There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Abstract
Background
The COVID-19 global pandemic is a harbinger of a future destabilised world driven
by climate change, rapid mass migration, food insecurity, state failures and epidemics.
A significant feature fuelling this destabilised world is networked misinformation
and disinformation (referred to as an infodemic), particularly in the area of health.
Aims
To describe the interactive dynamic of climate change; mass population movement; famine;
state failure and epidemic disease, analyse developments over the year 2020–2021 and
discuss their relationship to an infodemic about disease and public health responses
and how this should be addressed in the future.
Methods
Using the concept of ‘the Five Horsemen’ of epochal change and network theory to guide
a narrative review.
Results
Concepts of epidemiology are reflected in how misinformation is spread around the
world. Health care services and personnel face threats as a result that make it more
difficult to manage pan global health risks effectively.
Conclusions
Heath care professionals at an individual and organisational level need to counter
infodemic networks. Health care professionals who consistently spread misinformation
should have their licence to practice withdrawn.
Objectives We aimed to develop a systematic synthesis of systematic reviews of health impacts of climate change, by synthesising studies’ characteristics, climate impacts, health outcomes and key findings. Design We conducted an overview of systematic reviews of health impacts of climate change. We registered our review in PROSPERO (CRD42019145972). No ethical approval was required since we used secondary data. Additional data are not available. Data sources On 22 June 2019, we searched Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science. Eligibility criteria We included systematic reviews that explored at least one health impact of climate change. Data extraction and synthesis We organised systematic reviews according to their key characteristics, including geographical regions, year of publication and authors’ affiliations. We mapped the climate effects and health outcomes being studied and synthesised major findings. We used a modified version of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) to assess the quality of studies. Results We included 94 systematic reviews. Most were published after 2015 and approximately one-fifth contained meta-analyses. Reviews synthesised evidence about five categories of climate impacts; the two most common were meteorological and extreme weather events. Reviews covered 10 health outcome categories; the 3 most common were (1) infectious diseases, (2) mortality and (3) respiratory, cardiovascular or neurological outcomes. Most reviews suggested a deleterious impact of climate change on multiple adverse health outcomes, although the majority also called for more research. Conclusions Most systematic reviews suggest that climate change is associated with worse human health. This study provides a comprehensive higher order summary of research on health impacts of climate change. Study limitations include possible missed relevant reviews, no meta-meta-analyses, and no assessment of overlap. Future research could explore the potential explanations between these associations to propose adaptation and mitigation strategies and could include broader sociopsychological health impacts of climate change.
Publisher:
SAGE Publications
(Sage UK: London, England
)
ISSN
(Print):
1744-9871
ISSN
(Electronic):
1744-988X
Publication date
(Print and electronic):
May
2022
Publication date
(Print):
May
2022
Publication date PMC-release:
May
2022
Volume: 27
Issue: 3
,
Focus: Conflicts, catastrophes and consequences
Pages: 291-300
Affiliations
[1-17449871221090778]Fellow, School of Health Sciences, Ringgold 113002, universityWaterford Institute of Technology; , Waterford, Ireland
[2-17449871221090778]Research Assistant, School of Health Sciences, Ringgold 113002, universityWaterford Institute of Technology; , Waterford, Ireland
Author notes
[*]John SG Wells, School of Health Sciences, O’Connell Bianconi Building, Waterford Institute
of Technology, Cork Road Campus, Waterford, Ireland. Email:
jswells@
123456wit.ie
This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted re-use
and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source.
These permissions are granted for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic or until permissions
are revoked in writing. Upon expiration of these permissions, PMC is granted a perpetual
license to make this article available via PMC and Europe PMC, consistent with existing
copyright protections.
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.