Do male and female trauma patients receive the same prehospital care? : An observational follow-up study

Background: Trauma-related mortality can be lowered by efficient prehospital care. Less is known about whether gender influences the prehospital trauma care provided. The aim of this study was to explore gender-related differences in prehospital trauma care of severely injured trauma patients, with a special focus on triage, transportation, and interventions. Methods: We performed a retrospective observational study based on local trauma registries and hospital and ambulance records in Stockholm County, Sweden. A total of 383 trauma patients (279 males and 104 females) > 15years of age with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of > 15 transported to emergency care hospitals in the Stockholm area were included. Results: Male patients had a 2.75 higher odds ratio (95% CI, 1.2-6.2) for receiving the highest prehospital priority compared to females on controlling for injury mechanism and vital signs on scene. No significant difference between genders was detected regarding other aspects of the prehospital care provided. Conclusions: This study indicated that prehospital prioritization among severely injured late adolescent and adult trauma patients differs between genders. Knowledge of a more diffuse presentation of symptoms in female trauma patients despite severe injury may help to adapt and improve prehospital trauma care for this group.Peer reviewe

Non-state actors in hybrid global climate governance: justice, legitimacy, and effectiveness in a post-Paris era

In this article, we outline the multifaceted roles played by non-state actors within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and place this within the wider landscape of global climate governance. In doing so, we look at both the formation and aftermath of the 2015 Paris Agreement. We argue that the Paris Agreement cements an architecture of hybrid multilateralism that enables and constrains non-state actor participation in global climate governance. We flesh out the constitutive features of hybrid multilateralism, enumerate the multiple positions non-state actors may employ under these conditions, and contend that non-state actors will play an increasingly important role in the post-Paris era. To substantiate these claims, we assess these shifts and ask how non-state actors may affect the legitimacy, justice, and effectiveness of the Paris Agreement

Building a Social Mandate for Climate Action: Lessons from COVID-19

The COVID-19 imposed lockdown has led to a number of temporary environmental side effects (reduced global emissions, cleaner air, less noise), that the climate community has aspired to achieve over a number of decades. However, these benefits have been achieved at a massive cost to welfare and the economy. This commentary draws lessons from the COVID-19 crisis for climate change. It discusses whether there are more sustainable ways of achieving these benefits, as part of a more desirable, low carbon resilient future, in a more planned, inclusive and less disruptive way. In order to achieve this, we argue for a clearer social contract between citizens and the state. We discuss how COVID-19 has demonstrated that behaviours can change abruptly, that these changes come at a cost, that we need a ‘social mandate’ to ensure these changes remain in the long-term, and that science plays an important role in informing this process. We suggest that deliberative engagement mechanisms, such as citizens’ assemblies and juries, could be a powerful way to build a social mandate for climate action post-COVID-19. This would enable behaviour changes to become more accepted, embedded and bearable in the long-term and provide the basis for future climate action

Politicizing food security governance through participation: opportunities and opposition

Since the 2007/08 food price crisis there has been a proliferation of multi-stakeholder processes (MSPs) devoted to bringing diverse perspectives together to inform and improve food security policy. While much of the literature highlights the positive contributions to be gained from an opening-up of traditionally state-led processes, there is a strong critique emerging to show that, in many instances, MSPs have de-politicizing effects. In this paper, we scrutinize MSPs in relation to de-politicization. We argue that re-building sustainable and just food systems requires alternative visions that can best be made visible through politicized policy processes. Focusing on three key conditions of politicization, we examine the UN Committee on World Food Security as a MSP where we see a process of politicization playing out through the endorsement of the ‘most-affected’ principle, which is in turn being actively contested by traditionally powerful actors. We conclude that there is a need to implement and reinforce mechanisms that deliberately politicize participation in MSPs, notably by clearly distinguishing between states and other stakeholders, as well as between categories of non-state actors.</p