Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-shngb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T11:03:15.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Interdisciplinary methods for researching climate-mental health links through the Methane Early Warning Network (ME-NET): improving ‘visibility’ and integrating complex multi-datasets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2024

A response to the following question: What are the likely impacts of climate change on rates of depression and other mood disorders? What actions can be taken by individuals, communities or nations to reduce those impacts?

Harriet Elizabeth Moore*
Affiliation:
Lincoln Institute for Rural and Coastal Health, University of Lincoln, College of Health and Science, Lincoln, UK Development, Inequalities, Resilience, and Environments (DIRE) Research Group, Lincoln, UK
John Atanbori
Affiliation:
School of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Lincoln, College of Health and Science, Lincoln, UK
Ebenezer Forkuo Amankwaa
Affiliation:
Department of Geography and Resource Development, University of Ghana, Legon, Greater Accra, Ghana
Mark Gussy
Affiliation:
Lincoln Institute for Rural and Coastal Health, University of Lincoln, College of Health and Science, Lincoln, UK Development, Inequalities, Resilience, and Environments (DIRE) Research Group, Lincoln, UK
Aloysius Niroshan Siriwardena
Affiliation:
School of Health and Social Care, University of Lincoln, College of Health and Science, Lincoln, UK Community and Health Research Unit (CaHRU), Lincoln, UK
Edward Hanna
Affiliation:
School of Natural Science, University of Lincoln, College of Health and Science, Lincoln, UK Lincoln Climate Research Group, Lincoln, UK
*
Corresponding author: Harriet Elizabeth Moore; Email: HaMoore@lincoln.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Climatic and atmospheric conditions impact mental health, including increased incidents of depression associated with air pollution. A growing body of research considers time-bound ‘snap-shots’ of climatic drivers and mental health outcomes. Less is known about the likely effects of future climate change on mental health. Research is often inhibited by data scarcity, the challenge of synthesising data across multiple geospatial and temporal scales, and the under-representation of hard-to-reach groups. Thus, research methods are needed to integrate and analyse complex environmental and mental health multi-datasets while improving the visibility of under-represented groups. In this methods paper we present a novel approach for investigating the impact of climate change on mental health and addressing some challenges with, a) invisibility of vulnerable groups, and b) integrating complex environmental and mental health multi-datasets. The research aim is to pilot a web-based and smartphone application (Methane Early Warning Network (ME-NET)) for investigating the role of methane as a precursor of on-ground ozone, and the impact of ozone on mental health outcomes to improve civic knowledge and health-protection behaviour in the United Kingdom and Ghana. The methods include exploring the feasibility of using machine learning to develop an ozone early warning system and application co-design.

Information

Type
Results
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Author comment: Interdisciplinary methods for researching climate-mental health links through the Methane Early Warning Network (ME-NET): improving ‘visibility’ and integrating complex multi-datasets — R0/PR1

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Interdisciplinary methods for researching climate-mental health links through the Methane Early Warning Network (ME-NET): improving ‘visibility’ and integrating complex multi-datasets — R0/PR2

Comments

This paper outlines an important research project addressing several significant challenges in the climate change and mental health field. The outcomes of this research - and its methodology - will be of important value to both the climate and mental health research field and to advancing support for people experiencing the mental health impacts of climate change. The paper is very well written, clear and accessible.

My comments are minor - just flagging a few areas that I think would benefit from greater clarity:

1) I was not clear from the paper over what timescale the data is being collected (appreciating that the authors note some of this will depend on data completeness and availability). For example, over what period will users be asked to self-report health symptoms for this data to be integrated/compared? How long will the prototype app be tested for before evaluation?

2) It wasn't until the end of the paper that I felt fully clear about who the target users are of the application itself - some slight re-ordering to make this clearer earlier on in the 'summary of the research' I think would be helpful. Participation of researchers in the application is also mentioned - is the app targeted to only civic knowledge and health protection behaviours, or also to connect researchers with access to data etc?

