evidence assessment library
Climate Devices and Strategies

Climate Devices and Strategies

There is sufficient evidence that the provision of climate devices is associated with improved health and social outcomes.

Assessment Post Image

Study Characteristics and Contextual Tags

chevron
Impact Assessment

The findings below synthesize the results of the studies on the provision of climate devices across three domains of measurement:

  • Healthcare Cost, Utilization & Value:  More evidence is needed to determine the effectiveness of climate devices and strategies in reducing healthcare costs and utilization. No cost-effectiveness or return-on-investment (ROI) data were identified for any evaluated device. Two modestly sized randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of home high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration found significant reductions in acute care utilization, one among adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and another among children with asthma. Additional RCTs across a wider diversity of device types, along with formal cost and ROI analyses, are required to establish sufficient cross-cutting evidence.
  • Health: There is sufficient evidence for the effectiveness of climate devices, particularly access to home air conditioning, in reducing heat-related mortality and morbidity. Observational studies found that increased air conditioning prevalence was consistently associated with reduced heat-related morbidity and mortality risk. A broader review of heat intervention studies found consistent reductions in heat-related mortality across a range of non-randomized study designs. However, evidence for other devices was more mixed: a systematic review focused on cooling centers highlighted a scarcity of real-world epidemiological trials outside of immediate laboratory settings, and RCTs of portable air filtration devices for asthma and COPD found benefits on specific environmental exposures and health metrics but not across all secondary clinical endpoints. Further research is needed to examine and compare direct clinical health benefits across different devices and strategies.
  • Social: There is sufficient evidence that the provision of climate devices like air filters and purifiers improves indoor environmental quality in homes and classrooms in the context of environmental events such as wildfires as well as ambient pollution. More research is needed to examine how the provision of climate devices relate to broader social outcomes such as overall wellbeing, social participation, mood and heat-protective behaviors.

Background of the Need / Need Impact on Health

Climate-related threats to health are a major source of injury, illness and death in the United States (U.S.). One such threats is extreme heat, which kills more people annually than hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods combined[1]. Syndromic surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) demonstrates that emergency department (ED) visits for heat-related illness rose substantially across multiple U.S. regions during the summer of 2023 compared with prior years[2]. A national study of mortality trends from 2000 to 2020 found that deaths linked to high temperatures climbed 53%, from an annual average of roughly 2,670 to more than 4,000, while cold-related deaths also rose over the same period[3].

Wildfire smoke events are also becoming more frequent. Nationally, wildfire smoke exposure is estimated to contribute to thousands of respiratory- and cardiovascular-related ED visits, hospital admissions, and deaths each year[4]. A Southern California study found respiratory hospitalizations rose between 1.3% and 10% for every 10 μg/m³ increase in wildfire-specific fine particulate matter (PM2.5), a substantially larger effect than equivalent increases in PM2.5 from other sources[4].

Certain populations bear a disproportionate share of climate threats. Adults aged 65 and older are at elevated risk of heat- and smoke-related illness because they are more likely to already have chronic heart or lung diseases[5]. Children are especially vulnerable to smoke exposure, while people with asthma may experience worsened symptoms or asthma attacks[4]. Additionally, people with fewer financial resources often have a reduced ability to manage their exposure to extreme temperatures and poor air quality, including less access to air conditioning or air cleaners, and a greater likelihood of living in lower-quality housing that traps heat and pollutants[5].

Background on the Intervention

Climate devices and strategies include both individual interventions where a person or a household is provided with an air filter or an air conditioner and community-level strategies to ensure community members have access to adequate cool spaces. Healthcare coverage is solely focused on the devices; however, healthcare institutions are often core partners in ensuring adequate access to temperature controlled and healthy air quality spaces.

