Climate change education in public health and medical curricula in Australian and New Zealand Universities: a mixed methods study of barriers and areas for further action

Quantitative survey

Of the 48 participants invited to take part in the quantitative survey, 21 responded (43.7%) of which 16 were from Australia, two were from New Zealand and the remaining three participants chose not to report their institution. There was an approximately equal response rate for academics convening into public health (n=8) and medical (n=9) programmes, with two participants indicating Planetary Health and Health Sciences, and two participants indicating they did not directly convene courses.

Participants spanned a range of levels of seniority, with 23.8% (n=5) being professors, 23.8% (n=5) being associate professors, 14.3% (n=3) reporting holding PhDs, 14.35% (n=3) reporting senior lectureship, and one each of director and senior fellow (three participants did not specify their academic titles). The majority of the participants had taught into their programs for some time, with 52.4% (n=11) having taught for over 5 years, 38.1% (n=8) for between 2-5 years, and 9.5%(n=2) for less than two years. Over half (61.9%, n=13) of survey participants taught into postgraduate courses with 19% (n=4) teaching into both and 19.1% (n=4) teaching into undergraduate courses. Most educators rated themselves as moderately (33.3%, n=7), very (28.5%, n=6) and extremely knowledgeable (23.8%, n=5) regarding the association between climate change and health impacts. Three participants indicated they were slightly knowledgeable, or not very knowledgeable at all.

Qualitative interviews

A total of 10 people volunteered for a further face-to-face interview (4.8%) of up to 35 minutes long. Five participants lectured into Public Health programs and five into Medical Degree programmes. Participants represented a wide geographic region (two from New Zealand, three from Queensland and New South Wales each and one each from Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory). Most respondents were at the Associate Professor or Professor level of seniority.

Nonresponse bias

Respondent characteristics for both online survey and qualitative interviews approximately equally represented public health and medical programmes. The original sampling frame consisted of 24 institutions (23 in Australia, one in New Zealand). Survey respondents represented 12 institutions, located in New Zealand, and in Australia in New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia, and the Australian Capital Territory. Qualitative interviews covered the same geographical region. Accordingly, the sample does not represent perspectives from institutions in South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, or the Northern Territory. While the online survey represented all levels of seniority, the qualitative interviews were biased toward more senior academic positions, thus views of postdoctoral early or mid-career researchers are under-represented.

Climate and environmental change content context and importance

Of the courses that participants convened or taught into, climate and environmental change was most often integrated into a wider public health or medical degree program (57.14%, n=12), rather than being a separate standalone course (23.8%, n=5), or having both integrated and standalone components (0.09%, n=2). Two participants did not specify course integration. Reflecting on the proportion of the total public health or medical degree program, all but one participant indicated that less than 5% of the degree lecture and assessment content focussed on climate change and health (90.0% of the 11 participants who completed this question). Figure 1 summarises brief open-ended reflections on why respondents think it is important for public health/medical students to learn about climate change. Emergent themes were that climate change was a health emergency and learning about extremes, adaptation and mitigation option and the role of social determinants of health in community were important. Academics also felt that students in public health and medical programmes had an important role to play as advocates and respected members of the community in voicing the importance of climate change as a challenge for health systems.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Word cloud from open-ended responses reflection on why it is important for public health/medical students to learn about climate change

Curriculum design and delivery

Reflections on the extent to which specific topics were covered in participant’s climate-health curricula are summarised in Figure 2. Notably, across all but one topic, participants rated coverage between “far too little” and “neither too little nor too much”. Only one topic, “health effects of environmental change” had any ratings indicating too much coverage, with one participant indicating this topic was covered “slightly too much”.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Summary of curriculum structure coverage in participant’s climate-health curricula

Two thirds of participants (66.7%, n=14) used more than one method to assess climate-health knowledge. The most common method was quizzes (used by 52%, n=11), followed by essays (used by 48%, n=10), exams (used by 38%, n=8), critical appraisal of journal articles (used by 19%, n=4), peer teaching (used by 14%, n=3) and capstone work (used by 14%, n=3), with only 5% (n=1) of participants reporting using placements or internships outside of their universities.

Subject matter was updated largely through reliance on subject matter experts brought in to give lectures (endorsed by 71.4%, n=15 participants), the scholarly literature (endorsed by 47.6%, n=10) and consultation with academic colleagues (endorsed by 52.4%, n=11 participants). As can be seen from Figure 4, the most common expert role for informing course content/guest lecturing was epidemiologists, followed by clinicians and social scientists, and environmental scientists. In relation to future offerings, nine participants (42.8%) indicated there was nothing new being considered. Five responses (23.8%) mentioned a standalone elective course being considered, four (19.1%) mentioned the possibility of a session in a required course while three responses (19%) mentioned climate-health doctoral degrees being considered. One participant (4.7%) mentioned existing partnerships with other academic institutions and non-academic institutions (business, government, NGO) in relation to course structure, two (9.5%) participants indicated partnerships with academic institutions and four participants mentioned existing partnerships with non-government institutions.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Summary of modes of information delivery

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4.

