A 27-country test of communicating the scientific consensus on climate change

Bojana Većkalov; Sandra J. Geiger; František Bartoš; Mathew P. White; Bastiaan T. Rutjens; Frenk van Harreveld; Federica Stablum; Berkan Akın; Alaa Aldoh; Jinhao Bai; Frida Berglund; Aleša Bratina Zimic; Margaret Broyles; Andrea Catania; Airu Chen; Magdalena Chorzępa; Eman Farahat; Jakob Götz; Bat Hoter-Ishay; Gesine Jordan; Siri Joustra; Jonas Klingebiel; Živa Krajnc; Antonia Krug; Thomas Lind Andersen; Johanna Löloff; Divya Natarajan; Sasha Newman-Oktan; Elena Niehoff; Celeste Paerels; Rachel Papirmeister; Steven Peregrina; Felicia Pohl; Amanda Remsö; Abigail Roh; Binahayati Rusyidi; Justus Schmidt; Mariam Shavgulidze; Valentina Vellinho Nardin; Ruixiang Wang; Kelly Warner; Miranda Wattier; Chloe Y. Wong; Mariem Younssi; Kai Ruggeri; Sander van der Linden

doi:10.1038/s41562-024-01928-2

A 27-country test of communicating the scientific consensus on climate change

Bojana Većkalov
, Sandra J. Geiger
, František Bartoš
, Mathew P. White
, Bastiaan T. Rutjens
, Frenk van Harreveld
, Federica Stablum
, Berkan Akın
, Alaa Aldoh
, Jinhao Bai
, Frida Berglund
, Aleša Bratina Zimic
, Margaret Broyles
, Andrea Catania
, Airu Chen
, Magdalena Chorzępa
, Eman Farahat
, Jakob Götz
, Bat Hoter-Ishay
, Gesine Jordan

Siri Joustra, Jonas Klingebiel, Živa Krajnc, Antonia Krug, Thomas Lind Andersen, Johanna Löloff, Divya Natarajan, Sasha Newman-Oktan, Elena Niehoff, Celeste Paerels, Rachel Papirmeister, Steven Peregrina, Felicia Pohl, Amanda Remsö, Abigail Roh, Binahayati Rusyidi, Justus Schmidt, Mariam Shavgulidze, Valentina Vellinho Nardin, Ruixiang Wang, Kelly Warner, Miranda Wattier, Chloe Y. Wong, Mariem Younssi, Kai Ruggeri, Sander van der Linden

Marketing

Research output: Contribution to Journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

Background
Body weight support (BWS) training devices are frequently used to improve gait in individuals with neurological impairments, but guidance in selecting an appropriate level of BWS is limited. Here, we aim to describe the initial BWS levels used during gait training, the rationale for this selection and the clinical goals aligned with BWS training for different diagnoses.

Method
A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science, including terms related to the population (individuals with neurological disorders), intervention (BWS training) and outcome (gait). Information on patient characteristics, type of BWS device, BWS level and training goals was extracted from the included articles.

Results
Thirty-three articles were included, which described outcomes using frame-based (stationary or mobile) and unidirectional ceiling-mounted devices on four diagnoses (multiple sclerosis (MS), spinal cord injury (SCI), stroke, traumatic brain injury (TBI)). The BWS levels were highest for individuals with MS (median: 75%, IQR: 6%), followed by SCI (median: 40%, IQR: 35%), stroke (median: 30%, IQR: 4.75%) and TBI (median: 15%, IQR: 0%). The included studies reported eleven different training goals. Reported BWS levels ranged between 30 and 75% for most of the training goals, without a clear relationship between BWS level, diagnosis, training goal and rationale for BWS selection. Training goals were achieved in all included studies.

