Post

Congratulations to @finejulia6.bsky.social, @joshettinger.bsky.social, Teresa Myers, Yuan Yue, Lisa Patel, John Kotcher, and @maibached.bsky.social on a new article in Environmental Research: Health, published with Verasight survey data. 1/9

"Optimizing health professionals’ climate advocacy messages" tests which message frames work best when health professionals communicate about climate change and health. 2/9

In a 2 × 2 factorial experiment plus a no message control group, the authors tested four versions of a brief fictitious yet realistic news article to answer two questions with regard to six possible communication outcomes 3/9

(1) Are do-more-good frames (about the need to use more renewable energy) or do-less-bad frames (about the need to phase out fossil fuels) more effective, and (2) Are gain frames (about health benefits) or loss frames (about health harms) more effective? 4/9

In addition, they surveyed a cohort of health professionals who advocate for climate action to test their willingness to use each of these message frames. 5/9

The authors found that reading any of the four versions of the news article led to a small increase in trust in health professionals as a source of information on climate change relative to the control group, 6/9

and the stop/loss and start/gain framed articles led to a small decrease in participants’ support for fossil fuels. 7/9

The health professionals surveyed had a strong preference for gain-framed messages; however, many also mentioned a sense of duty to warn audiences of the health harms of climate change. 8/9