Medicaid coverage for climate devices is generally accessed through Section 1115 demonstration waivers that let states cover health-related social needs (HRSN), non-medical services for high-need enrollees who have both a qualifying health condition and a social risk factor[6]. Under this waiver authority, Oregon's Medicaid program (the Oregon Health Plan) became one of the first in the country to cover "climate supports" for eligible members, including air conditioners, heaters, and air filters for individuals whose health condition is worsened by heat, cold, or poor air quality, along with mini refrigerators and portable power supplies for medication and medical-device needs during power outages[7]. As of 2024, Oregon had distributed climate-control devices to hundreds of Medicaid members through this benefit[8]. New York's Medicaid 1115 waiver similarly funds home environmental remediation and air-quality improvements for members with asthma, allergies, or other conditions worsened by unhealthy housing conditions[9]. As of early 2024, at least eight states had approved HRSN-framework waivers covering this type of benefit, with additional states holding earlier, related social-needs waiver approvals[10]. As of 2025, HRSN-related waivers were being considered on a case-by-case basis and were subject to change[11].  Medicaid Agencies and Medicaid Managed Care Organizations  may also provide climate related devices as value added benefits, community reinvestment services and In Lieu of Services (ILOS). 

Outside of Medicaid, the federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is the primary existing funding source for climate devices and serves millions of households nationally, providing help with heating and cooling bills, utility shutoff prevention, and, in some states, direct assistance purchasing or repairing window air conditioners or heating/cooling systems[12]. Several states require documentation from a licensed healthcare provider that a household member's condition is aggravated by extreme heat or cold in order to access LIHEAP's crisis or device-purchase benefits, tying eligibility explicitly to a clinical need rather than income alone.

Additional Research and Tools
Evidence Review
Note: The vocabulary used in the table is the same terminology used in the study in order to preserve the integrity of the summary. 
Study
Population
Intervention Summary
Type of Study Design
Outcomes

Households in east Los Angeles, California, enrolled in two ongoing residential HEPA filtration crossover trials at the time of the January 2025 Eaton Fire, a wildland-urban interface fire.

Portable HEPA purifiers placed in the living room and bedroom of each home, run continuously during the trial period, compared with visually identical sham purifiers with the HEPA filter removed.

Observational study with comparison group. N=27 households (11 HEPA, 16 sham), nested within two ongoing randomized crossover trials.

Social: Outdoor PM2.5 concentrations rose 148% during the active fire stage (from a before-fire average of 19 μg/m3 to 47 μg/m3), and indoor PM2.5 concentrations rose 91% (from 10 μg/m3 to 19 μg/m3).

Indoor PM2.5 concentrations were significantly lower in HEPA homes before the fire (9 [5] vs 11 [5] μg/m3, p<0.001) and during the active fire stage (17 [16] vs 20 [23] μg/m3, a 3 μg/m3, or approximately 15%, reduction; p=0.01), but did not differ significantly in the late fire stage (6 [3] vs 6 [4] μg/m3, p=0.589) or after fire (9 [5] vs 9 [6] μg/m3, p=0.540). Outdoor PM2.5 concentrations did not differ significantly between groups at any stage.

The indoor/outdoor [I/O] PM2.5 ratio was significantly lower in HEPA homes before the fire (0.53 [0.24] vs 0.61 [0.25], p<.001) and during the active fire (0.57 [0.26] vs 0.64 [0.29], p<.001), was statistically similar between groups in the late fire stage (0.63 [0.26] vs 0.62 [0.30], p=0.048), and had no significant difference after the fire (0.52 [0.21] vs 0.54 [0.26], p=0.234).

75 children aged six to 12 years with poorly controlled asthma, living in non-smoking homes within 800 meters of dairy or crop production in the Lower Yakima Valley, Washington, an agricultural community largely comprised of immigrant Latino farm worker families. 

The mean age was 9.2 years (intervention) and 8.6 years (control); approximately 35% of participants in both groups were female. All participants were Hispanic/Latino, and nearly all were born in the United States. 

Annual household income was below $30,000 for 53% of the intervention group and 65% of the control group. 55% (intervention) and 70% (control) had a body mass index [BMI] at or above the 85th percentile for age and sex.

