ArticleThe journal of climate change and health
Climate change- and LGBTQ-related voting records of SkinPAC-supported members of the 117th U.S. Congress: A cross-sectional study.
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. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: With critical health, equity and care delivery implications, advocacy around both climate impacts and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer/Questioning (LGBTQ+) health is of growing importance among dermatologists and shares overlapping priorities and increasing sociopolitical solidarity. In particular, environmental justice and LGBTQ+ health disparities are intertwined. Climate impacts disproportionately affect gender minority individuals and exacerbate existing socioeconomic, cultural, and health burdens in LGBTQ+ communities. Material and methods: A cross-sectional analysis examined monetary contributions from SkinPAC, the American Academy of Dermatology Association's (AADA) political action committee (PAC), to members of the 117th U.S. Congress and whether those receiving contributions have legislative voting records that align with the AADA's position statements on climate change and LGBTQ+ health. Results: While SkinPAC donated more in total dollars to those who voted for pro-climate and pro-LGBTQ+ legislation, SkinPAC still contributed significant dollar amounts to members of Congress whose voting records did not align with the AADA's position statements. Discussion: As with prior studies on donations by medical society PACs, this analysis suggests that other legislative priorities drive contributions and that SkinPAC donations to political candidates may not reflect the position statements of the AADA on matters of public health and equity, including climate change and sexual and gender minority health. Conclusion: To better guide SkinPAC contributions to candidates' federal campaigns and to more effectively and ethically advocate on behalf of dermatologists and their patients, future studies should track alignment between monetary political contributions and Congressional voting records regarding AADA positions on key public health issues, including climate impacts and LGBTQ+ health.
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.