Conclusion
Initial BWS levels differ considerably between studies included in this review. The underlying rationale for these differences was not clearly motivated in the included studies. Variation in study designs and populations does not allow to draw a conclusion on the effectiveness of BWS levels. Hence, it remains difficult to formulate guidelines on optimal BWS settings for different diagnoses, BWS devices and training goals. Further efforts are required to establish clinical guidelines and to experimentally investigate which initial BWS levels are optimal for specific diagnoses and training goals.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1892-1905
Number of pages	14
Journal	Nature Human Behaviour
Volume	8
Issue number	10
Early online date	26 Aug 2024
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01928-2
Publication status	Published - Oct 2024

Funding

We would like to thank the Junior Researcher Programme, the Global Behavioral Science (GLOBES) coordinators from Undergraduate Global Engagement at Columbia University and the Centre for Business Research in the Judge Business School as well as Corpus Christi College at the University of Cambridge. We also thank the Rationale Altruisten Mannheim e.V. and the University of Luxembourg. We would like to thank C. Akil and D. M\u0131sra G\u00FCrol for assistance in instrument adaptation, A. Heske and S. H\u00F6rberg for developing the filler task and for helping to implement the pilot study in Qualtrics, as well as A. van Stekelenburg and E. Maibach for useful feedback on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Computational resources were provided by the e-INFRA CZ project (ID:90140, F.B.), supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic. This project received funding from an internal small expenses budget from the Social Psychology Program, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, University of Amsterdam (B.R.); Columbia University\u2019s Office for Undergraduate Globe Education (K.R.); and the National Science Foundation, Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (no. 2218595, K.R.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Funders	Funder number
National Science Foundation
Columbia University’s Office for Undergraduate Globe Education
Ministerstvo Školství, Mládeže a Tělovýchovy
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences	2218595

Access to Document

10.1038/s41562-024-01928-2

Persistent URL (handle)

Persistent link

Cite this

Većkalov, B., Geiger, S. J., Bartoš, F., White, M. P., Rutjens, B. T., Harreveld, F. V., Stablum, F., Akın, B., Aldoh, A., Bai, J., Berglund, F., Zimic, A. B., Broyles, M., Catania, A., Chen, A., Chorzępa, M., Farahat, E., Götz, J., Hoter-Ishay, B., ... Linden, S. V. D. (2024). A 27-country test of communicating the scientific consensus on climate change. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(10), 1892-1905. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01928-2

@article{01da233821484a0b9473dff0467a87e4,

title = "A 27-country test of communicating the scientific consensus on climate change",

abstract = "Background Body weight support (BWS) training devices are frequently used to improve gait in individuals with neurological impairments, but guidance in selecting an appropriate level of BWS is limited. Here, we aim to describe the initial BWS levels used during gait training, the rationale for this selection and the clinical goals aligned with BWS training for different diagnoses. Method A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science, including terms related to the population (individuals with neurological disorders), intervention (BWS training) and outcome (gait). Information on patient characteristics, type of BWS device, BWS level and training goals was extracted from the included articles. Results Thirty-three articles were included, which described outcomes using frame-based (stationary or mobile) and unidirectional ceiling-mounted devices on four diagnoses (multiple sclerosis (MS), spinal cord injury (SCI), stroke, traumatic brain injury (TBI)). The BWS levels were highest for individuals with MS (median: 75\%, IQR: 6\%), followed by SCI (median: 40\%, IQR: 35\%), stroke (median: 30\%, IQR: 4.75\%) and TBI (median: 15\%, IQR: 0\%). The included studies reported eleven different training goals. Reported BWS levels ranged between 30 and 75\% for most of the training goals, without a clear relationship between BWS level, diagnosis, training goal and rationale for BWS selection. Training goals were achieved in all included studies. Conclusion Initial BWS levels differ considerably between studies included in this review. The underlying rationale for these differences was not clearly motivated in the included studies. Variation in study designs and populations does not allow to draw a conclusion on the effectiveness of BWS levels. Hence, it remains difficult to formulate guidelines on optimal BWS settings for different diagnoses, BWS devices and training goals. Further efforts are required to establish clinical guidelines and to experimentally investigate which initial BWS levels are optimal for specific diagnoses and training goals.",

