Assessing the impacts of 1.5 °C global warming – simulation protocol of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP2b)

In Paris, France, December 2015, the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) invited the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide a "special report in 2018 on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways". In Nairobi, Kenya, April 2016, the IPCC panel accepted the invitation. Here we describe the response devised within the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP) to provide tailored, cross-sectorally consistent impact projections to broaden the scientific basis for the report. The simulation protocol is designed to allow for (1) separation of the impacts of historical warming starting from pre-industrial conditions from impacts of other drivers such as historical land-use changes (based on pre-industrial and historical impact model simulations); (2) quantification of the impacts of additional warming up to 1.5°C, including a potential overshoot and long-term impacts up to 2299, and comparison to higher levels of global mean temperature change (based on the low-emissions Representative Concentration Pathway RCP2.6 and a no-mitigation pathway RCP6.0) with socio-economic conditions fixed at 2005 levels; and (3) assessment of the climate effects based on the same climate scenarios while accounting for simultaneous changes in socio-economic conditions following the middle-of-the-road Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP2, Fricko et al., 2016) and in particular differential bioenergy requirements associated with the transformation of the energy system to comply with RCP2.6 compared to RCP6.0. With the aim of providing the scientific basis for an aggregation of impacts across sectors and analysis of cross-sectoral interactions that may dampen or amplify sectoral impacts, the protocol is designed to facilitate consistent impact projections from a range of impact models across different sectors (global and regional hydrology, lakes, global crops, global vegetation, regional forests, global and regional marine ecosystems and fisheries, global and regional coastal infrastructure, energy supply and demand, temperature-related mortality, and global terrestrial biodiversity)

Decision-Making and Justifications

This poster explores the differential predictions tested pertaining decision-making and the framing effect. The framing effect is described as the phenomenon of risk aversion with positively framed outcomes and risk-seeking behavior with negatively framed outcomes (Tversky & Kahnemann, 1981). The purpose of the current study is to grasp a better understanding of how participants think about their decisions. Four hundred participants responded to four decision-making scenarios; two dealt with a monetary gamble, and two regarded an outbreak of a disease that put human lives at risk. One outbreak occurred in the general population, whereas the other outbreak occurred in a major prison complex. Frame of the decision option was manipulated between-subjects. For each scenario, participants chose between two options for how to respond to that decision, and also gave a rationale for why they made the choice they did. These rationales were coded for whether participants referred to emotion, logic, and other categories. It is hypothesized that the participants will focus on morally right feelings when justifying decisions regarding human lives, but will focus more on logical concerns when justifying decisions about gambling and monetary risk. It is also predicted that justifications will vary between the two human life scenarios: prisoners versus people in general. Preliminary results suggest that the scenario context did influence both the decisions that participants made, as well as how they justified their decision. This research helps us better understand how the wording (framing) of decision options influences how people think about their decisions

Patient reported outcomes – experiences with implementation in a University Health Care setting

Abstract Aim Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have traditionally been implemented through a manual process of paper and pencil with little standardization throughout a Healthcare System. Each practice has asked patients specific questions to understand the patient’s health as it pertains to their specialty. These data were rarely shared and there has not been a comparison of patient’s health across different specialty domains. We sought to leverage interoperable electronic systems to provide a standardization of PRO assessments across sites of care. Methods University of Utah Health is comprised of four hospitals, 12 community clinics, over 400,000 unique annual patients, and more than 5000 providers. The enterprise wide implementation of PROs started in November of 2015. Patients can complete an assessment at home via email, or within the clinic on a tablet. Each specialty has the opportunity to add additional specialty-specific instruments. We customized the interval with which the patient answers the assessments based on specialty preference in order to minimize patient burden, while maximizing relevant data for clinicians. Results Barriers and facilitators were identified in three phases: Pre-implementation, Implementation, and Post-implementation. Each phase was further broken down into technical challenges, content inclusion and exclusion, and organizational strategy. These phases are unique and require collaboration between several groups throughout the organization with support from executive leadership. Discussion We are deploying system-wide standard and customized PRO collection with the goals of providing better patient care, improving physician-patient communication, and ultimately improving the value of the care given. Standardized assessment provides any clinician with information to quickly evaluate the overall, physical and mental health of a patient. This information is available real time to aid in patient communication for the clinician

Effects of Pain From Atopic Dermatitis: Interview and Focus Group Study With Patients and Their Families