Two portable HEPA air cleaners placed in the child's sleeping area and the living room and run continuously over one year of follow-up, in addition to a three-session community health worker (CHW)-delivered asthma education program, compared with the same asthma education program alone. All participants also received dust mite covers for pillows and mattresses, a non-toxic cleaning kit, a medication storage container, and a peak flow meter.

Randomized controlled trial. N=75 children (38 intervention, 37 control), conducted from July 2015 to February 2019. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months.

Healthcare Cost, Utilization & Value: Intervention participants had a reduced risk of having unplanned clinical utilization (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13 to 0.94) compared with control participants. 

Health: In secondary analysis of dichotomous outcomes using generalizing estimating equations, the proportion of participants with an ACT or Childhood ACT [C-ACT] score of 19 or lower (poorly controlled asthma) decreased from 15.8% to 8.3% in the intervention group and from 32.4% to 20.0% in the control group (IRR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.97). 

Intervention participants had a reduced risk of ever having an ACT or C-ACT score of 19 or lower (IRR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.89) and a reduced risk of ever having asthma symptoms in the past two weeks (IRR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.98), compared with control participants.

116 former smokers, aged 40 years and above, with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] residing in homes in the Baltimore-Washington area with baseline particulate matter [PM] levels above 10 μg/m3. 

The mean age was 65.7 years (standard deviation [SD]: 8.3), and 51.7% were female. Participants were predominantly White (64.7%), Black (31.9%), and multiracial or other (3.5%); the active filter group had a significantly greater proportion of White participants than the sham group (74.1% vs 55.2%). Annual household income was below $30,000 for 53.4% of participants and above $30,000 for 37.1% (9.5 percent did not report). Mean BMI was 32.2 (SD: 8.5), mean pack-years smoked (packs smoked/day multiplied by years smoked) was 52.3, and mean FEV1 was 53.9% predicted (SD: 17.5).

Two portable air cleaners (PACs) with HEPA and carbon filters (Austin HealthMate HM400), placed in the bedroom and the room where the participant reported spending the most time, compared with two visually and audibly identical sham air cleaners with the internal filters removed.

Randomized controlled trial. N=116 participants randomized (58 active, 58 sham); 84.5% (n=94) completed the six-month study.

Healthcare Cost, Utilization & Value: In intention-to-treat analysis at six months, the active filter group had a significantly lower rate of moderate exacerbations than the sham group (IRR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.91, p=0.033) and less frequent rescue medication use (IRR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.86, p=0.011). In per-protocol analysis (greater than 80% adherence), moderate exacerbations remained significantly lower in the active group (IRR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.98, p=0.047). The active filter group had an annualized moderate exacerbation rate of 0.40 compared with 1.24 in the sham group.

Health: The active filter group had significantly greater improvement in the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) symptom subscale (β: −7.67, 95% CI: −14.97 to −0.37, p=0.040) and in respiratory symptoms measured by the Breathlessness, Cough, and Sputum Scale {BCSS) (β: −0.81, 95% CI: −1.53 to −0.09, p=0.029). 

In per-protocol analysis, the active filter group had a statistically significant improvement in total SGRQ score compared with sham (β: −4.76, 95% CI: −9.17 to −0.34, p=0.035), with the largest difference in the symptom subscale (β: −12.39, 95% CI: −20.75 to −4.02, p=0.004). BCSS also showed significant improvement (β: −0.86, 95% CI: −1.61 to −0.11, p=0.026), and 6 minute walk distance showed a significant difference (β: 87.5m, 95% CI: 0.06 to 174.9, p=0.0498). Among the subgroup with continuous (100%) air cleaner use (n=35), between-group differences were larger still for total SGRQ (β: −10.54, 95% CI: −17.32 to −3.74, p-value=0.005) and the symptom subscale (β: −26.27, 95% CI: −40.21 to −12.33, p-value=0.001), demonstrating a dose-response relationship with adherence.

