ArticleBMC research notes2026
Are 'evidence-based' cooling strategies fit-for-purpose?-Investigating the gap between guidance and behaviour.
Article in BMC research notes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of ceiling fan use on cardiovascular autonomic function during simulated indoor overheating in bed-resting older adults.Experimental physiology · 2026Trial
- Who Can Avoid the Heat? Inter-Individual Differences in 24-hr Heat Exposure Reveal Disparities in Heat Adaptation and Stress.GeoHealth · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAcross two summers self-report surveys were completed by a total of 130 older adults who were trialling a digital heat early warning system in Southeast Queensland. The purpose of the project was to assess participants’ access to (accessibility), and willingness to use (acceptability) commonly promoted cooling strategies, and to further explore the reasons for reluctance to use.
resultsMost participants reported access to all strategies (93–100%). Acceptability (mean response [95%CI]) was high for opening/closing windows or blinds (97 [94–100]%), fans, drinking cool water, sitting quietly, removing excess clothing (all 96 [93–99]%), cold showers (92 [87–96]%), and air-conditioning (90 [84–95] %). Conversely, hand/forearm baths (76 [69–84]%), icepacks (68 [60–76]%), dampened clothing (64 [56–72]%), foot baths (63 [54–71]%), and cold baths (49 [39–60]%) were less acceptable. Key reported barriers included messiness (n = 48), physical discomfort (n = 47), and preference for other strategies (n = 47). Among this sample of older adults, several widely promoted water-based cooling strategies were reported as unacceptable despite high accessibility. These findings highlight an implementation gap between public health recommendations and self-reported willingness to use such strategies, underscoring the need for co-designed heat-health interventions.
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.