BackgroundPain is an underappreciated symptom of atopic dermatitis that can affect the health-related quality of life (HRQL) of patients. ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to understand the effect of pain on patients with atopic dermatitis and their family members and to recognize how this symptom affects HRQL. MethodsWe conducted focus groups and interviews with patients with atopic dermatitis and their family members. Researchers independently coded the transcripts and reached a consensus on the major themes. ResultsA total of 33 adult participants, consisting of 21 patients with atopic dermatitis (median age 47 years, range 22-77) and 12 family members (median age 50, range 22-72), attended either focus groups (23/33, 70%) or interviews (10/33, 30%), where we assessed their experiences of pain. Four themes emerged in our study. Itchiness and pain can be intertwined: pain was often caused by or otherwise associated with itchiness and could result from open sores and excoriated skin. Characteristics of pain: pain was most often described as burning. Other descriptors included mild, persistent discomfort; stinging; and stabbing. Effects of pain: pain negatively affected various aspects of daily life, including choice of clothing, sleep, social activities, and relationships. The location of painful areas could also limit physical activity, including sex. Pain management: pain from atopic dermatitis could be managed to varying degrees with different over-the-counter and prescription treatments. Systemic agents that cleared the skin also resolved the pain associated with atopic dermatitis. ConclusionsPain can be a significant factor in the HRQL of patients with atopic dermatitis and should be considered by clinicians when caring for patients with atopic dermatitis

Diglossia and register variation in Singapore English

10.1111/j.0083-2919.2006.00449.xWorld Englishes251105-11

Clinical Management of Patients with Schizophrenia Treated with Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotics and Telepsychiatry Use During COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic substantially impacted care of patients with schizophrenia treated with long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs). This study examined how clinics adapted operations to maintain a standard of care for these patients after pandemic onset. Online surveys were completed in October-November 2020 by one principal investigator (PI) or PI-appointed designee at 35 clinics participating in OASIS (NCT03919994). Items concerned pandemic impacts on clinic operations, particularly telepsychiatry, and on the care of patients with schizophrenia treated with LAIs. All 35 clinics reported using telepsychiatry; 20 (57%) implemented telepsychiatry after pandemic onset. Telepsychiatry visits increased from 12%-15% to 45%-69% across outpatient visit types after pandemic onset; frequency of no-show and/or canceled telepsychiatry visits decreased by approximately one-third. Nearly half of clinics increased the frequency of telepsychiatry visits for patients with schizophrenia treated with LAIs. Approximately one-third of participants each reported switching patients treated with LAIs to longer injection interval LAIs or to oral antipsychotics. The most common system/clinic- and patient-related barrier for telepsychiatry visits was lower reimbursement rate and access to technology/reliable internet, respectively. Almost all participants (94%) were satisfied with telepsychiatry for maintaining care of patients with schizophrenia treated with LAIs; most predicted a hybrid of telepsychiatry and office visits post-pandemic. Changes made by clinics after pandemic onset were viewed by almost all participants as satisfactory for maintaining a standard of care for patients with schizophrenia treated with LAIs. Most participants predicted continuing telepsychiatry to support patient care post-pandemic; equitable access to telepsychiatry will be important in this regard. Alkermes, Inc

Assessing the impacts of 1.5°C global warming - Simulation protocol of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP2b)

In Paris, France, December 2015, the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) invited the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide a special report in 2018 on the impacts of global warming of 1.5ĝ€°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways. In Nairobi, Kenya, April 2016, the IPCC panel accepted the invitation. Here we describe the response devised within the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP) to provide tailored, cross-sectorally consistent impact projections to broaden the scientific basis for the report. The simulation protocol is designed to allow for (1) separation of the impacts of historical warming starting from pre-industrial conditions from impacts of other drivers such as historical land-use changes (based on pre-industrial and historical impact model simulations); (2) quantification of the impacts of additional warming up to 1.5ĝ€°C, including a potential overshoot and long-term impacts up to 2299, and comparison to higher levels of global mean temperature change (based on the low-emissions Representative Concentration Pathway RCP2.6 and a no-mitigation pathway RCP6.0) with socio-economic conditions fixed at 2005 levels; and (3) assessment of the climate effects based on the same climate scenarios while accounting for simultaneous changes in socio-economic conditions following the middle-of-the-road Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP2, Fricko et al., 2016) and in particular differential bioenergy requirements associated with the transformation of the energy system to comply with RCP2.6 compared to RCP6.0. With the aim of providing the scientific basis for an aggregation of impacts across sectors and analysis of cross-sectoral interactions that may dampen or amplify sectoral impacts, the protocol is designed to facilitate consistent impact projections from a range of impact models across different sectors (global and regional hydrology, lakes, global crops, global vegetation, regional forests, global and regional marine ecosystems and fisheries, global and regional coastal infrastructure, energy supply and demand, temperature-related mortality, and global terrestrial biodiversity)