Reimagining the Role of Health Departments and Their Partners in Addressing Climate Change: Revising the Building Resilience against Climate Effects (BRACE) Framework.

Public health departments have important roles to play in addressing the local health impacts of climate change, yet are often not well prepared to do so. The Climate and Health Program (CHP) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) created the Building Resilience Against Climate Effects (BRACE) framework in 2012 as a five-step planning framework to support public health departments and their partners to respond to the health impacts of climate change. CHP has initiated a process to revise the framework to address learnings from a decade of experience with BRACE and advances in the science and practice of addressing climate and health. The aim of this manuscript is to describe the methodology for revising the BRACE framework and the expected outputs of this process. Development of the revised framework and associated guidance and tools will be guided by a multi-sector expert panel, and finalization will be informed by usability testing. Planned revisions to BRACE will (1) be consistent with the vision of Public Health 3.0 and position health departments as "chief health strategists" in their communities, who are responsible for facilitating the establishment and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations with community organizations, other partners, and other government agencies to address local climate impacts and prevent further harm to historically underserved communities; (2) place health equity as a central, guiding tenet; (3) incorporate greenhouse gas mitigation strategies, in addition to its previous focus on climate adaptation; and (4) feature a new set of tools to support BRACE implementation among a diverse set of users. The revised BRACE framework and the associated tools will support public health departments and their partners as they strive to prevent and reduce the negative health impacts of climate change for everyone, while focusing on improving health equity.

A process for creating data report-back tools to improve equity in environmental health.

BACKGROUND: Although there is increasing interest in reporting results of environmental research efforts back to participants, evidence-based tools have not yet been applied to developed materials to ensure their accessibility in terms of literacy, numeracy, and data visualization demand. Additionally, there is not yet guidance as to how to formally assess the created materials to assure a match with the intended audience. METHODS: Relying on formative qualitative research with participants of an indoor air quality study in Dorchester, Massachusetts, we identified means of enhancing accessibility of indoor air quality data report-back materials for participants. Participants (n = 20) engaged in semi-structured interviews in which they described challenges they encountered with scientific and medical materials and outlined written and verbal communication techniques that would help facilitate engagement with and accessibility of environmental health report-back materials. We coupled these insights from participants with best practice guidelines for written materials by operationalizing health literacy tools to produce accessible audience-informed data report-back materials. RESULTS: The resulting data report-back materials had a 7th -grade reading level, and between a 4th -8th grade level of overall document complexity. The numeracy skills required to engage with the material were of the lowest demand, and we incorporated best practices for risk communication and facilitating understanding and actionability of the materials. Use of a rigorous assessment tool provides evidence of accessibility and appropriateness of the material for the audience. CONCLUSIONS: We outline a process for developing and evaluating environmental health data reports that are tailored to inspire risk-reduction actions, and are demonstrably accessible in terms of their literacy, numeracy, and data visualization demand. Adapting health literacy tools to create and evaluate environmental data report-back materials is a novel and evidence-based means of ensuring their accessibility.

Characterizing the Environmental Health Literacy and Sensemaking of Indoor Air Quality of Research Participants.

This study is based on in-depth semi-structured interviews with the participants of an indoor air quality monitoring study. The purpose of the interviews was to capture participants' perceptions of indoor air quality and engage them in a discussion of those factors that influenced their behavior. Interview study participants (n = 20) noted the importance of family health concerns and their own sensory awareness of possible contaminants. They discussed their level of personal control over their home environment as well as their access to needed resources. This study is based on grounded theory and applies interpretivist epistemological methods. Study findings offer insights into how people perceive their home environment and what influences their decision making and action. Analyses indicate that perceived agency, risk perception, access to resources, and information all influenced participants' sense of ability to take action as well as their interest in taking action. These insights serve to challenge some of the current work in environmental health literacy which tends to focus on and measure an individual's knowledge or skills. Our analysis suggests that consideration be given to a number of factors that include perceived agency, access to resources, and the quality of information provided.

Reporting Results of a Community-Based In-Home Exposure Monitoring Study: Developing Methods and Materials.

BACKGROUND: Reporting exposure results to study participants provides information that can ideally be used to decrease harmful exposures, improve health, and prevent disease. In reality, we often do not fully understand how an environmental exposure contributes to disease. This is the case when reporting back indoor air exposures in the absence of regulations. OBJECTIVES: We reported nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) results back to individual participants of an in-home study in Chelsea, Massachusetts. We aimed to provide participants with information on the pollutant concentrations in their homes and in their community and to suggest strategies for decreasing in-home exposures. Our goals were to improve environmental health literacy and empower residents to take action on air quality issues in their community. The main objective of this paper is to describe how we developed our report back process and materials. METHODS: Our team of academic and community partners developed a two-part report back process. The first part included a mailing tailored to every home containing daily indoor and outdoor NO2 and PM2.5 concentrations, community averages, outdoor standards and guidelines, and results from other indoor air quality studies for comparison. The second part included a community meeting for participants. CONCLUSIONS: Our report back process and materials benefitted from the contributions of multiple diverse stakeholders. We recommend at least a two-part strategy for facilitating communication within the community and between community and academic researchers. The materials and methods can be easily adapted by other researchers to report back exposure results in other community-specific contexts.

Something new in the air: Paying for community-based environmental approaches to asthma prevention and control.

Despite the recommendation in national asthma guidelines to target indoor environmental exposures, most insurers generally have not covered the outreach, education, environmental assessments, or durable goods integral to home environmental interventions. However, emerging payment approaches offer new potential for coverage of home-based environmental intervention costs. These opportunities are becoming available as public and private insurers shift reimbursement to reward better health outcomes, and their key characteristic is a focus on the value rather than the volume of services. These new payment models for environmental interventions can be divided into 2 categories: enhanced fee-for-service reimbursement and set payments per patient that cover asthma-related costs. Several pilot programs across the United States are underway, and as they prove their value and as payment increasingly becomes aligned with better outcomes at lower cost, these efforts should have a bright future. Physicians should be aware that these new possibilities are emerging for payment of the goods and services needed for indoor environmental interventions for their patients with asthma.