3) The authors have given thoughtful consideration to ensuring appropriate representation of those often excluded from research - the co-design and centering of lived experience expertise and data is a real strength of the approach. Will this involve one co-design process to create a standardised application version across the UK and Ghana contexts, or will elements of design be different depending on the results of the co-design on what can maximise accessibility and cultural relevance in the two contexts?

4) The authors mention the inclusion of additional weather and health datasets - I assume this will enable the analysis to account for other known influences on mental health outcomes sucvh

Is there a proposed application of this work to influence the development of climate and mental health integrated national level health surveillance and early warning systems? Climate-informed health surveillance and early warning systems for mental and psychosocial health are fairly scarce (see the WHO Climate and Health survey 2021) and this work could be hugely beneficial in advancing knowledge of how such integrated systems can be implemented and the importance of doing so.

Presentation

Overall score 4 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
5 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
4 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
5 out of 5

Context

Overall score 5 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context and indicate the relevance of the results to the question or hypothesis under consideration? (25%)
5 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Results

Overall score 4 out of 5
Is sufficient detail provided to allow replication of the study? (50%)
4 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the results clearly outlined? (50%)
3 out of 5

Review: Interdisciplinary methods for researching climate-mental health links through the Methane Early Warning Network (ME-NET): improving ‘visibility’ and integrating complex multi-datasets — R0/PR3

Comments

Are the findings novel?

If this is an analysis of previously analysed results, is the new contribution novel and relevant?

Are the controls used in the experiment valid?

Is the data presented in the most useful manner?

Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the results clearly outlined?

Dear authors, this is an interesting manuscript addressing important challenges as you outlined. There are issues with the structure and further content needed in the methods; please find detailed comments below.

Abstract

- P. 2 line 8 – 9: “Little is understood about the likely effects of climate change on mental health”; there is actually large amount of research in this field now so I don’t think this statement quite rings true. You can definitely still talk about the challenges that exist in the field. Note this also applies to where you’ve stated this in the introduction.

- P. 2 line 18: define ME-NET

- P. 2 line 18 – 22: Long sentence and a bit unclear. Perhaps split up to clearly define the research aim and then the implications.

- Overall, the abstract is quite repetitive and mostly focused on context. The background information could be condensed and more information on the methods could be provided.

Introduction and methods

- You begin the introduction talking about the impact of extreme weather on mental health, however, I’m not sure how relevant this is given the main exposures in your proposed methodology are methane and ozone. I would suggest starting the introduction talking about climate change and mental health broadly, then provide context about methane and ozone – you can use some of the information you provided in the start of your Methods section under ‘Summary of the research’.

- You should also reference the Question paper that you’re addressing; as stated in the Author instructions, under introduction – “Brief background of the rationale and prior research for the study, highlights how the study addresses the specific Question paper”.

- Be more explicit that this is a methods paper (and also mention this in the abstract) e.g. p. 2 line 27, “In this Methods Paper…”

- This is a paper that’s highly relevant to this work: Massazza A, Teyton A, Charlson F, Benmarhnia T, Augustinavicius JL. Quantitative methods for climate change and mental health research: current trends and future directions. Lancet Planet Health. 2022 Jul;6(7):e613-e627. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00120-6 . I would recommend reading it if you haven’t already and using it as a reference, for example, when you describe ‘Challenge Two’ and the limitations of existing studies/methods.

- There is no need for the ‘Summary of the research’ section in the methods. The Methods section should explicitly focus on the methodology; all the context and rationale should be provided in the introduction. Think about all the details that another researcher would need in order to replicate the study.

- P. 5 line 192: you mention that respiratory data will be incorporated in the model; is this as an outcome that will be investigated? It is not mentioned anywhere else in the manuscript.

- The research aims and questions should be moved to the end of the introduction.

