Perceptions of the health impacts of climate change among Canadians.

BACKGROUND: Understanding public perceptions of the health risks of climate change is critical to inform risk communication and support the adoption of adaptive behaviours. In Canada, very few studies have explored public understandings and perceptions of climate impacts on health. The objective of this study was to address this gap by exploring perceptions of the link between climate change and health. METHODS: We conducted a survey of Canadians (n = 3,014) to address this objective. The 116-question survey measured prior consideration of the link between climate change and health, affective assessment of climate health impacts, unprompted knowledge of climate health impacts, and concern about a range of impacts. ANOVA tests were used to assess differences among sociodemographic groups. RESULTS: Overall, Canadian's have a similar level of concern about health impacts of climate change compared with concern about other impacts (e.g. biophysical, economic, and national security). Among health-related impacts, respondents were more concerned about impacts on water, food and air quality, compared with impacts on mental health, infectious diseases and heat-related illnesses. There were differences among sociodemographic groups; women were significantly more concerned than men about all of the health-related impacts; respondents with a high school level of education were significantly less concerned about all health-related impacts compared with respondents with more education; and respondents on the political left were more concerned with those in the political centre, who were more concerned than those on the political right. CONCLUSION: There is emerging literature suggesting that framing communication around climate change in terms of the health risks it poses may increase perceptions of the proximity of the risks. These results suggest that it is important to be specific in the types of health risks that are communicated, and to consider the concerns of the target sociodemographic groups. The differential knowledge, awareness, and concern of climate health impacts across segments of the Canadian population can inform targeted communication and engagement to build broader support for adaptation and mitigation measures.

Public perceptions of Lyme disease and climate change in southern Manitoba, Canada: making a case for strategic decoupling of climate and health messages.

BACKGROUND: Despite scientific evidence that climate change has profound and far reaching implications for public health, translating this knowledge in a manner that supports citizen engagement, applied decision-making, and behavioural change can be challenging. This is especially true for complex vector-borne zoonotic diseases such as Lyme disease, a tick-borne disease which is increasing in range and impact across Canada and internationally in large part due to climate change. This exploratory research aims to better understand public risk perceptions of climate change and Lyme disease in order to increase engagement and motivate behavioural change. METHODS: A focus group study involving 61 participants was conducted in three communities in the Canadian Prairie province of Manitoba in 2019. Focus groups were segmented by urban, rural, and urban-rural geographies, and between participants with high and low levels of self-reported concern regarding climate change. RESULTS: Findings indicate a broad range of knowledge and risk perceptions on both climate change and Lyme disease, which seem to reflect the controversy and complexity of both issues in the larger public discourse. Participants in high climate concern groups were found to have greater climate change knowledge, higher perception of risk, and less skepticism than those in low concern groups. Participants outside of the urban centre were found to have more familiarity with ticks, Lyme disease, and preventative behaviours, identifying differential sources of resilience and vulnerability. Risk perceptions of climate change and Lyme disease were found to vary independently rather than correlate, meaning that high climate change risk perception did not necessarily indicate high Lyme disease risk perception and vice versa. CONCLUSIONS: This research contributes to the growing literature framing climate change as a public health issue, and suggests that in certain cases climate and health messages might be framed in a way that strategically decouples the issue when addressing climate skeptical audiences. A model showing the potential relationship between Lyme disease and climate change perceptions is proposed, and implications for engagement on climate change health impacts are discussed.

How often do both core competencies of shared decision making occur in family medicine teaching clinics?