In prespecified subgroup analysis, participants who spent more time indoors (above the median of 18.3 hours/day) had significantly greater treatment benefit for SGRQ (β: −6.80, 95% CI: −12.55 to −1.06, p=0.021), CAT (β: −3.92, 95% CI: −7.22 to −0.49, p=0.023), and BCSS (β: −1.86, 95% CI: −2.82 to −0.90, p<.001). Participants with lower baseline FEV1 also showed significantly greater SGRQ improvement (β: −5.62, 95% CI: −11.10 to −0.13, p=0.045).

Low-income New York City residents surveyed to evaluate the Get Cool NYC air conditioner distribution program. Participants (N=1,447) were older (92% aged 60 and older), adults with low-income in public and private housing who received an air conditioner. The comparison group (n=902) comprised non-participating NYC adults with low-income without an air conditioner in 2019 (75% aged under 60). Participants were 39% non-Hispanic Black, 39% Hispanic/Latino, 8% non-Hispanic White, and 8% non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander. The comparison group was 54% non-Hispanic Black, 32% Hispanic/Latino, 5% non-Hispanic White, and 5% non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander. Chronic conditions were common in both groups (e.g., hypertension: 63% of participants, 50% of comparison; diabetes: 41% and 31% respectively; asthma or COPD: 25% and 27% respectively), and roughly a quarter of each group reported a household member with a mental health condition.

The Get Cool NYC emergency program, which distributed and installed nearly 73,000 free home air conditioners in summer 2020 for adults with low-income aged 60 and older without a working home air conditioner, living in New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) public housing (more than 16,000 units) and private housing (more than 56,000 units).

Observational study with comparison group. N=2,349 survey respondents (1,447 program participants and 902 non-participating adults with low-income without a home air conditioner in 2019).

Health: In summer 2020, 10% (95% CI: 9 to 12) of participants reported that hot weather made them or a household member feel sick at home, compared with 27% (CI: 24 to 30) of non-participants. In adjusted logistic regression, participants were significantly less likely than non-participants to report feeling sick at home from heat in 2020 (AOR: 0.2, 95% CI: 0.2 to 0.3).

Social: In summer 2020, 89% (CI: 88 to 91) of participants reported staying home during very hot weather, compared with 73% (CI: 70 to 76) of non-participants; in summer 2019 (pre-intervention), there was no difference between groups (71%, CI: 69 to 74 for participants vs 69%, CI: 66 to 72 for non-participants). In adjusted models, participants were three times more likely to stay home during hot weather in 2020 (AOR: 3.0, 95% CI: 2.2 to 4.1), with no significant difference in 2019 (AOR: 1.0, 95% CI: 0.8 to 1.3). Among participants, 87% (CI: 85 to 89) reported using the air conditioner to cool their homes during very hot weather in 2020 at least half the time, and 91% reported satisfaction with the Get Cool program.

Homes on the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation in Hoopa, California, a low-income, smoke-impacted tribal community (approximately 84% of residents identify as American Indian or Alaska Native; median household income was $17,966, roughly 27% of the national median). Participants across all homes reported pre-existing respiratory conditions such as nasal allergies and asthma. Homes were enrolled for a wildfire study (September to October 2021) and a wood stove study (January to March 2022); homes with reported indoor smoking were excluded.

PACs provided to reduce indoor fine particulate matter (PM2.5) from wildfire and wood stove smoke: a low-cost do-it-yourself (DIY) PAC and a comparable lower-cost commercial PAC with HEPA filtration ($123). Participants were asked to run the PACs at least eight hours per day.

Pre-post analysis. N=8 homes (wildfire study) and N=11 homes (wood stove study), with seven homes participating in both. Each study consisted of four sequential 1–2-week phases: an initial (no study PAC) phase, a DIY PAC phase, a commercial PAC phase, and a sensor-display phase.

