Mapping the Evidence Related to Health and Climate Change Mitigation
Background: To avoid waste in research we first need to establish what research has already been undertaken. The results of the mapping reviews can be used inform research priorities and research funding, however, presenting the results of an evidence mapping review visually can be challenging.
Objectives: To explore how to visually present the research evidence landscape measuring or evaluating the public acceptability of local actions to mitigate against the health impacts of climate change.
Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and HMIC for relevant research, as well as reference checking of relevant articles and related reviews using snowballing technique with six iterations. Articles met our inclusion criteria if they reported on empirical evidence (such as surveys or interviews) to evaluate the public acceptability of local actions (such as those involving clean air zones, eco-housing, land and waste management, and green energy supply) to mitigate against climate change or provide adaptation and resilience strategies. We used the shiny app EviAtlas to present a summary of the research undertaken to date. We used evidence atlases to present the data by geographical location using the longitudinal and latitude of the stated locations and heat maps to visualize further details of the research categorized by type of local action.
Results: 1074 records were retrieved of which 116 representing 111 studies met our inclusion criteria. Using the evidence map feature in EviAtlas provided clear visualizations by location (Figure 1) and using the heat map feature EviAtlas provided a longitudinal summary of the actions most commonly researched (Figure 2).
Conclusions: Using open software EviAtlas we were able to provide research funders and those setting priority setting agendas with a visualization of what research has been undertaken to date and where. EviAtlas may be particularly useful where geographical location is important and where there are a large number of included studies to summarize. Patient and public involvement was paramount to our research and helped focus the research on local action relevant to the public, particularly in relation to socioeconomic status.