Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Lancet Planet Health ; 8 Suppl 1: S16, 2024 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38632911

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: There have been many modelled studies of potential health co-benefits from actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but so far there have been no large-scale attempts to compare the magnitude of health and climate effects across sectors, countries, and study designs. METHODS: As part of the Pathfinder Initiative project an umbrella review of studies was done, and 26 previous reviews were identified with 57 primary studies included. Studies included in the review were required to have quantified changes in greenhouse gas emissions and health effects (or risk factors) from defined actions to reduce climate effects. Study data were extracted and harmonised by standardising impact measures per 100 000 of the national population (or urban population for city-level actions), averaging effects over a 1-year period and aggregating actions into their respective sectors by use of a predefined framework. FINDINGS: From 200 mitigation actions, the majority were in the agriculture, forestry, and land use sector (103 actions [52%]), followed by the transport sector (43 actions [22%]). The largest effects on greenhouse gas emissions were seen from actions in the energy sector, and these actions also had substantial health co-benefits in lower middle-income countries, although benefits were smaller in high-income settings. The greatest health benefits were seen from actions to change diets and introduce clean cookstoves. The major pathways to health were through reduced air pollution, healthier diets, and increased physical activity from switching to active travel modes. Effect sizes tended to be larger from national modelling studies and smaller from localised or implemented actions. INTERPRETATION: The potential co-benefits to health from actions to reduce climate change are large, but most evidence still comes from modelling studies and from high-income and middle-income countries. There are also major context-dependent differences in the magnitude of effects found, so actions need to be tailored to the local context and careful attention needs to be paid to potential trade-offs and spillover effects. FUNDING: The Wellcome Trust and the Oak Foundation.


Assuntos
Poluição do Ar , Gases de Efeito Estufa , Gases de Efeito Estufa/análise , Efeito Estufa , Poluição do Ar/análise , Agricultura
3.
Wellcome Open Res ; 7: 98, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37441158

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Effective and rapid actions are required to achieve global goals for climate change mitigation, and there is an opportunity to ensure that the actions taken are also positive for human health. However, little is known about the relative magnitude of the health co-benefits that can be achieved from mitigation actions, so robust and comprehensive syntheses of the evidence on the nature and effects of relevant actions are required. This paper presents a protocol for an interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral umbrella review of systematic reviews, synthesising modelled and empirical evidence on such actions. METHODS: Nine bibliographic databases will be searched, capturing literature across a wide range of disciplines and sectors. Unique records retrieved by the searches will be screened by two independent reviewers. The quality of all the included systematic reviews will be assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 critical appraisal tool. Data will be extracted on methodological and thematic characteristics of the reviews, nature of the actions, and their effects on greenhouse gas emission reduction, health, and its determinants, as well as any other reported effects and interactions across different actions. RESULTS: Narrative and quantitative synthesis methods will be used to create a typology of relevant actions, map pathways to their impacts on health, compare the magnitude of health and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction impacts by selected characteristics of the actions and the nature of the evidence, as well as to identify gaps in evidence syntheses. CONCLUSION: This review will identify the most effective actions for global climate change mitigation and health based on the best available scientific evidence.   This protocol has been registered in PROSPERO, Reg No.: CRD42021239292.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...