author = "Bojana Ve{\'c}kalov and Geiger, \{Sandra J.\} and Franti{\v s}ek Barto{\v s} and White, \{Mathew P.\} and Rutjens, \{Bastiaan T.\} and Harreveld, \{Frenk van\} and Federica Stablum and Berkan Akın and Alaa Aldoh and Jinhao Bai and Frida Berglund and Zimic, \{Ale{\v s}a Bratina\} and Margaret Broyles and Andrea Catania and Airu Chen and Magdalena Chorz{\c e}pa and Eman Farahat and Jakob G{\"o}tz and Bat Hoter-Ishay and Gesine Jordan and Siri Joustra and Jonas Klingebiel and {\v Z}iva Krajnc and Antonia Krug and Andersen, \{Thomas Lind\} and Johanna L{\"o}loff and Divya Natarajan and Sasha Newman-Oktan and Elena Niehoff and Celeste Paerels and Rachel Papirmeister and Steven Peregrina and Felicia Pohl and Amanda Rems{\"o} and Abigail Roh and Binahayati Rusyidi and Justus Schmidt and Mariam Shavgulidze and Nardin, \{Valentina Vellinho\} and Ruixiang Wang and Kelly Warner and Miranda Wattier and Wong, \{Chloe Y.\} and Mariem Younssi and Kai Ruggeri and Linden, \{Sander van der\}",

year = "2024",

month = oct,

doi = "10.1038/s41562-024-01928-2",

language = "English",

volume = "8",

pages = "1892--1905",

journal = "Nature Human Behaviour",

issn = "2397-3374",

publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",

number = "10",

}

Većkalov, B, Geiger, SJ, Bartoš, F, White, MP, Rutjens, BT, Harreveld, FV, Stablum, F, Akın, B, Aldoh, A, Bai, J, Berglund, F, Zimic, AB, Broyles, M, Catania, A, Chen, A, Chorzępa, M, Farahat, E, Götz, J, Hoter-Ishay, B, Jordan, G, Joustra, S, Klingebiel, J, Krajnc, Ž, Krug, A, Andersen, TL, Löloff, J, Natarajan, D, Newman-Oktan, S, Niehoff, E, Paerels, C, Papirmeister, R, Peregrina, S, Pohl, F, Remsö, A, Roh, A, Rusyidi, B, Schmidt, J, Shavgulidze, M, Nardin, VV, Wang, R, Warner, K, Wattier, M, Wong, CY, Younssi, M, Ruggeri, K & Linden, SVD 2024, 'A 27-country test of communicating the scientific consensus on climate change', Nature Human Behaviour, vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 1892-1905. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01928-2

TY - JOUR

T1 - A 27-country test of communicating the scientific consensus on climate change

AU - Većkalov, Bojana

AU - Geiger, Sandra J.

AU - Bartoš, František

AU - White, Mathew P.

AU - Rutjens, Bastiaan T.

AU - Harreveld, Frenk van

AU - Stablum, Federica

AU - Akın, Berkan

AU - Aldoh, Alaa

AU - Bai, Jinhao

AU - Berglund, Frida

AU - Zimic, Aleša Bratina

AU - Broyles, Margaret

AU - Catania, Andrea

AU - Chen, Airu

AU - Chorzępa, Magdalena

AU - Farahat, Eman

AU - Götz, Jakob

AU - Hoter-Ishay, Bat

AU - Jordan, Gesine

AU - Joustra, Siri

AU - Klingebiel, Jonas

AU - Krajnc, Živa

AU - Krug, Antonia

AU - Andersen, Thomas Lind

AU - Löloff, Johanna

AU - Natarajan, Divya

AU - Newman-Oktan, Sasha

AU - Niehoff, Elena

AU - Paerels, Celeste

AU - Papirmeister, Rachel

AU - Peregrina, Steven

AU - Pohl, Felicia

AU - Remsö, Amanda

AU - Roh, Abigail

AU - Rusyidi, Binahayati

AU - Schmidt, Justus

AU - Shavgulidze, Mariam

AU - Nardin, Valentina Vellinho

AU - Wang, Ruixiang

AU - Warner, Kelly

AU - Wattier, Miranda

AU - Wong, Chloe Y.