Expert roles in development and teaching of climate-health offerings

Themes identified

Four overarching themes in relation to teaching climate and environmental change in public health and medical curricula were identified:

1. Indigenous perspectives

2. Barriers and facilitators

3. Considerations in delivery

4. Future areas

Code saturation (the point at which additional interviews ceased to indicate the presence of new themes) was reached at approximately seven interviews. Meaning saturation (the point at which each theme is clearly understood) varied by overarching theme: saturation was reached for themes (1) (2) and (3), but heterogeneity in theme (4) indicates additional interviews may have revealed more information. These four themes were embedded within the motivation and pathway that led interviewees into teaching in this area, which will be summarised first to provide the context from where the themes emerge.

Motivation and pathways to teaching climate and environmental change

The interviews raised two common threads which framed the importance of climate change teaching in public health and medical curricula. First, almost half the interviewees raised the large carbon footprint of healthcare as an important factor driving their motivation to educate students about the impacts of climate change, believing the students would have an obligation to help reduce this in their future careers as doctors and public health practitioners.

“Health, like all sectors has to decarbonize……If global healthcare were a country, it would rank number five in the world in terms of the amount the size of its footprint.”

“[we should] help professional graduates to be able to personally and professionally be able to reduce the footprint. So I feel very strongly about that as well.”

The second common thread was the role of the interconnectedness between the global environment, and social drivers that the future health workforce should be aware of and consider when making personal and professional decisions.

“The thing I often try and get across if I’m teaching about climate change is that climate change is just one example of a global environmental trends, and that it’s very much interlinked and interlocks with diversity loss, poverty and inequality.”

These threads informed participant reflections on their pathway into teaching in this area. This was often a process driven by individuals passionate about the topic, identifying a gap in the curriculum, and either developing their own curricula or advocating for the inclusion of an environment and/or climate change expert in the course delivery team. In a third of participants, this pathway began with sessional or guest lecturing into courses run by others.

“As a guest lecture [during PhD], to talk about climate change research methods in I think, undergraduate course. Then, when I moved to [city removed], as an academic staff, I discovered the gap in the curriculum in the teaching in public health, because there was zero content on climate change and health.”

“The undergrad teaching, I more or less developed the curriculum on my own.”

When reflecting on the teamwork underlying the delivery of environmental and climate change content, participants indicated working with an eclectic range of expertise, including policy consultancy, clinical practice, planetary health, field epidemiology, bioethics, business, and veterinary sciences.

Theme 1: Indigenous perspectives

An Indigenous perspective was universally seen as valuable in the design and delivery of environment, climate change and planetary health material.

Interviewees talked about the strong traditional connection to land and water as being a critical consideration in understanding environmental and climate change.

“We ignore their knowledge at our peril.”

Indigenous perspectives were seen as particularly important within the realm of health, due to existing health inequities and the differential impact that climate change may have on their health in the future. Several discussed an understanding that different Indigenous peoples may have different experiences of loss as a result of losing their environments due to climate change, and expressed the importance that future doctors and public health practitioners are sensitive to this and how online teaching methods may not be the most appropriate medium to deliver some content.

“The gap already exists in many health issues there. And climate is just another layer. And I think that the health equity inequity between Indigenous and other communities will be exaggerated by climate change, definitely.”

“There are certainly Aboriginal Health curricula that we can do on the online environment. But this sense of Country and sense of loss of Country, that’s gonna need a lot of thought before we include that into this particular medium.”

All the interviewees agreed on the need for Indigenous-led input into course development and design. This was achieved through inviting community leaders, academic colleagues, State Departments with expertise in the area and long-standing practitioners in communities. Integration of these perspectives to some degree was generally possible due to strong connections within departments and with external stakeholders.

“And Aboriginal environmental health is part of the [State Government] plan I work within. So I call on my colleagues there to come in and talk about the issues that that we have in Aboriginal communities.”

Some respondents indicated that they, regretfully, did not have the resources to properly engage with and reflect an Indigenous perspective in their course design or delivery, and did not feel it was appropriate to deliver such content matter themselves.

“You know, people like me who come from colonial roots from Europeans who have come here, don’t have those same connections, how could we [teach], you know, when you don’t have that long connection to the land.”

