ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
From El Niño forecasts to proportionate public health action: a forecast-to-action framework for climate-related health risks.
Article in Frontiers in 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
El Niño creates an important opportunity for anticipatory public health action because its development can often be detected before many downstream hazards emerge. Yet predictability does not transfer uniformly from the large-scale El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) signal to regional climate anomalies and ultimately to health outcomes. This Perspective proposes a locally adaptable forecast-to-action framework that distinguishes three levels of predictability: ENSO prediction, regional and local climate prediction, and health-risk prediction. We argue that an El Niño forecast should initiate a structured risk-assessment process rather than automatically trigger intervention. Decisions should integrate forecast probability and skill, expected hazard severity, local epidemiology and vulnerability, lead time, intervention effectiveness and reversibility, equity, and the consequences of acting versus not acting. Low-cost, no-regret measures can reasonably begin at lower levels of certainty, whereas costly or disruptive interventions require stronger evidence. Because empirical evidence for forecast-triggered interventions remains limited, prospective implementation and evaluation are essential. Linking climate information with local surveillance, One Health intelligence, resilient health systems, equity-sensitive decision-making, and continuous learning may convert forecast lead time into earlier, proportionate, and more defensible public health action.
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.