Social: In the wildfire study, DIY PAC use was associated with a significant reduction in total indoor PM2.5 (−7.0%, 95% CI: −11.3 to −2.5) and in infiltrated PM2.5 (−10.8%, 95% CI: −15.2 to −6.2); commercial PAC use was associated with a significant reduction in infiltrated PM2.5 (−18.3%, 95% CI: −22.9 to −13.5). In the wood stove study, use of either PAC was associated with significantly lower total indoor PM2.5 and infiltrated PM2.5, with roughly twice the reduction for the commercial PAC (infiltrated PM2.5: commercial −9.2%, 95% CI: −11.4 to −7.0; DIY −3.9%, 95% CI: −5.9 to −1.9). For infiltration ratio, commercial PAC use produced greater reductions than DIY PAC use in the wildfire study (commercial −50.1%, 95% CI: −54.2 to −45.6; DIY −22.1%, 95% CI: −28.4 to −15.3), with both PACs reducing infiltration ratio in the wood stove study (DIY −31.9%, 95% CI: −34.5 to −29.2).

Multi-country, multi-city sample across four countries: Canada (20 census metropolitan areas plus the city of Hamilton, 1991–2009), Japan (47 prefectures, 1972–2009), Spain (52 capital cities, 1990–2009), and the U.S. (211 metropolitan areas, 1973–2006). More than 23 million all-cause (Canada, Japan, Spain) or non-accidental (U.S.) deaths were registered across the 331 locations. Aggregate, location-level data were used rather than individual-level demographics.

Household air conditioning (AC) prevalence as an adaptive strategy against heat-related mortality. AC prevalence was reconstructed from country-specific survey and census sources (e.g., American Housing Survey and Residential Energy Consumption Survey in the USA; Survey of Household and Energy Use and Households and Environment Survey in Canada; a regional statistics database in Japan; Population and Housing Census and Life Conditions Survey in Spain).

Observational study with comparison group (longitudinal, multi-country, multi-city ecological design). N=331 locations across four countries.

Health: Increased AC prevalence was independently associated with lower heat-related mortality risk (p=0.011), adjusting for country trends and period-specific temperature average and interquartile range. Relative risk (RR) at the 99th temperature percentile (vs. minimum mortality temperature) declined: Japan, 1.32 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.34) in 1975 to 1.08 (95% CI: 1.06 to 1.10) in 2007; U.S., 1.14 (95% CI: 1.13 to 1.15) in 1975 to 1.05 (95% CI: 1.04 to 1.06) in 2004; Spain, 1.37 (95% CI: 1.32 to 1.42) in 1993 to 1.26 (95% CI: 1.22 to 1.31) in 2007; Canada, 1.13 (95% CI: 1.09 to 1.17) in 1994 to 1.11 (95% CI: 1.07 to 1.16) in 2008 (little RR change at the 99th percentile, but greater attenuation at the 50th and 90th percentiles). Attributable fraction (AF%) of heat-related excess deaths decreased across countries: Canada, 1.40% (95% CI: 1.23 to 1.55) to 0.80% (95% CI: 0.59 to 0.98); Japan, 3.57% (95% CI: 3.53 to 3.61) to 1.10% (95% CI: 1.05 to 1.14); Spain, 3.54% (95% CI: 3.38 to 3.69) to 2.78% (95% CI: 2.63 to 2.92); U.S., 1.70% (95% CI: 1.67 to 1.73) to 0.53% (95% CI: 0.51 to 0.55). In scenario analyses, raising AC prevalence from 30% to 80% was associated with heat-death reductions of 30.2% (U.S.), 24.9% (Canada), 20.3% (Japan), and 8.8% (Spain). Comparing observed AC increases to a no-change scenario, AC accounted for only part of the total attenuation: 16.7% (Canada), 20.0% (Japan), 14.3% (Spain), and 16.7% (USA), with other adaptation pathways contributing the remainder. Deaths delayed during summer months from raising AC prevalence above 80% were estimated at 0.09% (U.S.), 0.32% (Japan), and 0.05% each (Spain, Canada).

Elementary school classrooms with students aged four to 15 years with physician-diagnosed asthma, enrolled from 39 public schools in the Northeastern U.S. (school locations undisclosed per confidentiality agreement). Across schools the median class size was 18 students; the median student composition was 49.2% female, 50.9% male. Students were 25.0% Black, 36.8% Hispanic, and 14.5% White race and ethnicity. A median of 59.8% of students were from families with low-income, defined by participation in state-administered assistance programs. Only 47 of 200 analyzed classrooms (23.5%) had central heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC).