Theme 2: Barriers and facilitators

The most salient barriers and facilitators to the inclusion and delivery of environment and climate change into medical and public health curricula were time and resources, and appetite from decision makers, contributors, and students.

Time, resources and an already full curriculum

The most common barrier - endorsed by all interviewees - was the issue of limited time and resources. This reflects the fact that environment and climate change is one of many competing priorities within the full curricula being delivered.

“I would like to say we could do more, but I actually don’t think we can do more. In addition, something would have to come out. No one ever wants to give anything up in the curriculum, ever. So I think there’s this constant pressure on it.”

“It’s not lack of interest. It’s just lack of time.”

Appetite from decision makers (politics, institutions, culture)

Decision makers, and the role they play in how curriculum is organised and taught, were raised as a vital component of successfully integrating environment and climate change material into courses and programs. All interviewees talked the role of top down support as essential to bringing about change in the curriculum. Two interviewees mentioned national politics as a barrier to getting traction in this area.

“It’s all political.”

Institutional support and support from key individuals within institutions, such as heads of school and members of committees who drive curricula, was also seen as important in allowing more climate and environmental change to be embedded into the curricula. One factor underlying institutional support raised was awareness of the importance of environment and climate change for health.

“There’s institutional barriers about who [is] allowed time in the curriculum.”

“So the first thing you got to do is educate the faculty about the importance of these issues. Because otherwise they don’t necessarily, you know, they’re just not aware of it.[…] A lot of that teaching is really done by more senior academics, or at least if not done by them, supervised by them. They are the ones who sit on the committees, the curriculum committee, for example, that so they’re making decisions about what will and won’t be given space and the curriculum.”

A barrier to successfully raising awareness and convincing institutional decision-makers of the importance of environment and climate change for health, raised by two interviewees, was the historically conservative nature of medicine as a profession, and conservative views held by more senior practitioners and educators.

“It’s extremely conservative profession. And it is slow to change and slow to adapt to new things. And so I think it’s been slow to adapt very, very slow to, to start work on dealing with Climate change.”

On the flipside of these barriers, the role of key individuals and high-level support in giving prominence to climate/environmental change in the curricula was raised by most interviewees as a critical factor driving its inclusion.

“The only way to do it is to have champions.”

“I think, for me, it’s lucky because the Head of School is very supportive in developing this new curriculum.”

Reflecting the interviewee’s personal motivations and experiences leading to their teaching environment and climate change, there was an acknowledgement that bottom-up momentum was vital to meet any opportunities arising from top-down support.

“At the minute, it’s from the ground upwards, because I don’t see a lot coming from this side, even though even though organizations like the AMA, the Australian Medical Association have declared a climate emergency.”

Appetite from contributors

Academics also raised the role of contributors (lecturers, clinicians) as an important factor in making sure that climate and environmental change and planetary health were prominent in the curriculum. The need for contributions could be difficult due to siloed views, large time commitments to projects and the onus on individual course conveners and coordinators to drive the environmental health agenda forward.

“They sit in their silos and they don’t get out and they don’t break down those cross organisational borders. They’re really acutely aware that they’ve got these social silos, but it also goes up to organisational silos as well.”

“All the supervisors [are] working gratis, this has been an enormous amount of time guiding the students meeting with them last year, largely online. […] Within our population medicine theme, and had it not been for us pushing it, it would have really struggled to get a place in the curriculum.”

However, positive reactions from individuals who could contribute to the course were seen as highly beneficial.

“And I actually grabbed all the opportunities to talk about climate change and health with my colleagues here in the school. […] The colleagues are really appreciating the opportunities to engage with this topic. So then I think you need to be proactive.”

Appetite from students (willingness to engage/ask for the course)

Most academics mentioned the importance of student engagement in the topic as a key driver for making it fit into the curriculum. A common thread within these discussions was that students were often reluctant to engage at first, but their views became substantially more positive upon understanding the importance of environment and climate change for health.

“So we have to craft our way in communication in you know, getting students to understand the issue first. So they would be interested to know more to understand why we have to discuss this in the classroom. And I think that’s very challenging actually. Once you get people engaged and involved, and they are, I think many of them are passionate about what they can do to solve the problem.”

Theme 3: Considerations in delivery

Almost all of the interviewees recognised the importance of delivering information in a manner that students found engaging and thought provoking. One major component of achieving this was choosing the correct lecturers or being passionate themselves. The other was through avoiding delivery formats that were inappropriate for the students (especially those with clinical and caring responsibilities) and favouring active discussions with positive framing.

“It really boils down to being your how engaged you are with the subject matter, I think, and how enthusiastic you are about the subject matter. It comes through it in your teaching, and therefore, the students get more out of it.”

“Students hate group work. And I hate it with a passion.”

