Planetary Health in Nursing: A Scoping Review.
Shannon Vandenberg, Jacqueline/Jack Avanthay Strus, Andrea Chircop and 2 others
PMID 39440466WHAT IT FOUND
Most nursing literature on planetary health consists of editorials and calls to action rather than original research.
Only six of the included studies were original research, leaving a significant gap in evidence on how nurses can effectively integrate planetary health into practice.
Key findings
01Of the 68 items included in the review, only six were original research studies, while the majority were discussion papers, editorials, or commentaries.
02The included literature is heavily skewed towards calls to action and theoretical discussion, with a notable lack of empirical evidence on nursing interventions for planetary health.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The search strategy required the explicit term 'planetary health', which may have excluded relevant literature using terms like 'environmental health' or 'climate change' without the specific phrase. Quality appraisal was not performed, which is standard for scoping reviews but means the reliability of the included studies was not assessed. The review may have missed interdisciplinary research where nurses were part of broader teams but the focus was not explicitly nursing.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the abundance of literature as evidence of effective clinical practice. The review found that most publications are opinion pieces or calls to action, with only six original research studies, meaning there is currently little empirical evidence to guide specific nursing interventions for planetary health.