The School Inner-City Asthma Intervention Study [SICAS-2], a cluster-randomized, placebo-controlled trial of classroom-level HEPA purifiers. Classrooms were randomized 1:1 to receive four active portable HEPA purifiers (Coway AP1013A, delivery rate 3,000 L/min per unit) or four visually identical sham (placebo) units with filters removed and a sound generator added. Students, teachers, school staff, and investigators were blinded to assignment. No intervention cost reported.

Observational study with a comparison group. N=200 classrooms analyzed (91 sham, 109 HEPA) of 228 originally randomized, across 39 schools; 532 week-long bioaerosol air samples collected (baseline samples for each classroom, plus 147 sham and 185 HEPA post-intervention samples). This is a secondary ad hoc analysis of the parent trial (SICAS-2).

Social: The HEPA intervention was associated with a modest reduction in viral diversity (number of unique viruses detected per classroom): β=−1.02 (95% CI: −1.68 to −0.35; p=0.003), a 32.8% reduction, unchanged after seasonality adjustment (β=−1.03; 95% CI: −1.65 to −0.42; p=0.001).

Seven residences (six apartments, one house) recruited from five dense communities in Seattle, Washington, ranging from 54 to 177m² and built between 1906 and 2019. Residences belonged to University of Washington students and staff. Measurements were taken during an active 2020 wildfire episode (September 16-18, 2020).

HEPA-based PAC. All residences kept windows and doors closed throughout. A supplementary, separately reported single-residence test (not part of the main N=7 sample) also evaluated a DIY box fan air cleaner (commercial box fan plus a minimum efficiency reporting value [MERV] 13 filter).

Pre-post analysis (within-residence, sequential-phase design: each residence underwent an 18-to-24-hour no-filtration session with windows/doors closed, followed by an 18-to-24-hour filtration session using the auto-mode PAC). N=7 residences total; 5 (R1 to R5) completed both the no-filtration and filtration phases and contributed PAC effectiveness estimates; 2 (R6 to R7) completed only the no-filtration phase due to limited resources and contributed infiltration-factor data only, with no PAC outcome measured for these two.

Social: Across the seven residences, the mean (SD) PM2.5 infiltration factor (indoor/outdoor ratio without the PAC) ranged from 0.33 (0.06) to 0.76 (0.05), with an overall mean (SD) of 0.56 (0.13). With the auto-mode PAC running, the mean (SD) indoor/outdoor ratio dropped to a range of 0.09 (0.02) to 0.29 (0.05), overall mean (SD) 0.19 (0.09), across the five residences with paired measurements. Pooling all residences, mean (SD) indoor PM2.5 was 47 (24) μg/m³ without the PAC versus 14 (7) μg/m³ with the PAC running.

Systematic Reviews
Note: The vocabulary used in the table is the same terminology used in the study in order to preserve the integrity of the summary. 
Study
Population
Intervention Summary
Type of Study Design
Outcomes
Dearman et al. (2025)

People living in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] member countries. All five included studies were conducted in North America (four in Maricopa County, Arizona, U.S.; two in Ontario, Canada).

Publicly accessible, cool, indoor cooling centres used as a public health intervention during periods of adverse hot weather, including both formal emergency shelters set up on a temporary basis and informal cooling centres primarily used for another purpose (for example, air-conditioned commercial premises, libraries, or shopping malls). Outdoor cooling areas (parks, water bodies) and private/residential cooling or air conditioning were excluded from the study scope.

Systematic review. Of 4,401 unique database records screened, five studies met the inclusion criteria.

Health: One ecological study in Maricopa County, Arizona found that heat-related mortality increased more steeply with rising temperature in areas with less publicly accessible cool space, independent of social vulnerability, but effect size and absolute death counts were small. 