“I think most students are keen on solutions-based discussion rather than [focussing on] the problem.”

Forms of delivery raised as successful examples of promoting discussion included direct interaction with guest experts, online discussion forums, discussion of contemporary evidence (ideally, recent manuscripts authored by the lecturers themselves), and assessment formats focussing on critical thinking. Many interviewees indicated that their choice of delivery format, and what content was taught, was driven by considering the future trajectories of students.

“We’ll come back to what type of skills are we trying to teach the people that were taught?

You know, that were one of the one of the future roles and what are we trying to teach them?”

The specific environmental and climate content taught was motivated to some degree by the interviewee’s own expertise, guest lecturer availability, and availability of contemporary scholarly publications (many authored by the interviewees themselves) that could serve as a basis for discussion. One interviewee noted clinical accreditation standards tended to guide learning objectives, and consequently the nature, space, and content afforded to topics such as environment and climate change. Two interviewees raised the importance of the Australian Medical Association, both for setting this agenda, and as a source of topics for delivery.

“They [the Australian Medical Association] want to see the health sectors emissions cut by 80% by 2030. So we need to be doing this.”

At the time of interview, all interviewees had experienced an obligatory shift to online course delivery for at least one semester due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, the bulk of reflections on course delivery focussed on the transition from previously face-to-face to online teaching via platforms such as zoom and skype. Interviewees varied in their prior experience of online teaching, from no experience through to having provided multiple years of online delivery. For delivering content to students with caring responsibilities, jobs, and especially those with clinical responsibilities, the transition to online was seen as beneficial. Yet, some interviewees noted students raised concerns that online delivery decreases engagement and interactivity, particularly among students.

“[this change] demonstrated fairly clearly to us that we needed to move to meet the demands of the students that we have. the feedback that we’ve had is that the students really appreciate the flexibility […]with that cohort being, you know, medical practice, practitioners, nurses, etc, for it for GP doctor to take two weeks out of his practice, to come and do a course is almost impossible. It costs him 1000s and 1000s. of dollars.”

“I think some of the students did express their concerns about lacking of engagement in the online community.”

Theme 4: Future areas

Moving on from reflections on the history and current practice in teaching environment and climate change in public health and medical curricula, interviewees were asked to reflect on the future of their courses. Approximately half of interviewees reported an intention to expand cross-disciplinarity and education outside the classroom. Key areas highlighted for this expansion were policy, and local community engagement. This was discussed in terms of expanding the topics within existing delivery and seeking guest lecturers working in policy or embedded in climate change affected communities. Two interviewees further emphasised their desire to engage more with communities in future, indicating the prospect of more sustainably involving community input into their courses, and seeking to expand the impact of their teaching to the community level.

“Making it a more holistic programme where it becomes part of the thinking of the future medical doctors to think about these issues when they’re thinking about clinical issues.”

“Population capacity building, community education, I think, particularly this age of disinformation, got a big challenge to not just try and educate people within the universities, but also to reach out and try to try to interest and educate whole communities.”

Several of the interviewees noted that they intended to refresh their course content. This was typically related to the recognition that more recent topics, case studies, and scholarly manuscripts would enhance student engagement. Other motivations included creating a better fit at the program level by adjusting to changes in other courses and pivoting to reflect the current research of themselves and colleagues contributing to the course. One interviewee noted that ensuring the course content was contemporary was especially important for the student’s future practice.

“And the diversity of patients they’re going to see, for a specific condition, be it by age, group pain, by gender, by ethnicity… So that’s where there will be further fine tuning.”

Alongside expanding content, interviewees discussed opportunities for expanding the forms of delivery they could offer. While many touched on the possibilities that online delivery facilitated, their discussion generally did not extend to concrete intentions to experiment with online formats in ways that would change the course structure as a whole (e.g. shifting a semester-long course to an intensive or year-long online-only format). One interviewee raised their intention to meet calls for the micro accreditation (aka micro credentials) format from organisations such as the Public Health Association of Australia but did not pursue this due to lack of support from their institution’s leadership.

In terms of the future pedagogy of their teaching, the predominant thread across interviews was creating a possibility for students to engage more with researchers. One interviewee invoked the “capstone” paradigm as a method of ensuring students could make the most of a research-intensive experience.

“I would like to develop more than we do at the moment opportunities for being active in the student group, or other groups doing research in this area. So in the new curriculum, I am pushing for capstone experiences. Which could be a research project.”

Another source of pedagogical change was practice in related fields.

“I like going back to disaster management structures in that multifaceted approach very much. Because it actually works quite well. You know, people out of their comfort zone with a common purpose. Yeah. And maybe we can take that forward into our teaching in public health in different ways as well.”