↓ Skip to main content

Current medical research funding and frameworks are insufficient to address the health risks of global environmental change

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Current medical research funding and frameworks are insufficient to address the health risks of global environmental change
Published in
Environmental Health, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12940-016-0183-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristie L. Ebi, Jan C. Semenza, Joacim Rocklöv

Abstract

Three major international agreements signed in 2015 are key milestones for transitioning to more sustainable and resilient societies: the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction; and the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Together, these agreements underscore the critical importance of understanding and managing the health risks of global changes, to ensure continued population health improvements in the face of significant social and environmental change over this century. BODY: Funding priorities of major health institutions and organizations in the U.S. and Europe do not match research investments with needs to inform implementation of these international agreements. In the U.S., the National Institutes of Health commit 0.025 % of their annual research budget to climate change and health. The European Union Seventh Framework Programme committed 0.08 % of the total budget to climate change and health; the amount committed under Horizon 2020 was 0.04 % of the budget. Two issues apparently contributing to this mismatch are viewing climate change primarily as an environmental problem, and therefore the responsibility of other research streams; and narrowly framing research into managing the health risks of climate variability and change from the perspective of medicine and traditional public health. This reductionist, top-down perspective focuses on proximate, individual level risk factors. While highly successful in reducing disease burdens, this framing is insufficient to protect health and well-being over a century that will be characterized by profound social and environmental changes. International commitments in 2015 underscored the significant challenges societies will face this century from climate change and other global changes. However, the low priority placed on understanding and managing the associated health risks by national and international research institutions and organizations leaves populations poorly prepared to cope with changing health burdens. Risk-centered, systems approaches can facilitate understanding of the complex interactions and dependencies across environmental, social, and human systems. This understanding is needed to formulate effective interventions targeting socio-environmental factors that are as important for determining health burdens as are individual risk factors.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 23%
Student > Master 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 16 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 10 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 12%
Social Sciences 8 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 8%
Other 18 23%
Unknown 19 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 56. 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 24 June 2021.
All research outputs
#581,074
of 21,414,377 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#144
of 1,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,972
of 313,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#14
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,414,377 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,422 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 313,323 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.