SynthesisBMC public health2026
What do we talk about when we talk about ecological determinants of health? A systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncreasing attention to political and commercial determinants of health may have unintentionally overshadowed ecological determinants, while persistent conceptual ambiguity between ecological determinants of health (EclDoH) and environmental determinants of health (EnvDoH) may limit clarity for research, policy, and practice. This systematic review aimed to synthesise how EclDoH are defined and conceptualised in the academic literature, identify the components described, and examine their relationships with other determinants of health, particularly environmental determinants, at a global level.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Peer-reviewed publications explicitly addressing EclDoH and providing definitions, components, or relationships with other determinants were eligible; non-English and non-peer-reviewed publications were excluded. A comprehensive search of Scopus, PubMed, and EBSCOhost (including CINAHL, MEDLINE and PsycInfo databases) was undertaken for peer-reviewed publications available up to 16 September 2025, with additional studies identified through citation chaining and targeted Google Scholar searches. As the aim was to synthesise definitions, conceptualisations, and relationships, formal risk-of-bias tools were not applied. Definitions and relationships were synthesised narratively, while components were analysed using an inductive thematic approach. The study was funded by the Provincial Secretariat for Higher Education and ScientiicResearch of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, Republic of Serbia.
resultsA total of 100 publications were included, predominantly from high-income countries, particularly Canada (24%), the United States (13%), and Australia (12%). Just over half were original research articles, with the remainder comprising reviews, commentaries, book chapters, and conference papers. Only 16 publications (16%) explicitly defined EclDoH, most commonly framing them as systems and processes related to ecosystems, nature, and the non-human environment, often emphasising human-non-human interdependence. Components were identified in 94 publications and grouped into seven domains: physical environment, climate and weather, ecosystem, natural disasters, housing and urbanisation, food, and social environment, with the physical environment most frequently reported. Relationships with other determinants were described in 31 publications: 10 distinguished EclDoH from environmental determinants, 8 treated them as synonymous, and the remainder described interactions, particularly with social determinants of health. DISCUSSION: This review has found there is an absence of conceptual consensus on ecological determinants of health. This may limit comparability across studies and constrain effective research, advocacy, policymaking, and education. Greater conceptual clarity is essential to strengthen public health responses in the context of accelerating ecological change. LIMITATIONS: only English-language publications were included, and grey literature was notexamined.
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.