Effectively addressing climate change requires significant changes in individual and collective human behavior and decision‐making. Yet, in light of the increasing politicization of (climate) science, and the attempts of vested‐interest groups to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change through organized “disinformation campaigns,” identifying ways to effectively engage with the public about the issue across the political spectrum has proven difficult. A growing body of research suggests that one promising way to counteract the politicization of science is to convey the high level of normative agreement (“consensus”) among experts about the reality of human‐caused climate change. Yet, much prior research examining public opinion dynamics in the context of climate change has done so under conditions with limited external validity. Moreover, no research to date has examined how to protect the public from the spread of influential misinformation about climate change. The current research bridges this divide by exploring how people evaluate and process consensus cues in a polarized information environment. Furthermore, evidence is provided that it is possible to pre‐emptively protect (“inoculate”) public attitudes about climate change against real‐world misinformation.

Although the majority of parents understand the benefits of immunization and support its use, many parents have important misconceptions that could erode their confidence in vaccines. A systematic educational effort addressing common misconceptions is needed to ensure informed immunization decision-making. Physicians, nurses, and other providers of primary care have a unique opportunity to educate parents because parents see them as the most important source of information about immunizations.vaccination, immunization, pediatric, safety, health beliefs.

Climate change arguably represents one of the greatest global health threats of our time. Health professionals can advocate for global efforts to reduce emissions and protect people from climate change; however, evidence of their willingness to do so remains scarce. In this Viewpoint, we report findings from a large, multinational survey of health professionals (n=4654) that examined their views of climate change as a human health issue. Consistent with previous research, participants in this survey largely understood that climate change is happening and is caused by humans, viewed climate change as an important and growing cause of health harm in their country, and felt a responsibility to educate the public and policymakers about the problem. Despite their high levels of commitment to engaging in education and advocacy on the issue, many survey participants indicated that a range of personal, professional, and societal barriers impede them from doing so, with time constraints being the most widely reported barrier. However, participants say various resources-continuing professional education, communication training, patient education materials, policy statements, action alerts, and guidance on how to make health-care workplaces sustainable-can help to address those barriers. We offer recommendations on how to strengthen and support health professional education and advocacy activities to address the human health challenges of climate change.

No abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study quantifies the representativeness with which the print news media depict mortality. METHODS: The proportion of mortality-related copy in samples of national print media was compared with the proportion of actual deaths attributable to the leading causes of US mortality over a 1-year period. RESULTS: For every tested cause of death, a significant disproportion was found between amount of text devoted to the cause and the actual number of attributable deaths. Underrepresented causes included tobacco use (23% of expected copy) and heart disease (33%); overrepresented causes included illicit use of drugs (1740%), motor vehicles (1280%), and toxic agents (1070%). CONCLUSIONS: The news media significantly misrepresent the prevalence of leading causes of death and their risk factors. This misrepresentation may contribute to the public's distorted perceptions of health threats.