Co-developing climate services for public health: stakeholder needs and perceptions for the prevention and control of Aedes-transmitted diseases in the Caribbean.

Stewart-Ibarra, A. M.; Romero, M.; Hinds, A. Q. J.; Lowe, R.; Mahon, R.; Van Meerbeeck, C. J.; Rollock, L.; Gittens-St. Hillaire, M.; St. Ville, S.; Ryan, S. J.; Trotman, A. R.; Borbor-Cordova, M. J.

doi:10.1101/587188

bioRxiv · 10.1101/587188

Co-developing climate services for public health: stakeholder needs and perceptions for the prevention and control of Aedes-transmitted diseases in the Caribbean.

Stewart-Ibarra, A. M.·Romero, M.·Hinds, A. Q. J.·Lowe, R.·Mahon, R.·Van Meerbeeck, C. J.·Rollock, L.·Gittens-St. Hillaire, M.·St. Ville, S.·Ryan, S. J.·Trotman, A. R.·Borbor-Cordova, M. J.

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BackgroundSmall island developing states (SIDS) in the Caribbean region are challenged with managing the health outcomes of a changing climate. Health and climate sectors have partnered to co-develop climate services to improve the management of these diseases, for example, through the development of climate-driven early warning systems. The objective of this study was to identify health and climate stakeholder perceptions and needs in the Caribbean, with respect to the development of climate services for arboviruses (e.g. dengue, chikungunya, and Zika).\n\nMethodsStakeholders included public decision makers and practitioners from the climate and health sectors at the regional (Caribbean) level and from the countries of Dominica and Barbados. From April to June 2017, we conducted interviews (n=41), surveys (n=32), and national workshops with stakeholders. Survey responses were tabulated and audio recordings were transcribed and analyzed using qualitative coding to identify responses by research topic, country/region, and sector.\n\nResultsHealth practitioners indicated that their jurisdiction is currently experiencing an increased risk of diseases transmitted by Ae. aegypti due to climate variability, and most anticipated that this risk will increase in the future. National health sectors reported financial limitations and a lack of technical expertise in geographic information systems (GIS), statistics, and modeling, which constrained their ability to implement climate services for arboviruses. National climate sectors were constrained by a lack of personnel. Stakeholders highlighted the need to strengthen partnerships with the private sector, academia, and civil society. They identified a gap in local research on climate-arbovirus linkages, which constrained the ability of the health sector to make informed decisions. Strategies to strengthen the climate-health partnership included a top-down approach by engaging senior leadership, multi-lateral collaboration agreements, national committees on climate and health, and shared spaces of dialogue. Mechanisms for mainstreaming climate services for health operations to control arboviruses included climate-health bulletins and an online GIS platform that would allow for regional data sharing and the generation of spatiotemporal epidemic forecasts.\n\nConclusionsThese findings support the creation of interdisciplinary and intersectoral communities of practices and the co-design of climate services for the Caribbean public health sector. By fostering the effective use of climate information within health policy, research and practice, nations will have greater capacity to adapt to a changing climate.

Source connections

Published article ↗

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and education Preprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Stewart-Ibarra, A. M., Romero, M., Hinds, A. Q. J., Lowe, R., Mahon, R., Van Meerbeeck, C. J., Rollock, L., Gittens-St. Hillaire, M., St. Ville, S., Ryan, S. J., Trotman, A. R., Borbor-Cordova, M. J.. 2019-03-25. Co-developing climate services for public health: stakeholder needs and perceptions for the prevention and control of Aedes-transmitted diseases in the Caribbean.. https://doi.org/10.1101/587188

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2019

Is useful research data usually shared? An investigation of genome-wide association study summary statistics

Primary data collected during a research study is increasingly shared and may be re-used for new studies. To assess the extent of data sharing in favourable circumstances and whether such checks can be automated, this article investigates the summary statistics of primary human genome-wide association studies (GWAS). This type of data is highly suitable for sharing because it is a standard research output, is straightforward to use in future studies (e.g., for secondary analysis), and may be already stored in a standard format for internal sharing within multi-site research projects. Manual checks of 1799 articles from 2010 and 2017 matching a simple PubMed query for molecular epidemiology GWAS were used to identify 330 primary human GWAS papers. Of these, only 10.6% reported the location of a complete set of GWAS summary data, increasing from 4.3% in 2010 to 16.8% in 2017. Whilst information about whether data was shared was usually located clearly within a data availability statement, the exact nature of the shared data was usually unspecified. Thus, data sharing is the exception even in suitable research fields with relatively strong norms regarding data sharing. Moreover, the lack of clear data descriptions within data sharing statements greatly complicates the task of automatically characterising shared data sets.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2019

Dissemination and Stakeholder Engagement Practices Among Dissemination & Implementation Scientists: Results from an Online Survey

IntroductionThere has been an increasing focus on disseminating research findings, but less about practices specific to disseminating and engaging non-researchers. The present project sought to describe dissemination practices and engagement of stakeholders among dissemination & implementation (D&I) scientists.\n\nMethodsMethods to disseminate to and engage non-research stakeholders were assessed using an online survey sent to a broad, diverse sample of D&I scientists.\n\nResultsSurveys were received from 210 participants. The majority of respondents were from university or research settings in the U.S. (69%) or Canada (13%), representing a mix of clinical (28%) and community settings (34%). 26% had received formal training in D&I. Respondents indicated routinely engaging in a variety of dissemination-related activities, with academic journal publications (88%), conference presentations (86%), and reports to funders (74%) being the most frequent. Journal publication was identified as the most impactful on respondents careers (94%), but face-to-face meetings with stakeholders were rated as most impactful on practice or policy (40%). Stakeholder involvement in research was common, with clinical and community-based researchers engaging stakeholder groups in broadly similar ways, but with critical differences noted between researchers with greater seniority, those with more D&I training, those based in the US, and those in community vs, clinical research settings.\n\nConclusionsThere have been increases in stakeholder engagement, but few other practices since the 2012 survey, and some differences across subgroups. Methods to engage different stakeholders deserve more in-depth investigation. D&I researchers report substantial misalignment of incentives and behaviors related to dissemination to non-research audiences.

scientific communication and education↗