives; participatory policymaking; mobilizing existing funding; focusing first on politically feasible policies; and persistent advocacy. Discussion: These results extend previous observations of separations between climate policy and health policy and suggest ways to address these separations. Conclusion: There is potential to integrate U.S. federal climate policy and health policy, and doing so is perceived as advantageous by most. While there are barriers to climate-health policy integration and advancement, there are also promising opportunities, which may be more relevant under future presidential administrations or at the sub-federal level.
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.