85 research outputs found

    Exploring synergies and trade-offs among the sustainable development goals: collective action and adaptive capacity in marginal mountainous areas of India

    Get PDF
    Global environmental change (GEC) threatens to undermine the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Smallholders in marginal mountainous areas (MMA) are particularly vulnerable due to precarious livelihoods in challenging environments. Acting collectively can enable and constrain the ability of smallholders to adapt to GEC. The objectives of this paper are: (i) identify collective actions in four MMA of the central Indian Himalaya Region, each with differing institutional contexts; (ii) assess the adaptive capacity of each village by measuring livelihood capital assets, diversity, and sustainable land management practices. Engaging with adaptive capacity and collective action literatures, we identify three broad approaches to adaptive capacity relating to the SDGs: natural hazard mitigation (SDG 13), social vulnerability (SDG 1, 2 and 5), and social–ecological resilience (SDG 15). We then develop a conceptual framework to understand the institutional context and identify SDG synergies and trade-offs. Adopting a mixed method approach, we analyse the relationships between collective action and the adaptive capacity of each village, the sites where apparent trade-offs and synergies among SDGs occur. Results illustrate each village has unique socio-environmental characteristics, implying distinct development challenges, vulnerabilities and adaptive capacities exist. Subsequently, specific SDG synergies and trade-offs occur even within MMA, and it is therefore crucial that institutions facilitate locally appropriate collective actions in order to achieve the SDGs. We suggest that co-production in the identification, prioritisation and potential solutions to the distinct challenges facing MMA can increase understandings of the specific dynamics and feedbacks necessary to achieve the SDGs in the context of GEC

    Systematic evaluation and external validation of 22 prognostic models among hospitalised adults with COVID-19: An observational cohort study

    Get PDF
    Background: The number of proposed prognostic models for COVID-19 is growing rapidly, but it is unknown whether any are suitable for widespread clinical implementation. / Methods: We independently externally validated the performance candidate prognostic models, identified through a living systematic review, among consecutive adults admitted to hospital with a final diagnosis of COVID-19. We reconstructed candidate models as per original descriptions and evaluated performance for their original intended outcomes using predictors measured at admission. We assessed discrimination, calibration and net benefit, compared to the default strategies of treating all and no patients, and against the most discriminating predictor in univariable analyses. / Results: We tested 22 candidate prognostic models among 411 participants with COVID-19, of whom 180 (43.8%) and 115 (28.0%) met the endpoints of clinical deterioration and mortality, respectively. Highest areas under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves were achieved by the NEWS2 score for prediction of deterioration over 24 h (0.78; 95% CI 0.73–0.83), and a novel model for prediction of deterioration <14 days from admission (0.78; 0.74–0.82). The most discriminating univariable predictors were admission oxygen saturation on room air for in-hospital deterioration (AUROC 0.76; 0.71–0.81), and age for in-hospital mortality (AUROC 0.76; 0.71–0.81). No prognostic model demonstrated consistently higher net benefit than these univariable predictors, across a range of threshold probabilities. / Conclusions: Admission oxygen saturation on room air and patient age are strong predictors of deterioration and mortality among hospitalised adults with COVID-19, respectively. None of the prognostic models evaluated here offered incremental value for patient stratification to these univariable predictors

    COVID-19-associated hyperinflammation and escalation of patient care: a retrospective longitudinal cohort study

    Get PDF
    Background: A subset of patients with severe COVID-19 develop a hyperinflammatory syndrome, which might contribute to morbidity and mortality. This study explores a specific phenotype of COVID-19-associated hyperinflammation (COV-HI), and its associations with escalation of respiratory support and survival. / Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we enrolled consecutive inpatients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to University College London Hospitals and Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals in the UK with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 during the first wave of community-acquired infection. Demographic data, laboratory tests, and clinical status were recorded from the day of admission until death or discharge, with a minimum follow-up time of 28 days. We defined COV-HI as a C-reactive protein concentration greater than 150 mg/L or doubling within 24 h from greater than 50 mg/L, or a ferritin concentration greater than 1500 μg/L. Respiratory support was categorised as oxygen only, non-invasive ventilation, and intubation. Initial and repeated measures of hyperinflammation were evaluated in relation to the next-day risk of death or need for escalation of respiratory support (as a combined endpoint), using a multi-level logistic regression model. / Findings: We included 269 patients admitted to one of the study hospitals between March 1 and March 31, 2020, among whom 178 (66%) were eligible for escalation of respiratory support and 91 (34%) patients were not eligible. Of the whole cohort, 90 (33%) patients met the COV-HI criteria at admission. Despite having a younger median age and lower median Charlson Comorbidity Index scores, a higher proportion of patients with COV-HI on admission died during follow-up (36 [40%] of 90 patients) compared with the patients without COV-HI on admission (46 [26%] of 179). Among the 178 patients who were eligible for full respiratory support, 65 (37%) met the definition for COV-HI at admission, and 67 (74%) of the 90 patients whose respiratory care was escalated met the criteria by the day of escalation. Meeting the COV-HI criteria was significantly associated with the risk of next-day escalation of respiratory support or death (hazard ratio 2·24 [95% CI 1·62–2·87]) after adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidity. / Interpretation: Associations between elevated inflammatory markers, escalation of respiratory support, and survival in people with COVID-19 indicate the existence of a high-risk inflammatory phenotype. COV-HI might be useful to stratify patient groups in trial design. / Funding: None

