Integrating Climate Change and Mental Health into Medical Education: A Narrative Review of Interventions and Assessment Tools

AI Summary

Climate change causes substantial mental health harms yet remains insufficiently integrated into medical education curricula.
Existing interventions show improved knowledge, confidence, and preparedness but are fragmented, with few validated assessment tools and limited faculty training.
Advance the field via standardised curricula with explicit mental health content, validated evaluation tools, interdisciplinary faculty development, equity principles, and inclusion in board exams.

AI Summary

Studies were included if they described an educational intervention related to climate-health topics with mental health content or relevance, involved learners in health-related fields, and reported outcomes using validated or author-developed instruments.

To characterize heterogeneity, studies were grouped by type of climate-health educational focus: direct clinical mental health education (n=9), general climate health education with mental health implications (n=3), and climate-health curricular gap analyses (n=3).

Advancing the field requires standardized curricula with explicit and related mental health content, validated assessment tools, interdisciplinary faculty development, learner-centered approaches, climate justice and health equity principles in training, inclusion in board exams, and long-term evaluation.

Basic summary

Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2026 May 28. doi: 10.1097/HRP.0000000000000468. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Climate change is a global health crisis with substantial mental health consequences. Despite its growing impact, climate-related mental health topics remain insufficiently integrated into medical education. This review synthesizes studies describing educational interventions and assessment tools that address the intersection of climate change and mental health.

METHOD: We conducted a narrative literature review across PubMed, Education Resources Information Center, and PsycINFO in March 2025. Studies were included if they described an educational intervention related to climate-health topics with mental health content or relevance, involved learners in health-related fields, and reported outcomes using validated or author-developed instruments.

RESULTS: Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria. Seven described educational interventions, including longitudinal curricula, clerkship sessions, telementoring, and innovative formats such as narrative medicine and reflective tool kits. Fourteen studies included assessment tools, though only one reported psychometric validation (Cronbach’s α=0.90). To characterize heterogeneity, studies were grouped by type of climate-health educational focus: direct clinical mental health education (n=9), general climate health education with mental health implications (n=3), and climate-health curricular gap analyses (n=3). Across interventions, outcomes demonstrated improved knowledge, confidence, and preparedness to address climate-related psychological impacts, but barriers remain, particularly limited faculty training, institutional constraints, and absence of validated evaluation frameworks.

CONCLUSION: Current efforts to integrate climate-mental health topics into medical education are promising but still fragmented. Advancing the field requires standardized curricula with explicit and related mental health content, validated assessment tools, interdisciplinary faculty development, learner-centered approaches, climate justice and health equity principles in training, inclusion in board exams, and long-term evaluation.

PMID:42261668 | DOI:10.1097/HRP.0000000000000468

Document this CPD