There is increasing understanding, globally, that climate change and increased pollution will have a profound and mostly harmful effect on human health. This review brings together international experts to describe both the direct (such as heat waves) and indirect (such as vector-borne disease incidence) health impacts of climate change. These impacts vary depending on vulnerability (i.e., existing diseases) and the international, economic, political, and environmental context. This unique review also expands on these issues to address a third category of potential longer-term impacts on global health: famine, population dislocation, and environmental justice and education. This scholarly resource explores these issues fully, linking them to global health in urban and rural settings in developed and developing countries. The review finishes with a practical discussion of action that health professionals around the world in our field can yet take.

No abstract

Human health is increasingly threatened by rapid and widespread changes in the environment and climate, including rising temperatures, air and water pollution, disease vector migration, floods, and droughts. In the United States, many medical schools, the American Medical Association, and the National Academy of Sciences have published calls for physicians and physicians-in-training to develop a basic knowledge of the science of climate change and an awareness of the associated health risks. The authors—all medical students and educators—argue for the expeditious redesign of medical school curricula to teach students to recognize, diagnose, and treat the many health conditions exacerbated by climate change as well as understand public health issues. In this Invited Commentary, the authors briefly review the health impacts of climate change, examine current climate change course offerings and proposals, and describe the rationale for promptly and comprehensively including climate science education in medical school curricula. Efforts in training physicians now will benefit those physicians’ communities whose health will be impacted by a period of remarkable climate change. The bottom line is that the health effects of climate reality cannot be ignored, and people everywhere must adapt as quickly as possible.

A recent advancement in the treatment of burn scars has been the use of the carbon dioxide (CO2) laser to perform fractional photothermolysis. In this analysis, we describe our results and patient-reported outcomes with the use of fractional CO2 laser for the treatment of burn-related scarring. We performed a retrospective study of all patients who underwent CO2 laser procedures for treatment of symptomatic burn scars and skin grafts at one accredited regional burn center. Burn injury and laser treatment demographics, as well as complications, are reported. A questionnaire was administered to all patients and included patient-reported outcome measures aimed at understanding the patient experience and their subjective response to treatment. A total of 387 CO2 laser procedures were performed on 131 patients for the treatment of symptomatic burn scars and skin grafts between October 1, 2011, and May 1, 2014 (average, 2.95 procedures/patient; range, 1-11). Average time between injury and first laser was 597.35 days (range, 60-13,475). Average time between laser treatments (when multiple) was 117.73 days (range, 22-514). There were no infections requiring treatment with oral antibiotics. Overall patient satisfaction with laser therapy was 96.7%. Patients reported reductions in neuropathic pain, tightness (contracture), and pruritus (54.0, 50.6, and 49.0%, respectively). Fractional photothermolysis utilizing the CO2 laser is a safe and effective modality for the treatment of symptomatic burn scars, donor sites, and skin grafts. Patient satisfaction with this procedure is high, and complications are low. Significant improvements in scar appearance, pliability, tightness, neuropathic pain, and pruritus were commonly reported.

Linking individuals to community resources in order to help meet health-related social needs, such as food, medications, or transportation, may improve clinical outcomes. However, little is known about the mechanisms whereby such linkage interventions might improve health. The authors conducted a mixed-methods analysis consisting of outcomes from a prospective cohort study of a linkage intervention and a qualitative analysis of case records from participants. The cohort study included intervention participants who first enrolled between December 2014 and March 2015. Participants were excluded if they could not complete the assessment because of illness or language. The authors examined changes in cost-related medication underuse (CRMU), transportation barriers, and food insecurity (FI). For the qualitative analysis, a random sample of 80 participants was selected for electronic health record review -40 cases who showed clinical improvement (responders) and 40 cases who did not (nonresponders). Themes were extracted by 3 reviewers guided by the immersion/crystallization approach. For the cohort study, 141 individuals were included; 138 (97.9%) completed follow-up. Comparing baseline to follow-up, there were significant reductions in the prevalence of CRMU (from 44.2% to 39.1%, P = .003) and transportation barriers (from 46.3% to 30.2%, P = .001), but not FI (from 40.4% to 38.2%, P = .73). For the qualitative study, emergent themes that helped differentiate responders and nonresponders included acuity of need, resource availability/access, and adequacy of the resource utilized. CRMU and transportation barriers may be important mechanisms by which linkage interventions improve health-related social needs. Patient-centered themes can help guide intervention improvements.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract