ReviewThe journal of climate change and health
An integrative review of implementation science in climate change and health adaptation research
Review in The journal of climate change and health. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: As climate change accelerates, reducing associated health risks requires uptake of effective approaches to adaptation at scale. However, translating climate change and health adaptation (CCHA) interventions into practice remains a persistent challenge for both researchers and practitioners. Implementation science provides tools to study methods and strategies that facilitate the adoption and sustainability of interventions into practice, but its application in the CCHA domain has not yet been examined. Methods: In response, this integrative literature review identifies how implementation science has been applied to assess determinants, strategies, and outcomes of CCHA interventions, and to evaluate gaps, strengths, and limitations in the existing literature. Nineteen articles were identified through systematic searches of four databases and expert recommendations. Discrete data domains, defined a priori, were extracted and synthesized across articles. Results: Findings demonstrated wide variability in the use of implementation frameworks, the identification and assessment of implementation strategies and outcomes, and the overall conceptualization of CCHA interventions. Findings highlight a critical opportunity to leverage implementation science as a tool to strengthen the assessment and uptake of CCHA efforts in public health practice. Conclusion: In the face of the accelerating climate crisis, there is an urgent need for implementation science and climate change and health experts to work together to overcome conceptual and operational challenges to the use of implementation science frameworks and methods to advance the field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.