| Title |
Using Uncertain Climate and Development Information in Health Adaptation Planning
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Environmental Health Reports, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40572-016-0077-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kristie L. Ebi, Jeremy J. Hess, Tania Busch Isaksen |
| Abstract |
To aid health adaptation decision-making, there are increasing efforts to provide climate projections at finer temporal and spatial scales. Relying solely on projected climate changes for longer-term decisions makes the implicit assumption that sources of vulnerability other than climate change will remain the same, which is not very probable. Over longer time horizons, this approach likely over estimates the extent to which climate change could alter the magnitude and pattern of health outcomes, introducing systematic bias into health management decisions. To balance this potential bias, decision-makers also need projections of other drivers of health outcomes that are, like climate change, recognized determinants of some disease burdens. Incorporating projections via an iterative process that allows for regular updates based on new knowledge and experience has the potential to improve the utility of fine-scale climate projections in health system adaptation to climate change. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 79 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 16% |
| Researcher | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 20 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 12 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 14% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 8 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 9% |
| Engineering | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 19% |
| Unknown | 22 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 November 2021.
All research outputs
#3,307,385
of 22,986,950 outputs
Outputs from Current Environmental Health Reports
#122
of 324 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,992
of 397,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Environmental Health Reports
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,986,950 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 324 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 397,647 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.