A non-randomized, laboratory-based simulated heatwave study (Meade et al. 2023 and McGarr et al. 2023, same 40 participants aged 64 to 79 years) found that two hours of air-conditioned rest during a simulated nine-hour heatwave produced transient improvements in cardiovascular strain that dissipated after participants returned to the heated environment. 

Social: McGarr et al. 2023 (same laboratory sample) found that two hours of midday cooling were associated with improved self-reported mood and symptoms measured at the end of the nine-hour heat exposure, despite core body temperature and physiological strain being similar between arms.

Hasan et al. (2021)

People in urban settings, drawn from studies conducted predominantly in high-income countries (HICs). Of the 17 included studies, 14 were based in HICs (Europe, U.S., Canada, Australia, Japan) and three in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) (India, China). Populations studied were largely older adults (65 years and older), though several studies addressed general or all-age urban populations.

Community-based interventions to prevent or manage heat-related illnesses (HRIs) in urban settings, grouped into two categories: (1) heat action plans (10 of 17 studies) and (2) stand-alone education and awareness campaigns (7 of 17 studies).

Scoping review. Of 2,324 records identified, 17 studies met the inclusion criteria.

Health: Heat action plans were consistently associated with reduced heat-related mortality across HICs, with reductions ranging from roughly two to four fewer deaths per day to declines of several percentage points in attributable mortality fraction, and larger effects among older adults and lower socioeconomic status groups. Findings were more mixed in one LMIC study (India), which showed reduced relative risk of mortality post-implementation, and in Spain, where a decline in extreme-heat mortality was offset by a rise in moderate-heat mortality. 

Social: Education and awareness campaigns, along with social-contact interventions, were associated with meaningful gains in heat-related knowledge and self-reported protective behavior, particularly among older adults receiving tangible resources (fridge magnets, health cards) or one-on-one outreach. However, behavior change consistently lagged behind knowledge gains, and media-only campaigns showed weak recall and limited behavior change compared to interpersonal or resource-based approaches.

Assessment Synthesis Criteria
Strong Evidence
There is strong evidence that the intervention will produce the intended outcomes.
  • At least one well-conducted systematic review or meta-analysis (including two or more large, randomized trials) showing a significant and clinically meaningful health effect; and  
  • Consistent findings of health effects from other studies (cohort, case-control, and other designs).

Sufficient Evidence
There is sufficient evidence that the intervention will produce the intended outcomes.
  • At least one well-conducted systematic review or meta-analysis (including two or more large, randomized trials) showing a significant and clinically meaningful health effect, but inconsistent findings in other studies; or
  • Consistent findings from at least three non-randomized control trial studies (cohorts, practical trials, analysis of secondary data); or
  • A single, sufficiently large well-conducted randomized controlled trial demonstrating clinically meaningful health effect and consistent evidence from other studies; or 
  • Multiple expert opinions/government agencies supporting the intervention.

More Evidence Needed or Mixed Evidence
There is insufficient evidence that the intervention will produce the intended outcomes, however the results may indicate potential impact.
  • Lack of demonstration of improved health outcomes based on any of the following: (a) a systematic review or meta-analysis; (b) a large randomized controlled trial; (c) consistent positive results from multiple studies in high-quality journals; or (d) multiple expert opinions or government agencies supporting the intervention. 
  • An insufficient evidence rating does not mean there is no evidence, or that the intervention is unsafe or ineffective. 
  • In many cases, there is a need for more research or longer-term follow-up.

There is strong evidence that the intervention will produce the intended outcomes.
There is sufficient evidence that the intervention will produce the intended outcomes.
There is insufficient evidence that the intervention will produce the intended outcomes, however the results may indicate potential impact.
  • At least one well-conducted systematic review or meta-analysis (including two or more large, randomized trials) showing a significant and clinically meaningful health effect; and  
  • Consistent findings of health effects from other studies (cohort, case-control, and other designs).