- P.4, paragraph beginning line 146, you mention that this methodology was developed to deliver the ME-NET project, and explain some steps that have been done including undertaking conceptual development with stakeholders. It would be good to make it clearer at what stage the project currently is, and perhaps in your methods describe the process of recruiting stakeholders and how you conducted the conceptual development. Are these stakeholders the same as the ‘stakeholder engagement

boards’ mentioned on p. 7 line 270? If so, make this clear. You’ve also stated on p. 5 line 159 that these boards will be involved in the co-design of the ME-NET application, and then on p. 6 line 212 that the application will be co-designed with lived experience experts. In your methods, you should describe this co-design process in more detail.

- P. 6 line 221: I’m not sure how smartphone penetration can be 140%; I went to check the reference and it was not listed in the References section.

- Another missing reference on p. 5 line 154 (Graham 2022); please ensure all references cited are in the References section.

- P. 7 paragraph starting line 286, ‘Sentinel 5P satellite data’. This is quite a technical list; it would be good to explain in a way that someone who’s not familiar with this type of data would understand, and there are also a number of acronyms and terms that have not been defined e.g. UVN, SWIR, L1b, L2. Rather than just a list, have a paragraph like you did for the mental health data.

- On p. 3, line 75, you stated that in SSA, “Service use data often grossly underrepresent mental health condition rates in the region”. It was interesting to note that for the observational mental health data from Ghana, you’ve used data from health services. It would be good to explain this choice in relation to this issue.

- On the use of the term ‘multi-datasets’; this is not a term that I’m familiar with and a quick google suggests it’s not so commonly used. If it is referring to a specific type of dataset, it would be good to provide a definition.

Overall, your Introduction should be merged with the ‘Summary of the research’ and ‘Research aims, questions’ from your Methods, with repetition removed. For example, you could have a paragraph or two each addressing the following: context around climate change and mental health, and methane and ozone; the research challenges (which I think can be condensed); background to your proposed methods (i.e. machine learning, smart-phone context) and how this addresses the challenges; ending with research aims and questions. Then your methods section can start of with a brief explanation of the project context (what’s been done so far), location, population, data sources and then the steps that you will take to develop the platform/application and analyse the data. Be consistent with your terminology around ME-NET, as you’ve called it an “integrated data platform” in the abstract and aims, and an application elsewhere. Also looking back at your research questions, it’s a bit unclear how you are going to address these – Q1: does this simply refer to the development of the application, or will you be assessing its effectiveness? I think Q2 and 3 relate to your data analysis, in terms of predictions and measuring impacts. Your data analysis section in the Methods needs to be elaborated on accordingly, and is currently quite vague – what does ‘for integrating health data to understand climate-health relationships’ mean exactly, and how will you determine whether predicted health outcomes reflect lived experiences of health outcomes.

Presentation

Overall score 4 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
5 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
4 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
5 out of 5

Context

Overall score 5 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context and indicate the relevance of the results to the question or hypothesis under consideration? (25%)
5 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Results

Overall score 4 out of 5
Is sufficient detail provided to allow replication of the study? (50%)
4 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the results clearly outlined? (50%)
3 out of 5

Decision: Interdisciplinary methods for researching climate-mental health links through the Methane Early Warning Network (ME-NET): improving ‘visibility’ and integrating complex multi-datasets — R0/PR4

Comments

Please take note of the extensive commentary of reviewer 2 and in particular the note about little is known about the mental health effects of climate change. As this is a rapidly developing field, it may be more appropriate to note that there are many new results and methods appearing in the public domain currently. So please provide, a more detailed response to reviewer 2 and adjust the manuscript accordingly.

Author comment: Interdisciplinary methods for researching climate-mental health links through the Methane Early Warning Network (ME-NET): improving ‘visibility’ and integrating complex multi-datasets — R1/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Interdisciplinary methods for researching climate-mental health links through the Methane Early Warning Network (ME-NET): improving ‘visibility’ and integrating complex multi-datasets — R1/PR6