OBJECTIVE: To assess how often risk communication and values clarification occur in routine family medicine practice and to explore factors associated with their occurrence. DESIGN: Qualitative and quantitative cross-sectional study. SETTING: Five university-affiliated family medicine teaching clinics across Quebec. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-one health professionals (55% physicians, 35% residents, 10% nurses or dietitians) and 238 patients (76% women; age range 16 to 82 years old). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The presence or absence of risk communication and values clarification during visits in which decisions were made was determined. Factors associated with the primary outcome (both competencies together) were identified. The OPTION5 (observing patient involvement in decision making) instrument was used to validate the dichotomous outcome. RESULTS: The presence of risk communication and values clarification during visits was associated with OPTION5 scores (area under the curve of 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.86, P < .001). Both core competencies of shared decision making occurred in 150 of 238 (63%) visits (95% CI 54% to 70%). Such an occurrence was more likely when the visit included discussion about beginning something new, treatment options, or postponing a decision, as well as when health professionals preferred a collaborative decision-making style and when the visit included more decisions or was longer. Alone, risk communication occurred in 203 of 238 (85%) visits (95% CI 82% to 96%) and values clarification in 162 of 238 (68%) visits (95% CI 61% to 75%). CONCLUSION: Health professionals in family medicine are making an effort to engage patients in shared decision making in routine daily practice, especially when there is time to do so. The greatest potential for improvement might lie in values clarification; that is, discussing what matters to patients and families.

Evidence-based communication on climate change and health: Testing videos, text, and maps on climate change and Lyme disease in Manitoba, Canada.

Given the climate crisis and its cumulative impacts on public health, effective communication strategies that engage the public in adaptation and mitigation are critical. Many have argued that a health frame increases engagement, as do visual methodologies including online and interactive platforms, yet to date there has been limited research on audience responses to health messaging using visual interventions. This study explores public attitudes regarding communication tools focused on climate change and climate-affected Lyme disease through six focus groups (n = 61) in rural and urban southern Manitoba, Canada. The results add to the growing evidence of the efficacy of visual and storytelling methods in climate communications and argues for a continuum of mediums: moving from video, text, to maps. Findings underscore the importance of tailoring both communication messages and mediums to increase uptake of adaptive health and environmental behaviours, for some audiences bridging health and climate change while for others strategically decoupling them.

Health effects of climate change: an overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop a systematic synthesis of systematic reviews of health impacts of climate change, by synthesising studies' characteristics, climate impacts, health outcomes and key findings. DESIGN: We conducted an overview of systematic reviews of health impacts of climate change. We registered our review in PROSPERO (CRD42019145972). No ethical approval was required since we used secondary data. Additional data are not available. DATA SOURCES: On 22 June 2019, we searched Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included systematic reviews that explored at least one health impact of climate change. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We organised systematic reviews according to their key characteristics, including geographical regions, year of publication and authors' affiliations. We mapped the climate effects and health outcomes being studied and synthesised major findings. We used a modified version of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) to assess the quality of studies. RESULTS: We included 94 systematic reviews. Most were published after 2015 and approximately one-fifth contained meta-analyses. Reviews synthesised evidence about five categories of climate impacts; the two most common were meteorological and extreme weather events. Reviews covered 10 health outcome categories; the 3 most common were (1) infectious diseases, (2) mortality and (3) respiratory, cardiovascular or neurological outcomes. Most reviews suggested a deleterious impact of climate change on multiple adverse health outcomes, although the majority also called for more research. CONCLUSIONS: Most systematic reviews suggest that climate change is associated with worse human health. This study provides a comprehensive higher order summary of research on health impacts of climate change. Study limitations include possible missed relevant reviews, no meta-meta-analyses, and no assessment of overlap. Future research could explore the potential explanations between these associations to propose adaptation and mitigation strategies and could include broader sociopsychological health impacts of climate change.

What Matters to Patients and Families: A Content and Process Framework for Clarifying Preferences, Concerns, and Values.