  • At least one well-conducted systematic review or meta-analysis (including two or more large, randomized trials) showing a significant and clinically meaningful health effect, but inconsistent findings in other studies; or
  • Consistent findings from at least three non-randomized control trial studies (cohorts, practical trials, analysis of secondary data); or
  • A single, sufficiently large well-conducted randomized controlled trial demonstrating clinically meaningful health effect and consistent evidence from other studies; or 
  • Multiple expert opinions/government agencies supporting the intervention.

  • Lack of demonstration of improved health outcomes based on any of the following: (a) a systematic review or meta-analysis; (b) a large randomized controlled trial; (c) consistent positive results from multiple studies in high-quality journals; or (d) multiple expert opinions or government agencies supporting the intervention. 
  • An insufficient evidence rating does not mean there is no evidence, or that the intervention is unsafe or ineffective. 
  • In many cases, there is a need for more research or longer-term follow-up.

Sources

[1] Borenstein, S., Wilderman. M. K., Snow, A. (2023, May). 2023 Set a Record for U.S. Heat Deaths. Why 2024 Could Be Even Deadlier. PBS NewsHour. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/2023-set-a-record-for-u-s-heat-deaths-why-2024-could-be-even-deadlier

[2] CDC. (2026, January). Exploring Tangible Health Impact from Heat. National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP). https://www.cdc.gov/nssp/php/partnerships/health-impact-from-heat-waves.html

[3] Poitras, C. (2025, November). Warming U.S. Climate Linked to Rising Deaths from Heat. Yale School of Public Health. https://ysph.yale.edu/news-article/warming-us-climate-linked-to-rising-deaths-from-heat/

[4] Aguilera, R., Corringham, T., Gershunov, A., Benmarhnia, T. (2021). Wildfire Smoke Impacts Respiratory Health More Than Fine Particles from Other Sources: Observational Evidence from Southern California. Nature Communications, 12(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21708-0

[5] US EPA. (2025, October). Who Is at Increased Risk of Health Effects from Wildfire Smoke Exposure? https://www.epa.gov/wildfire-smoke-course/who-increased-risk-health-effects-wildfire-smoke-exposure

[6] Lantz, M. P., Hiltner, S. (2026, March). Addressing Health-Related Social Needs through Medicaid Section 1115 Waivers: Challenges and Opportunities. Health Affairs. https://www.healthaffairs.org/content/briefs/addressing-health-related-social-needs-through-medicaid-section-1115-waivers-challenges

[7] Oregon Health Authority. Oregon’s 2022-2027 1115 Medicaid Waiver: Health-Related Social Needs. Accessed July 2, 2026. https://www.oregon.gov/oha/HPA/HP-MAC/MACmeetings/9.A.%201115%20Waiver%20Basics%20-%20Health%20Related%20Social%20Needs.pdf

[8] Oregon Health Authority. (2024, July). Oregon Distributes Nearly 1,000 Air Conditioners, Air Filters and Other Climate-Control Devices to Oregon Health Plan Members. https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/ORHA/bulletins/3a65970

[9] NYS Easy Air. FREE Home Remediation & Air Quality Solutions. Accessed July 2, 2026. https://nyseasyair.com/medicaid-1115-waiver/

[10] Hinton, E., Diana, A. (2024, March). Section 1115 Medicaid Waiver Watch: A Closer Look at Recent Approvals to Address Health-Related Social Needs (HRSN). KFF. https://www.kff.org/medicaid/section-1115-medicaid-waiver-watch-a-closer-look-at-recent-approvals-to-address-health-related-social-needs-hrsn/

[11] KFF. (2026, July). Medicaid Waiver Tracker: Approved and Pending Section 1115 Waivers by State. https://www.kff.org/medicaid/medicaid-waiver-tracker-approved-and-pending-section-1115-waivers-by-state/

[12] Thomas, J. (2026, February). What Is the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program? https://www.ncoa.org/article/what-is-the-low-income-home-energy-assistance-program-liheap/

Share Your Needs or Insights

Request a topic or share new data with us.
This field is required.
This field is required.
This field is required.
This field is required.
This field is required.
This field is required.
This field is required.
This field is required.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.