Health professionals are among the most trusted sources of information about climate change and health in the United States. Their voices can help people understand how climate change affects health and build support for climate solutions. But what kinds of messages are most effective and which messages are health professionals themselves most comfortable using?
In a new paper published in Environmental Research: Health, “Optimizing health professionals’ climate advocacy messages,” we tested four different climate-health advocacy messages with a nationally representative sample of 1,007 U.S. adults. The study compared messages that called for ramping up clean energy (“do-more-good” messages) versus phasing out fossil fuels (“do-less-bad” messages) and messages that emphasized health benefits (gain-framed messages) versus health harms (loss-framed messages). Second, we surveyed 806 health professionals from the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health who participate in climate and health advocacy to learn which messages they would be most willing to use.
Key Findings
- Climate-health advocacy messages increased trust in health professionals as sources of information on climate change. All four messages produced a small increase in trust.
- Different message frames were similarly effective. Gain- and loss-framed messages performed similarly on most outcomes, as did do-more-good and do-less-bad messages.
- The appeal “Clean Energy Now” produced slightly greater support for renewable energy than “End Fossil Fuels,” and two messages—“End Fossil Fuels: Delay Means Death” and “Clean Energy Now: Start Saving Lives”—produced small reductions in support for fossil fuels.
- Health professionals strongly preferred positive messages about the health benefits of climate solutions, yet felt a duty to communicate health risks.
The overall findings suggest that health professionals can effectively use both positive and negative climate-health messages. In this experiment, both gain- and loss-framed messages, as well as both do-more-good and do-less-bad messages, increased trust in health professionals as sources of climate information.
The results also suggest that health professionals may be especially comfortable using positive, solution-focused messages. Messages about clean energy, healthier communities, and protecting children were substantially more appealing to the health professionals surveyed.
At the same time, health professionals should not feel that the evidence dictates that they must avoid communicating about the health harms of climate change. Loss-framed messages were no less effective than gain-framed messages across the outcomes tested. Moreover, past research shows that health risk information is important for conveying a sense of urgency and that oftentimes the most effective approach is to combine risk and solution information together. Communicating honestly about health risks may also be an important part of health professionals’ sense of professional responsibility.
To explore the full findings—including additional analyses and study limitations—access the open-access article in Environmental Research: Health.
Citation: Fine, J., Ettinger, J., Myers, T., Yue, Y., Patel, L., Kotcher, J., & Maibach, E. (2026). Optimizing health professionals’ climate advocacy messages. Environmental Research: Health, 4(3), 031003.