    Clinical features and management of individuals admitted to hospital with monkeypox and associated complications across the UK: a retrospective cohort study.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: The scale of the 2022 global mpox (formerly known as monkeypox) outbreak has been unprecedented. In less than 6 months, non-endemic countries have reported more than 67 000 cases of a disease that had previously been rare outside of Africa. Mortality has been reported as rare but hospital admission has been relatively common. We aimed to describe the clinical and laboratory characteristics and outcomes of individuals admitted to hospital with mpox and associated complications, including tecovirimat recipients. METHODS: In this cohort study, we undertook retrospective review of electronic clinical records and pathology data for all individuals admitted between May 6, and Aug 3, 2022, to 16 hospitals from the Specialist and High Consequence Infectious Diseases Network for Monkeypox. The hospitals were located in ten cities in England and Northern Ireland. Inclusion criteria were clinical signs consistent with mpox and MPXV DNA detected from at least one clinical sample by PCR testing. Patients admitted solely for isolation purposes were excluded from the study. Key outcomes included admission indication, complications (including pain, secondary infection, and mortality) and use of antibiotic and anti-viral treatments. Routine biochemistry, haematology, microbiology, and virology data were also collected. Outcomes were assessed in all patients with available data. FINDINGS: 156 individuals were admitted to hospital with complicated mpox during the study period. 153 (98%) were male and three (2%) were female, with a median age of 35 years (IQR 30-44). Gender data were collected from electronic patient records, which encompassed full formal review of clincian notes. The prespecified options for data collection for gender were male, female, trans, non-binary, or unknown. 105 (71%) of 148 participants with available ethnicity data were of White ethnicity and 47 (30%) of 155 were living with HIV with a median CD4 count of 510 cells per mm3 (IQR 349-828). Rectal or perianal pain (including proctitis) was the most common indication for hospital admission (44 [28%] of 156). Severe pain was reported in 89 (57%) of 156, and secondary bacterial infection in 82 (58%) of 142 individuals with available data. Median admission duration was 5 days (IQR 2-9). Ten individuals required surgery and two cases of encephalitis were reported. 38 (24%) of the 156 individuals received tecovirimat with early cessation in four cases (two owing to hepatic transaminitis, one to rapid treatment response, and one to patient choice). No deaths occurred during the study period. INTERPRETATION: Although life-threatening mpox appears rare in hospitalised populations during the current outbreak, severe mpox and associated complications can occur in immunocompetent individuals. Analgesia and management of superimposed bacterial infection are priorities for patients admitted to hospital. FUNDING: None

    Systematic evaluation and external validation of 22 prognostic models among hospitalised adults with COVID-19: An observational cohort study

    Get PDF
    The number of proposed prognostic models for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is growing rapidly, but it is unknown whether any are suitable for widespread clinical implementation. We independently externally validated the performance of candidate prognostic models, identified through a living systematic review, among consecutive adults admitted to hospital with a final diagnosis of COVID-19. We reconstructed candidate models as per original descriptions and evaluated performance for their original intended outcomes using predictors measured at the time of admission. We assessed discrimination, calibration and net benefit, compared to the default strategies of treating all and no patients, and against the most discriminating predictors in univariable analyses. We tested 22 candidate prognostic models among 411 participants with COVID-19, of whom 180 (43.8%) and 115 (28.0%) met the endpoints of clinical deterioration and mortality, respectively. Highest areas under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves were achieved by the NEWS2 score for prediction of deterioration over 24 h (0.78, 95% CI 0.73-0.83), and a novel model for prediction of deterioration <14 days from admission (0.78, 95% CI 0.74-0.82). The most discriminating univariable predictors were admission oxygen saturation on room air for in-hospital deterioration (AUROC 0.76, 95% CI 0.71-0.81), and age for in-hospital mortality (AUROC 0.76, 95% CI 0.71-0.81). No prognostic model demonstrated consistently higher net benefit than these univariable predictors, across a range of threshold probabilities. Admission oxygen saturation on room air and patient age are strong predictors of deterioration and mortality among hospitalised adults with COVID-19, respectively. None of the prognostic models evaluated here offered incremental value for patient stratification to these univariable predictors

    Finance and Growth: Schumpeter Might Be Wrong in Our Era. New Evidence from Meta-Analysis

    Full text link
    Purpose In a meta-study on the finance-growth nexus, we have bridged the gap between Schumpeterian authors and sympathizers of a questionable finance-growth nexus. Design/methodology/approach Over 20 fundamental characteristics that have influenced the debate over the last decades have been examined. The empirical evidence is based on 196 outcomes from 20 studies. We assess the degree of heterogeneity and identify causes of the observed differentiation. Findings Our findings also show evidence of publication bias. Overall, a genuine effect exists between financial development and economic growth. Schumpeter's thesis might be wrong in our era because of: endogeneity-based estimations, publication bias and, effects of financial activity. A historical justification has also been discussed. Originality/value Very few meta-analysis studies have focused on the finance-growth nexus
    corecore