AU - Younssi, Mariem

AU - Ruggeri, Kai

AU - Linden, Sander van der

PY - 2024/10

Y1 - 2024/10

N2 - Background Body weight support (BWS) training devices are frequently used to improve gait in individuals with neurological impairments, but guidance in selecting an appropriate level of BWS is limited. Here, we aim to describe the initial BWS levels used during gait training, the rationale for this selection and the clinical goals aligned with BWS training for different diagnoses. Method A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science, including terms related to the population (individuals with neurological disorders), intervention (BWS training) and outcome (gait). Information on patient characteristics, type of BWS device, BWS level and training goals was extracted from the included articles. Results Thirty-three articles were included, which described outcomes using frame-based (stationary or mobile) and unidirectional ceiling-mounted devices on four diagnoses (multiple sclerosis (MS), spinal cord injury (SCI), stroke, traumatic brain injury (TBI)). The BWS levels were highest for individuals with MS (median: 75%, IQR: 6%), followed by SCI (median: 40%, IQR: 35%), stroke (median: 30%, IQR: 4.75%) and TBI (median: 15%, IQR: 0%). The included studies reported eleven different training goals. Reported BWS levels ranged between 30 and 75% for most of the training goals, without a clear relationship between BWS level, diagnosis, training goal and rationale for BWS selection. Training goals were achieved in all included studies. Conclusion Initial BWS levels differ considerably between studies included in this review. The underlying rationale for these differences was not clearly motivated in the included studies. Variation in study designs and populations does not allow to draw a conclusion on the effectiveness of BWS levels. Hence, it remains difficult to formulate guidelines on optimal BWS settings for different diagnoses, BWS devices and training goals. Further efforts are required to establish clinical guidelines and to experimentally investigate which initial BWS levels are optimal for specific diagnoses and training goals.

AB - Background Body weight support (BWS) training devices are frequently used to improve gait in individuals with neurological impairments, but guidance in selecting an appropriate level of BWS is limited. Here, we aim to describe the initial BWS levels used during gait training, the rationale for this selection and the clinical goals aligned with BWS training for different diagnoses. Method A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science, including terms related to the population (individuals with neurological disorders), intervention (BWS training) and outcome (gait). Information on patient characteristics, type of BWS device, BWS level and training goals was extracted from the included articles. Results Thirty-three articles were included, which described outcomes using frame-based (stationary or mobile) and unidirectional ceiling-mounted devices on four diagnoses (multiple sclerosis (MS), spinal cord injury (SCI), stroke, traumatic brain injury (TBI)). The BWS levels were highest for individuals with MS (median: 75%, IQR: 6%), followed by SCI (median: 40%, IQR: 35%), stroke (median: 30%, IQR: 4.75%) and TBI (median: 15%, IQR: 0%). The included studies reported eleven different training goals. Reported BWS levels ranged between 30 and 75% for most of the training goals, without a clear relationship between BWS level, diagnosis, training goal and rationale for BWS selection. Training goals were achieved in all included studies. Conclusion Initial BWS levels differ considerably between studies included in this review. The underlying rationale for these differences was not clearly motivated in the included studies. Variation in study designs and populations does not allow to draw a conclusion on the effectiveness of BWS levels. Hence, it remains difficult to formulate guidelines on optimal BWS settings for different diagnoses, BWS devices and training goals. Further efforts are required to establish clinical guidelines and to experimentally investigate which initial BWS levels are optimal for specific diagnoses and training goals.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85202047386

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85202047386#tab=citedBy

U2 - 10.1038/s41562-024-01928-2

DO - 10.1038/s41562-024-01928-2

M3 - Article

SN - 2397-3374

VL - 8

SP - 1892

EP - 1905

JO - Nature Human Behaviour

JF - Nature Human Behaviour

IS - 10

ER -

A 27-country test of communicating the scientific consensus on climate change

Abstract

Funding

Access to Document

Persistent URL (handle)

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this