↓ Skip to main content

Climate change, cash transfers and health

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Climate change, cash transfers and health
Published in
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, May 2015
DOI 10.2471/blt.14.150037
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frank Pega, Caroline Shaw, Kumanan Rasanathan, Jennifer Yablonski, Ichiro Kawachi, Simon Hales

Abstract

The forecast consequences of climate change on human health are profound, especially in low- and middle-income countries and among the most disadvantaged populations. Innovative policy tools are needed to address the adverse health effects of climate change. Cash transfers are established policy tools for protecting population health before, during and after climate-related disasters. For example, the Ethiopian Productive Safety Net Programme provides cash transfers to reduce food insecurity resulting from droughts. We propose extending cash transfer interventions to more proactive measures to improve health in the context of climate change. We identify promising cash transfer schemes that could be used to prevent the adverse health consequences of climatic hazards. Cash transfers for using emission-free, active modes of transport - e.g. cash for cycling to work - could prevent future adverse health consequences by contributing to climate change mitigation and, at the same time, improving current population health. Another example is cash transfers provided to communities that decide to move to areas in which their lives and health are not threatened by climatic disasters. More research on such interventions is needed to ensure that they are effective, ethical, equitable and cost-effective.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 5%
Student > Bachelor 2 3%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 2%
Student > Master 1 2%
Unknown 53 88%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Unknown 55 92%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 August 2015.
All research outputs
#5,610,213
of 17,367,552 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of the World Health Organization
#1,858
of 3,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,707
of 286,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of the World Health Organization
#41
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,367,552 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,941 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 286,812 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.