A multiple needs framework for climate change anxiety interventions.

Climate change anxiety is a growing problem for individual well-being the world over. However, psychological interventions to address climate change anxiety may have unintended effects on outcomes other than individual well-being, such as group cohesion and pro-environmental behavior. In order to address these complexities, we outline a multiple needs framework of climate change anxiety interventions, which can be used to analyze interventions in terms of their effects on individual, social, and environmental outcomes. We use this framework to contextualize a systematic review of the literature detailing the effects of climate change anxiety interventions. This analysis identifies interventions centered around problem-focused action, emotion management, and enhancing social connections as those which have beneficial effects on the widest range of outcomes. It also identifies interventions that may have detrimental effects on one or more outcomes. We identify gaps where more research is required, including research that assesses the effects of climate change anxiety interventions on individual, social, and environmental outcomes in concert. An interactive website summarizes these insights and presents the results of the systematic review in a way that is, accessible to a range of stakeholders. The multiple needs framework provides a way to conceptualize the effectiveness of climate change anxiety interventions beyond their impact on individual well-being, contributing to a more holistic understanding of the effects of this global phenomenon. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Evaluation of a new short generic measure of health status: howRu.

BACKGROUND: Quality of life is paramount for patients and clinicians, but existing measures of health were not developed for routine use. OBJECTIVES: This paper describes the development and testing of a new generic tool for measuring health related quality of life (HRQoL) with direct comparison to the SF-12 Health Survey. METHODS: The new tool (howRu) has four items (discomfort, distress, disability and dependence), rated using four levels (none, a little, quite a lot and extreme), providing 256 possible states (4(4)); it has an aggregate scoring scheme with a range from 0 (worst) to 12 (best). Psychometric properties were examined in a telephone survey, which also recorded SF-12. RESULTS: The howRu script is shorter than SF-12 (45 words vs 294 words) and has better readability statistics. 2751 subjects, all with long-term conditions (average age 62, female 62.8%), completed the survey; 21.7% were at the ceiling (no reported problems on any dimension); 0.9% at the floor. Inter-item correlations, Cronbach's alpha and principal factor analysis suggest that a single summary score is appropriate. Correlations between the physical and mental components of both howRu and SF-12 were as expected. Across all patients the howRu score was correlated with PCS-12 (r=0.74), MCS-12 (r=0.49) and the sum of PCS-12 and MCS-12 (r=0.81). Subjects were classified by howRu score, primary condition, the number of conditions suffered, age group, duration of illness and area of residence. Across all six classifications, the correlation of the mean howRu score with the mean PCS-12 for each class was r=0.91, with MCS-12, r=0.45 and with the sum of PCS-12 and MCS-12, r=0.97. CONCLUSIONS: howRu is a new short generic measure of HRQoL, with good psychometric properties. It generates similar aggregate results to SF-12. It could provide a quick and easy way for practitioners to monitor the health of patients with long-term conditions.