Ambient temperature and mental health: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence indicates that ambient outdoor temperature could affect mental health, which is especially concerning in the context of climate change. We aimed to comprehensively analyse the current evidence regarding the associations between ambient temperature and mental health outcomes. METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence regarding associations between ambient outdoor temperature and changes in mental health outcomes. We searched WebOfScience, Embase, PsychINFO, and PubMed for articles published from database origin up to April 7, 2022. Eligible articles were epidemiological, observational studies in humans of all ages, which evaluated real-world responses to ambient outdoor temperature, and had mental health as a documented outcome; studies of manipulated or controlled temperature or those with only physical health outcomes were excluded. All eligible studies were synthesised qualitatively. If three or more studies reported the same or equivalent effect statistics and if they had equivalent exposure, outcome, and metrics, the studies were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis. The risk of bias for individual studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The quality of evidence across studies was assessed using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) approach. FINDINGS: 114 studies were included in the systematic review, of which 19 were suitable for meta-analysis. Three meta-analyses were conducted for suicide outcomes: a 1°C increase in mean monthly temperature was associated with an increase in incidence of 1·5% (95% CI 0·8-2·2, p<0·001; n=1 563 109, seven effects pooled from three studies); a 1°C increase in mean daily temperature was associated with an increase in incidence of 1·7% (0·3-3·0, p=0·014; n=113 523, five effects pooled from five studies); and a 1°C increase in mean monthly temperature was associated with a risk ratio of 1·01 (95% CI 1·00-1·01, p<0·001; n=111 794, six effects pooled from three studies). Three meta-analyses were conducted for hospital attendance or admission for mental illness: heatwaves versus non-heatwave periods were associated with an increase in incidence of 9·7% (95% CI 7·6-11·9, p<0·001; n=362 086, three studies); the risk ratio at the 99th percentile of daily mean temperature compared with the 50th percentile was 1·02 (95% CI 1·01-1·03, p=0·006; n=532 296, three studies); and no significant association was found between a 10°C increase in daily mean temperature and hospital attendance. In a qualitative narrative synthesis, we found that ambient outdoor temperature (including absolute temperatures, temperature variability, and heatwaves) was positively associated with attempted and completed suicides (86 studies), hospital attendance or admission for mental illness (43 studies), and worse outcomes for community mental health and wellbeing (19 studies), but much of the evidence was of low certainty with high heterogeneity. INTERPRETATION: Increased temperature and temperature variability could be associated with increased cases of suicide and suicidal behaviour, hospital attendance or admission for mental illness, and poor community health and wellbeing. Climate change is likely to increase temperature anomalies, variability, and heatwaves as well as average temperatures; as such, health system leaders and policy makers must be adequately prepared and should develop adaptation strategies. More high-quality, standardised research is required to improve our understanding of these effects. FUNDING: None.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle