Providing targeted incentives for trees on farms: A transdisciplinary research methodology applied in Uganda and Peru
In: Earth system governance, Band 16, S. 100172
ISSN: 2589-8116
31 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Earth system governance, Band 16, S. 100172
ISSN: 2589-8116
In: Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities: an official journal of the Cobb-NMA Health Institute, Band 9, Heft 3, S. 1012-1023
ISSN: 2196-8837
Abstract
Purpose
We examined if childhood socioeconomic status (SES) was related to adult leucocyte telomere length (TL) using the data of 361 African American (AA) participants from the GENE-FORECAST Study. We also assessed the mediating role of behavioral and psychosocial factors in the association between childhood SES and adult TL.
Methods
Childhood SES was assessed individually by using participant's mother's education and occupation, father's education and occupation, parental home ownership, and family structure. TL was assessed using the quantitative polymerase chain reaction method. Information on potential confounders and mediators were collected. The associations of childhood SES with TL were assessed using multivariable linear regression models. We used path analysis to quantify and test the share of these associations that was statistically explained by each of the mediators (participant's educational attainment, smoking status, physical activity, dietary habit, perceived stress, and depressive symptoms).
Results
Mother's education was associated with longer average TL (β: 0.021; 95% CI: 0.001, 0.04, p=0.038) in confounder adjusted models. Once mediators were introduced in the model, the estimates were reduced and remained marginally significant (β: 0.017; 95% CI: −0.003, 0.038, p=0.061). According to path model, approximately 19% of the effect of mother's education on TL (β: 0.004; 95% CI: −0.001, 0.01, p < 0.10) was mediated through participant's own education level. No significant mediation effect was observed for any other mediators.
Conclusions
These data provide evidence that participant's mother's education was positively linked to adult TL in AA population. Participant's own educational level partially explained this association.
In: Alcohol and alcoholism: the international journal of the Medical Council on Alcoholism (MCA) and the journal of the European Society for Biomedical Research on Alcoholism (ESBRA), Band 53, Heft 6, S. 674-681
ISSN: 1464-3502
In: Environmental science and pollution research: ESPR, Band 21, Heft 22, S. 12951-12967
ISSN: 1614-7499
In: Bulletin of the World Health Organization: the international journal of public health, Band 82, Heft 1
ISSN: 0042-9686, 0366-4996, 0510-8659
In: Bulletin of the World Health Organization: the international journal of public health, Band 84, Heft 1, S. 72-77
ISSN: 0042-9686, 0366-4996, 0510-8659
In: PNAS nexus, Band 2, Heft 8
ISSN: 2752-6542
Abstract
Epidemiological data across the United States of America illustrate health disparities in COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality by race/ethnicity. However, limited information is available from prospective observational studies in hospitalized patients, particularly for American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations. Here, we present risk factors associated with severe COVID-19 and mortality in patients (4/2020–12/2021, n = 475) at the University of New Mexico Hospital. Data were collected on patient demographics, infection duration, laboratory measures, comorbidities, treatment(s), major clinical events, and in-hospital mortality. Severe disease was defined by COVID-related intensive care unit requirements and/or death. The cohort was stratified by self-reported race/ethnicity: AI/AN (30.7%), Hispanic (47.0%), non-Hispanic White (NHW, 18.5%), and Other (4.0%, not included in statistical comparisons). Despite similar timing of infection and comparable comorbidities, admission characteristics for AI/AN patients included younger age (P = 0.02), higher invasive mechanical ventilation requirements (P = 0.0001), and laboratory values indicative of more severe disease. Throughout hospitalization, the AI/AN group also experienced elevated invasive mechanical ventilation (P < 0.0001), shock (P = 0.01), encephalopathy (P = 0.02), and severe COVID-19 (P = 0.0002), consistent with longer hospitalization (P < 0.0001). Self-reported AI/AN race/ethnicity emerged as the highest risk factor for severe COVID-19 (OR = 3.19; 95% CI = 1.70–6.01; P = 0.0003) and was a predictor of in-hospital mortality (OR = 2.35; 95% CI = 1.12–4.92; P = 0.02). Results from this study highlight the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on hospitalized AI/AN patients, who experienced more severe illness and associated mortality, compared to Hispanic and NHW patients, even when accounting for symptom onset and comorbid conditions. These findings underscore the need for interventions and resources to address health disparities in the COVID-19 pandemic.
In: Environmental sciences Europe: ESEU, Band 34, Heft 1
ISSN: 2190-4715
AbstractThe chemical pollution crisis severely threatens human and environmental health globally. To tackle this challenge the establishment of an overarching international science–policy body has recently been suggested. We strongly support this initiative based on the awareness that humanity has already likely left the safe operating space within planetary boundaries for novel entities including chemical pollution. Immediate action is essential and needs to be informed by sound scientific knowledge and data compiled and critically evaluated by an overarching science–policy interface body. Major challenges for such a body are (i) to foster global knowledge production on exposure, impacts and governance going beyond data-rich regions (e.g., Europe and North America), (ii) to cover the entirety of hazardous chemicals, mixtures and wastes, (iii) to follow a one-health perspective considering the risks posed by chemicals and waste on ecosystem and human health, and (iv) to strive for solution-oriented assessments based on systems thinking. Based on multiple evidence on urgent action on a global scale, we call scientists and practitioners to mobilize their scientific networks and to intensify science–policy interaction with national governments to support the negotiations on the establishment of an intergovernmental body based on scientific knowledge explaining the anticipated benefit for human and environmental health.
The chemical pollution crisis severely threatens human and environmental health globally. To tackle this challenge the establishment of an overarching international science-policy body has recently been suggested. We strongly support this initiative based on the awareness that humanity has already likely left the safe operating space within planetary boundaries for novel entities including chemical pollution. Immediate action is essential and needs to be informed by sound scientific knowledge and data compiled and critically evaluated by an overarching science-policy interface body. Major challenges for such a body are (i) to foster global knowledge production on exposure, impacts and governance going beyond data-rich regions (e.g., Europe and North America), (ii) to cover the entirety of hazardous chemicals, mixtures and wastes, (iii) to follow a one-health perspective considering the risks posed by chemicals and waste on ecosystem and human health, and (iv) to strive for solution-oriented assessments based on systems thinking. Based on multiple evidence on urgent action on a global scale, we call scientists and practitioners to mobilize their scientific networks and to intensify science-policy interaction with national governments to support the negotiations on the establishment of an intergovernmental body based on scientific knowledge explaining the anticipated benefit for human and environmental health. ; Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Not applicable. ; Peer reviewed
BASE
The chemical pollution crisis severely threatens human and environmental health globally. To tackle this challenge the establishment of an overarching international science–policy body has recently been suggested. We strongly support this initiative based on the awareness that humanity has already likely left the safe operating space within planetary boundaries for novel entities including chemical pollution. Immediate action is essential and needs to be informed by sound scientific knowledge and data compiled and critically evaluated by an overarching science–policy interface body. Major challenges for such a body are (i) to foster global knowledge production on exposure, impacts and governance going beyond data-rich regions (e.g., Europe and North America), (ii) to cover the entirety of hazardous chemicals, mixtures and wastes, (iii) to follow a one-health perspective considering the risks posed by chemicals and waste on ecosystem and human health, and (iv) to strive for solution-oriented assessments based on systems thinking. Based on multiple evidence on urgent action on a global scale, we call scientists and practitioners to mobilize their scientific networks and to intensify science–policy interaction with national governments to support the negotiations on the establishment of an intergovernmental body based on scientific knowledge explaining the anticipated benefit for human and environmental health. ; ISSN:2190-4715 ; ISSN:2190-4707
BASE
The chemical pollution crisis severely threatens human and environmental health globally. To tackle this challenge the establishment of an overarching international science–policy body has recently been suggested. We strongly support this initiative based on the awareness that humanity has already likely left the safe operating space within planetary boundaries for novel entities including chemical pollution. Immediate action is essential and needs to be informed by sound scientific knowledge and data compiled and critically evaluated by an overarching science–policy interface body. Major challenges for such a body are (i) to foster global knowledge production on exposure, impacts and governance going beyond data-rich regions (e.g., Europe and North America), (ii) to cover the entirety of hazardous chemicals, mixtures and wastes, (iii) to follow a one-health perspective considering the risks posed by chemicals and waste on ecosystem and human health, and (iv) to strive for solution-oriented assessments based on systems thinking. Based on multiple evidence on urgent action on a global scale, we call scientists and practitioners to mobilize their scientific networks and to intensify science–policy interaction with national governments to support the negotiations on the establishment of an intergovernmental body based on scientific knowledge explaining the anticipated benefit for human and environmental health.
BASE
In: Brack , W , Barcelo Culleres , D , Boxall , A B A , Budzinski , H , Castiglioni , S , Covaci , A , Dulio , V , Escher , B I , Fantke , P , Kandie , F , Fatta-Kassinos , D , Hernández , F J , Hilscherová , K , Hollender , J , Hollert , H , Jahnke , A , Kasprzyk-Hordern , B , Khan , S J , Kortenkamp , A , Kümmerer , K , Lalonde , B , Lamoree , M H , Levi , Y , Lara Martín , P A , Montagner , C C , Mougin , C , Msagati , T , Oehlmann , J , Posthuma , L , Reid , M , Reinhard , M , Richardson , S D , Rostkowski , P , Schymanski , E , Schneider , F , Slobodnik , J , Shibata , Y , Snyder , S A , Fabriz Sodré , F , Teodorovic , I , Thomas , K V , Umbuzeiro , G A , Viet , P H , Yew-Hoong , K G , Zhang , X & Zuccato , E 2022 , ' One planet: one health. A call to support the initiative on a global science–policy body on chemicals and waste ' , Environmental Sciences Europe , vol. 34 , no. 1 , 21 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-022-00602-6
The chemical pollution crisis severely threatens human and environmental health globally. To tackle this challenge the establishment of an overarching international science–policy body has recently been suggested. We strongly support this initiative based on the awareness that humanity has already likely left the safe operating space within planetary boundaries for novel entities including chemical pollution. Immediate action is essential and needs to be informed by sound scientific knowledge and data compiled and critically evaluated by an overarching science–policy interface body. Major challenges for such a body are (i) to foster global knowledge production on exposure, impacts and governance going beyond data-rich regions (e.g., Europe and North America), (ii) to cover the entirety of hazardous chemicals, mixtures and wastes, (iii) to follow a one-health perspective considering the risks posed by chemicals and waste on ecosystem and human health, and (iv) to strive for solution-oriented assessments based on systems thinking. Based on multiple evidence on urgent action on a global scale, we call scientists and practitioners to mobilize their scientific networks and to intensify science–policy interaction with national governments to support the negotiations on the establishment of an intergovernmental body based on scientific knowledge explaining the anticipated benefit for human and environmental health.
BASE
Summary Background Comprehensive and comparable estimates of health spending in each country are a key input for health policy and planning, and are necessary to support the achievement of national and international health goals. Previous studies have tracked past and projected future health spending until 2040 and shown that, with economic development, countries tend to spend more on health per capita, with a decreasing share of spending from development assistance and out-of-pocket sources. We aimed to characterise the past, present, and predicted future of global health spending, with an emphasis on equity in spending across countries. Methods We estimated domestic health spending for 195 countries and territories from 1995 to 2016, split into three categories—government, out-of-pocket, and prepaid private health spending—and estimated development assistance for health (DAH) from 1990 to 2018. We estimated future scenarios of health spending using an ensemble of linear mixed-effects models with time series specifications to project domestic health spending from 2017 through 2050 and DAH from 2019 through 2050. Data were extracted from a broad set of sources tracking health spending and revenue, and were standardised and converted to inflation-adjusted 2018 US dollars. Incomplete or low-quality data were modelled and uncertainty was estimated, leading to a complete data series of total, government, prepaid private, and out-of-pocket health spending, and DAH. Estimates are reported in 2018 US dollars, 2018 purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars, and as a percentage of gross domestic product. We used demographic decomposition methods to assess a set of factors associated with changes in government health spending between 1995 and 2016 and to examine evidence to support the theory of the health financing transition. We projected two alternative future scenarios based on higher government health spending to assess the potential ability of governments to generate more resources for health. Findings Between 1995 and 2016, health spending grew at a rate of 4·00% (95% uncertainty interval 3·89–4·12) annually, although it grew slower in per capita terms (2·72% [2·61–2·84]) and increased by less than $1 per capita over this period in 22 of 195 countries. The highest annual growth rates in per capita health spending were observed in upper-middle-income countries (5·55% [5·18–5·95]), mainly due to growth in government health spending, and in lower-middle-income countries (3·71% [3·10–4·34]), mainly from DAH. Health spending globally reached $8·0 trillion (7·8–8·1) in 2016 (comprising 8·6% [8·4–8·7] of the global economy and $10·3 trillion [10·1–10·6] in purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars), with a per capita spending of US$5252 (5184–5319) in high-income countries, $491 (461–524) in upper-middle-income countries, $81 (74–89) in lower-middle-income countries, and $40 (38–43) in low-income countries. In 2016, 0·4% (0·3–0·4) of health spending globally was in low-income countries, despite these countries comprising 10·0% of the global population. In 2018, the largest proportion of DAH targeted HIV/AIDS ($9·5 billion, 24·3% of total DAH), although spending on other infectious diseases (excluding tuberculosis and malaria) grew fastest from 2010 to 2018 (6·27% per year). The leading sources of DAH were the USA and private philanthropy (excluding corporate donations and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation). For the first time, we included estimates of China's contribution to DAH ($644·7 million in 2018). Globally, health spending is projected to increase to $15·0 trillion (14·0–16·0) by 2050 (reaching 9·4% [7·6–11·3] of the global economy and $21·3 trillion [19·8–23·1] in purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars), but at a lower growth rate of 1·84% (1·68–2·02) annually, and with continuing disparities in spending between countries. In 2050, we estimate that 0·6% (0·6–0·7) of health spending will occur in currently low-income countries, despite these countries comprising an estimated 15·7% of the global population by 2050. The ratio between per capita health spending in high-income and low-income countries was 130·2 (122·9–136·9) in 2016 and is projected to remain at similar levels in 2050 (125·9 [113·7–138·1]). The decomposition analysis identified governments' increased prioritisation of the health sector and economic development as the strongest factors associated with increases in government health spending globally. Future government health spending scenarios suggest that, with greater prioritisation of the health sector and increased government spending, health spending per capita could more than double, with greater impacts in countries that currently have the lowest levels of government health spending. Interpretation Financing for global health has increased steadily over the past two decades and is projected to continue increasing in the future, although at a slower pace of growth and with persistent disparities in per-capita health spending between countries. Out-of-pocket spending is projected to remain substantial outside of high-income countries. Many low-income countries are expected to remain dependent on development assistance, although with greater government spending, larger investments in health are feasible. In the absence of sustained new investments in health, increasing efficiency in health spending is essential to meet global health targets. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
BASE
Background: Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods: This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings: Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16-30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77-0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50-0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80-0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54-0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation: Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services.
BASE
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
BASE