This perspective assesses systemic weaknesses in Bangladesh's health system amid climate change, highlighting digital equity and governance.
Background Bangladesh's extreme vulnerability to climate change is fueling public health emergencies, from infectious disease outbreaks to severe mental health burdens. The country's reactive and centralized health system is increasingly unable to cope with these intensifying shocks. Objective This perspective presents an assessment of systemic weaknesses in Bangladesh's health system exposed by climate change, using the record‐breaking 2023 dengue outbreak as a sentinel event. We aim to underscore the urgent need for digital equity and gender‐responsive policies in building a truly climate‐resilient health system, drawing upon established frameworks of health system resilience. Methods We synthesized national surveillance data (DGHS, IEDCR), peer‐reviewed literature (Scopus, PubMed), and technical frameworks from the WHO, UNDP, and IOM to assess systemic gaps, response capacity, and policy alignment. Discussion Climatic shifts are intensifying disease patterns, overwhelming fragile infrastructure, and widening existing inequalities. While digital health innovations exist, their potential is constrained by a significant digital divide and a lack of integrated, decentralized governance. Women disproportionately bear the physical and psychosocial health burdens, yet response strategies often lack a gender‐sensitive lens. Conclusion A transition from a reactive to a proactive, predictive health system is a national imperative. The findings suggest that achieving true climate resilience in Bangladesh hinges on a fundamental governance overhaul that prioritizes decentralization, ensures digital and gender equity, and fosters strong cross‐sectoral collaboration to safeguard its most equity‐deserving communities. This transformation requires embedding principles of adaptive capacity, preparedness, and continuous learning within the health sector.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mamun et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: