Behind the paper: sexual and reproductive health and rights and climate change

We talk to Vanessa Brizuela, Nandita Thatte, Clive Mutunga, Bernard Onyango and colleagues, authors of the recent PLOS Climate publication “Research priorities in sexual and reproductive health and rights and climate change: Results of a consensus building and prioritisation process”

What led you to decide on this research question?

Over recent years, evidence linking climate change and sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) has grown significantly, documenting associations with maternal and newborn health, access to contraception and abortion services, gender-based violence, and broader reproductive health outcomes. However, the evidence often remains fragmented and peripherical to climate action, with important gaps across regions, populations, and thematic areas. Building on earlier work from HRP in identifying these gaps, the need emerged to move beyond mapping evidence toward prioritizing the most urgent research questions. This also meant broadening the conversation beyond academic literature to include the voices of communities directly experiencing climate-related SRHR challenges and practitioners working on the ground. This led to a collaborative effort between HRP, the IBP Network, and AFIDEP to co-develop a more inclusive, participatory, and action-oriented research agenda grounded in both evidence and lived experience.

How did you go about designing your study?

The study used a modified Delphi process combined with elements of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology to systematically identify and prioritize research questions. In an attempt to broaden inclusivity and accessibility, we used virtual platforms, multilingual participation, and interactive online workshops to engage the range of global stakeholders involved. Through multiple rounds of surveys and consultations with participants from diverse disciplines —including SRHR, climate change, gender, development, and humanitarian action— we collectively proposed, refined, and ranked research priorities in this space to foster collective learning. This combination of structured prioritization methods and participatory dialogue helped ensure both methodological rigour and broad engagement in shaping the final priorities.

Did you encounter any challenges in collecting or interpreting your data?

There were challenges on a couple fronts. Relating to the topic: climate change and SRHR are two very large areas that engage and affect broad population groups and experts from different fields of work; in addition, climate change affects SRHR through multiple pathways. Relating to the methodology and implementation: while Delphi and CHNRI methods are widely used, they present with inherent challenges based on the people who participate; and while having an entirely online implementation allowed for a broader representation (and fewer carbon-fuelled trips around the world!) it also made engagement difficult at times. Relatedly, despite efforts to engage participants from low- and middle-income countries and to provide multilingual access, participation remained somewhat skewed toward English-speaking and higher-income settings. Albeit these challenges, the final product speaks of a rigorous and systematic approach engaging experts bringing a wide scope of experience and expertise.

What struck you most about your results? What are the key messages and who do you hope might benefit from these new insights?

There was a large degree of consensus around the importance of addressing evidence gaps in areas that have often been overlooked in climate and SRHR research. While maternal and newborn health featured prominently, participants also highlighted critical questions related to contraception, abortion access, gender-based violence, comprehensive sexuality education, and the intersection of climate change with poverty and gender inequality. The findings reinforced that climate change is not only an environmental issue but also a critical SRHR and equity issue. There is a clear need for more coordinated research, funding, and policy action aligned with the realities of affected populations. Our results also revealed important inquiry areas beyond individual outcomes, including health systems, policy, resilience, and equity. Strong interest emerged in how climate and SRHR can be better integrated into national policies, adaptation strategies, and health systems approaches, reflecting recognition that these challenges are interconnected and cannot be addressed in silos.

What further research would you like to see in this area?

The identified priorities provide an important foundation, but further research is needed to translate them into action. The literature showed and the experts agreed that hearing directly from the communities was central to future research. Strengthening partnerships with locally based organizations and networks is critical to ensuring that research agendas are grounded in real-world needs and contexts. Greater attention to intersectionality —across gender, age, disability, and socioeconomic status— will also be essential for understanding differential impacts and designing equitable responses. These results paved the way for a recent call for proposals on community experiences in adapting to climate change for sexual and reproductive health and rights led by WHO/HRP. Data emerging from the selected research projects will better strengthen our understanding and help shape evidence-informed policies on climate and health.

What made you choose PLOS Climate as a venue for your article?

PLOS Climate was a strong fit for this work given its focus on interdisciplinary research at the intersection of climate, health, and development. At the same time, the journal’s commitment to open access and broad dissemination was another deciding factor. Making the findings freely available is not only a core mandate of any evidence emerging from WHO/HRP-supported research, is it critical in reaching researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and advocates —particularly in low- and middle-income countries where the impacts of climate change on SRHR are often most pronounced.

Ready to submit your own work to PLOS Climate? Follow our step-by-step guide to the submission process!