↓ Skip to main content

Developing effective communication materials on the health effects of climate change for vulnerable groups: a mixed methods study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
198 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Developing effective communication materials on the health effects of climate change for vulnerable groups: a mixed methods study
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3546-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer M. Kreslake, Katherine M. Price, Mona Sarfaty

Abstract

Individuals with chronic health conditions or low socioeconomic status (SES) are more vulnerable to the health impacts of climate change. Health communication can provide information on the management of these impacts. This study tested, among vulnerable audiences, whether viewing targeted materials increases knowledge about the health impacts of climate change and strength of climate change beliefs, and whether each are associated with stronger intentions to practice recommended behaviors. Low-SES respondents with chronic conditions were recruited for an online survey in six cities. Respondents were shown targeted materials illustrating the relationship between climate change and chronic conditions. Changes in knowledge and climate change beliefs (pre- and post-test) and behavioral intentions (post-test only) were tested using McNemar tests of marginal frequencies of two binary outcomes or paired t-tests, and multivariable linear regression. Qualitative interviews were conducted among target audiences to triangulate survey findings and make recommendations on the design of messages. Respondents (N = 122) reflected the target population regarding income, educational level and prevalence of household health conditions. (1) Knowledge. Significant increases in knowledge were found regarding: groups that are most vulnerable to heat (children [p < 0.001], individuals with heart disease [p < 0.001], or lung disease [p = 0.019]); and environmental conditions that increase allergy-producing pollen (increased heat [p = 0.003], increased carbon dioxide [p < 0.001]). (2) Strength of certainty that climate change is happening increased significantly between pre- and post-test (p < 0.001), as did belief that climate change affected respondents' health (p < 0.001). (3) Behavioral intention. At post-test, higher knowledge of heat vulnerabilities and environmental conditions that trigger pollen allergies were associated with greater behavioral intention scores (p = 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively). In-depth interviews (N = 15) revealed that vulnerable audiences are interested in immediate-term advice on health management and protective behaviors related to their chronic conditions, but took less notice of messages about collective action to slow or stop climate change. Respondents identified both appealing and less favorable design elements in the materials. Individuals who are vulnerable to the health effects of climate change benefit from communication materials that explain, using graphics and concise language, how climate change affects health conditions and how to engage in protective adaptation behaviors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 198 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 12%
Student > Bachelor 23 12%
Researcher 17 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 8%
Other 29 15%
Unknown 50 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 28 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 12%
Environmental Science 21 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 9%
Psychology 11 6%
Other 37 19%
Unknown 60 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 10 January 2020.
All research outputs
#5,227,444
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#6,166
of 17,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,594
of 349,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#134
of 383 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,839 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 349,064 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 383 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.