Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Modeling suggests that climate change mitigation actions can have substantial human health benefits that accrue quickly and locally. Documenting the benefits can help drive more ambitious and health-protective climate change mitigation actions; however, documenting the adverse health effects can help to avoid them. Estimating the health effects of mitigation (HEM) actions can help policy makers prioritize investments based not only on mitigation potential but also on expected health benefits. To date, however, the wide range of incompatible approaches taken to developing and reporting HEM estimates has limited their comparability and usefulness to policymakers.Objective
The objective of this effort was to generate guidance for modeling studies on scoping, estimating, and reporting population health effects from climate change mitigation actions.Methods
An expert panel of HEM researchers was recruited to participate in developing guidance for conducting HEM studies. The primary literature and a synthesis of HEM studies were provided to the panel. Panel members then participated in a modified Delphi exercise to identify areas of consensus regarding HEM estimation. Finally, the panel met to review and discuss consensus findings, resolve remaining differences, and generate guidance regarding conducting HEM studies.Results
The panel generated a checklist of recommendations regarding stakeholder engagement: HEM modeling, including model structure, scope and scale, demographics, time horizons, counterfactuals, health response functions, and metrics; parameterization and reporting; approaches to uncertainty and sensitivity analysis; accounting for policy uptake; and discounting.Discussion
This checklist provides guidance for conducting and reporting HEM estimates to make them more comparable and useful for policymakers. Harmonization of HEM estimates has the potential to lead to advances in and improved synthesis of policy-relevant research that can inform evidence-based decision making and practice. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6745.
SUBMITTER: Hess JJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7654632 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Hess Jeremy J JJ Ranadive Nikhil N Boyer Chris C Aleksandrowicz Lukasz L Anenberg Susan C SC Aunan Kristin K Belesova Kristine K Bell Michelle L ML Bickersteth Sam S Bowen Kathryn K Burden Marci M Campbell-Lendrum Diarmid D Carlton Elizabeth E Cissé Guéladio G Cohen Francois F Dai Hancheng H Dangour Alan David AD Dasgupta Purnamita P Frumkin Howard H Gong Peng P Gould Robert J RJ Haines Andy A Hales Simon S Hamilton Ian I Hasegawa Tomoko T Hashizume Masahiro M Honda Yasushi Y Horton Daniel E DE Karambelas Alexandra A Kim Ho H Kim Satbyul Estella SE Kinney Patrick L PL Kone Inza I Knowlton Kim K Lelieveld Jos J Limaye Vijay S VS Liu Qiyong Q Madaniyazi Lina L Martinez Micaela Elvira ME Mauzerall Denise L DL Milner James J Neville Tara T Nieuwenhuijsen Mark M Pachauri Shonali S Perera Frederica F Pineo Helen H Remais Justin V JV Saari Rebecca K RK Sampedro Jon J Scheelbeek Pauline P Schwartz Joel J Shindell Drew D Shyamsundar Priya P Taylor Timothy J TJ Tonne Cathryn C Van Vuuren Detlef D Wang Can C Watts Nicholas N West J Jason JJ Wilkinson Paul P Wood Stephen A SA Woodcock James J Woodward Alistair A Xie Yang Y Zhang Ying Y Ebi Kristie L KL
Environmental health perspectives 20201110 11
<h4>Background</h4>Modeling suggests that climate change mitigation actions can have substantial human health benefits that accrue quickly and locally. Documenting the benefits can help drive more ambitious and health-protective climate change mitigation actions; however, documenting the adverse health effects can help to avoid them. Estimating the health effects of mitigation (HEM) actions can help policy makers prioritize investments based not only on mitigation potential but also on expected ...[more]