Background. Values clarification, or sorting out what matters to a patient or family relevant to a health decision, is a fundamental part of shared decision making. We aimed to describe how values clarification occurs in routine primary care. Methods. Using framework analysis and an established taxonomy, 2 independent researchers analyzed 260 consultations in 5 family medicine clinics across Quebec. Two questions guided our analyses: 1) What categories exist regarding what matters to patients? 2) What patterns exist in discussions of what matters to patients? Results. 1) Five distinct categories of what matters to patients and families were discussed during values clarification: preferences, concerns, treatment-specific values, life goals or philosophies, and broader contextual or sociocultural values. Preferences and concerns were the matters most commonly raised. 2) Diverse patterns of values clarification emerged based on 3 analytical questions: Who initiates the discussion about what matters to patients? When? What information is discussed? The most frequent pattern was clinicians soliciting patients' concerns and preferences during the information-gathering phase. The second most common pattern was similar, except that patients' spontaneously raised what matters to them. Limitations. The study was descriptive and based on audio-recorded visits. We did not interview patients and clinicians to elicit their perspectives. Conclusions. There are 5 distinct categories of what matters to patients and families as well as clear patterns of how values clarification occurs in routine primary care consultations. Clinicians could be sensitive to these categories when engaging in the process of values clarification and may wish to pay particular attention to the opening minutes of a consultation. This study provides a structure for future identification of best practices in values clarification.

Content and conceptual frameworks of psychology and social work preceptor feedback related to the educational requests of family medicine residents.

OBJECTIVES: Supervision of communication competency in clinical settings in medicine is an important component of professional training. The purpose of this study was to describe the content and rationale of psychology and social work preceptor feedback to family medicine residents who express educational needs during case-based written vignettes. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study with 25 psychology and social work preceptors from family medicine departments of the three French-speaking universities in the province of Quebec, Canada. During an individual interview, preceptors were asked to respond to three short case-based written vignettes depicting resident educational issues regarding communication and to explain their responses. Authors analyzed the content of responses and the conceptual frameworks reported. RESULTS: The three vignettes elicited 475 responses, including 58 distinct responses and 33 distinct conceptual frameworks. Therapeutic alliance and stages of grief were the two most reported conceptual frameworks. CONCLUSION: The vignettes stimulated a wealth of responses and conceptual frameworks among psychology and social work preceptors in family medicine. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The complete list of responses could be useful for faculty development activities by stimulating preceptors' reflexive practice with regard to their responses, the educational goals of these responses and the conceptual frameworks underlying their feedback.

A Systematic Review of Patients' Experiences in Communicating with Primary Care Physicians: Intercultural Encounters and a Balance between Vulnerability and Integrity.

Communication difficulties persist between patients and physicians. In order to improve care, patients' experiences of this communication must be understood. The main objective of this study is to synthesize qualitative studies exploring patients' experiences in communicating with a primary care physician. A secondary objective is to explore specific factors pertaining to ethnic minority or majority patients and their influence on patients' experiences of communication. Pertinent health and social sciences electronic databases were searched systematically (PubMed, Cinahl, PsychNet, and IBSS). Fifty-seven articles were included in the review on the basis of being qualitative studies targeting patients' experiences of communication with a primary care physician. The meta-ethnography method for qualitative studies was used to interpret data and the COREQ checklist was used to evaluate the quality of included studies. Three concepts emerged from analyses: negative experiences, positive experiences, and outcomes of communication. Negative experiences related to being treated with disrespect, experiencing pressure due to time constraints, and feeling helpless due to the dominance of biomedical culture in the medical encounter. Positive experiences are attributed to certain relational skills, technical skills, as well as certain approaches to care privileged by the physician. Outcomes of communication depend on patients' evaluation of the consultation. Four categories of specific factors exerted mainly a negative influence on consultations for ethnic minorities: language barriers, discrimination, differing values, and acculturation. Ethnic majorities also raised specific factors influencing their experience: differing values and discrimination. Findings of this review are limited by the fact that more than half of the studies did not explore cultural aspects relating to this experience. Future research should address these aspects in more detail. In conclusion, all patients seemed to face additional cultural challenges. Findings provide a foundation for the development of tailored interventions to patients' preferences, thus ensuring more satisfactory experiences. Health care providers should be sensitive to specific factors (cultural and micro-cultural) during all medical encounters.