Anthropogenic climate change is adversely impacting people and contributing to suffering and increased costs from climate-related diseases and injuries. In responding to this urgent and growing public health crisis, mitigation strategies are in place to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) while adaptation strategies exist to reduce and/or alleviate the adverse effects of climate change by increasing systems’ resilience to future impacts. While these strategies have numerous positive benefits on climate change itself, they also often have other positive externalities or health co-benefits. This knowledge can be harnessed to promote and improve global public health, particularly for the most vulnerable populations. Previous conceptual models in mitigation and adaptation studies such as the shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) considered health in the thinking, but health outcomes were not their primary intention. Additionally, existing guidance documents such as the World Health Organization (WHO) Guidance for Climate Resilient and Environmentally Sustainable Health Care Facilities is designed primarily for public health professionals or healthcare managers in hospital settings with a primary focus on resilience. However, a detailed cross sectoral and multidisciplinary conceptual framework, which links mitigation and adaptation strategies with health outcomes as a primary end point, has not yet been developed to guide research in this area. In this paper, we briefly summarize the burden of climate change on global public health, describe important mitigation and adaptation strategies, and present key health benefits by giving context specific examples from high, middle, and low-income settings. We then provide a conceptual framework to inform future global public health research and preparedness across sectors and disciplines and outline key stakeholders recommendations in promoting climate resilient systems and advancing health equity.

Access to green schoolyards (schoolyards designed with greenery and natural elements to create a park-like environment, as opposed to asphalt-based playgrounds) are associated with many benefits for students, including improvements in physical and mental health. While many studies examining these associations are cross-sectional, some feature experimental designs that offer the possibility of causal inference. In this review, we looked at experimental studies that examine the impact of schoolyard greening on measures of physical activity and socioemotional health in children. Four electronic databases (Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus and Greenfile) were searched, and from 1843 articles retrieved, 6 articles met the inclusion criteria. Examination of the eligible studies revealed a general consensus on the positive impact of schoolyard greening on both physical activity and socioemotional health outcomes for students, suggesting that schoolyard greening is a viable intervention in reducing the health equity gaps and improving children’s health regardless of their racial or ethnic backgrounds or residential neighborhood socioeconomic status. Further experimental research on this topic should elucidate how educators, administrators, policy makers, and other stakeholders can harness the benefits of schoolyard greening to improve the health and well-being of children in their communities.

The intersecting negative effects of structural racism, COVID-19, climate change, and chronic diseases disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minorities in the US and around the world. Urban populations of color are concentrated in historically redlined, segregated, disinvested, and marginalized neighborhoods with inadequate quality housing and limited access to resources, including quality greenspaces designed to support natural ecosystems and healthy outdoor activities while mitigating urban environmental challenges such as air pollution, heat island effects, combined sewer overflows and poor water quality. Disinvested urban environments thus contribute to health inequity via physical and social environmental exposures, resulting in disparities across numerous health outcomes, including COVID-19 and chronic diseases such as cancer and cardiovascular diseases (CVD). In this paper, we build off an existing conceptual framework and propose another conceptual framework for the role of greenspace in contributing to resilience and health equity in the US and beyond. We argue that strategic investments in public greenspaces in urban neighborhoods impacted by long term economic disinvestment are critically needed to adapt and build resilience in communities of color, with urgency due to immediate health threats of climate change, COVID-19, and endemic disparities in chronic diseases. We suggest that equity-focused investments in public urban greenspaces are needed to reduce social inequalities, expand economic opportunities with diversity in workforce initiatives, build resilient urban ecosystems, and improve health equity. We recommend key strategies and considerations to guide this investment, drawing upon a robust compilation of scientific literature along with decades of community-based work, using strategic partnerships from multiple efforts in Milwaukee Wisconsin as examples of success.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of global morbidity and mortality. Cancer survivors have significantly elevated risk of poor cardiovascular (CV) health outcomes due to close co-morbid linkages and shared risk factors between CVD and cancer, as well as adverse effects of cancer treatment-related cardiotoxicity. CVD and cancer-related outcomes are exacerbated by increased risk of inflammation. Results from different pharmacological interventions aimed at reducing inflammation and risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) have been largely mixed to date. Greenspaces have been shown to reduce inflammation and have been associated with CV health benefits, including reduced CVD behavioral risk factors and overall improvement in CV outcomes. Greenspace may, thus, serve to alleviate the CVD burden among cancer survivors. To understand pathways through which greenspace can prevent or reduce adverse CV outcomes among cancer survivors, we review the state of knowledge on associations among inflammation, CVD, cancer, and existing pharmacological interventions. We then discuss greenspace benefits for CV health from ecological to multilevel studies and a few existing experimental studies. Furthermore, we review the relationship between greenspace and inflammation, and we highlight forest bathing in Asian-based studies while presenting existing research gaps in the US literature. Then, we use the socioecological model of health to present an expanded conceptual framework to help fill this US literature gap. Lastly, we present a way forward, including implications for translational science and a brief discussion on necessities for virtual nature and/or exposure to nature images due to the increasing human–nature disconnect; we also offer guidance for greenspace research in cardio-oncology to improve CV health outcomes among cancer survivors.

Background Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer among US women; and institutional racism is a critical cause of health disparities. We investigated impacts of historical redlining on BC treatment receipt and survival in the US. Methods Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) boundaries were used to measure historical redlining. Eligible women in the 2010-2017 SEER-Medicare BC Cohort were assigned an HOLC grade. The independent variable was a dichotomized HOLC grade: A/B (non-redlined), and C/D (redlined). Outcomes of receipt of various cancer treatments, all-cause mortality (ACM), and BC-specific mortality (BCSM) were analyzed using logistic or Cox models. Indirect effects by comorbidity were examined. Results Among 18,119 women, 65.7% resided in historically redlined areas (HRAs) and 32.6% were deceased at a median follow-up of 58 months. A larger proportion of deceased women resided in HRAs (34.5% vs 30.0%). Of all deceased women, 41.6% died of BC; a larger proportion residing in HRAs (43.4% vs 37.8%). Historical redlining significantly predicted poorer survival after BC diagnosis; HR [95%CI] = 1.09 [1.03-1.15] for ACM, and 1.26 [1.13-1.41] for BCSM. Indirect effects via comorbidity were identified. Historical redlining was associated with a lower likelihood of receiving surgery; OR [95%CI] = 0.74 [0.66-0.83], and a higher likelihood of receiving palliative care OR [95%CI] = 1.41 [1.04-1.91]. Conclusion Historical redlining is associated with differential treatment receipt and poorer survival for ACM and BCSM. Relevant stakeholders should consider historical contexts when designing/implementing equity-focused interventions to reduce BC disparities. Clinicians should advocate for healthier neighborhoods while providing care.