No abstract

Background: Racial inequities for patients with heart failure (HF) have been widely documented. HF patients who receive cardiology care during a hospital admission have better outcomes. It is unknown whether there are differences in admission to a cardiology or general medicine service by race. This study examined the relationship between race and admission service, and its effect on 30-day readmission and mortality Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study from September 2008 to November 2017 at a single large urban academic referral center of all patients self-referred to the emergency department and admitted to either the cardiology or general medicine service with a principal diagnosis of HF, who self-identified as white, black, or Latinx. We used multivariable generalized estimating equation models to assess the relationship between race and admission to the cardiology service. We used Cox regression to assess the association between race, admission service, and 30-day readmission and mortality. Results: Among 1967 unique patients (66.7% white, 23.6% black, and 9.7% Latinx), black and Latinx patients had lower rates of admission to the cardiology service than white patients (adjusted rate ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84–0.98, for black; adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72–0.97 for Latinx). Female sex and age >75 years were also independently associated with lower rates of admission to the cardiology service. Admission to the cardiology service was independently associated with decreased readmission within 30 days, independent of race. Conclusions: Black and Latinx patients were less likely to be admitted to cardiology for HF care. This inequity may, in part, drive racial inequities in HF outcomes.

This article makes the case for a new and ambitious research and governance agenda for energy demand reduction. It argues that existing 'demand-side' approaches focused on promoting technological efficiency and informed individual consumption are unlikely to be adequate to achieving future carbon emissions reduction goals; it points out that very little attention has so far been paid to the impacts of non-energy policies on energy demand; and it submits that a much fuller integration of energy demand questions into policy is required. It advances a general framework, supported by illustrative examples, for understanding the impacts of 'non-energy' policies on energy demand. It reflects on why these connections have been so little explored and addressed within energy research and policy. And it argues that, for all their current 'invisibility', there is nonetheless scope for increasing the visibility of, and in effect 'mainstreaming', energy demand reduction objectives within other policy Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (2018a) Smart meters: a guide.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Because of existing policy silos, energy policy tends to be addressed from a narrowly energy-centric basis; yet energy systems are clearly also affected by a wide range of policies emanating from other sectors. This article explores the impacts of policies associated with various 'non-energy sectors' on energy supply and demand, using a systematic and wide-ranging review of academic, policy and grey literatures. We discuss six policy sectors where these impacts are, in our assessment, not sufficiently recognised by policymakers or researchers but have significant energy implications. Overall, we find that there is little acknowledgement or analysis of this issue, especially of the full causal chain from 'non-energy policies' through to energy system impacts; for whatever reason, consideration of the reverse links (e.g. of the health impacts of energy policies) is far more common. The upshot is that non-energy policy impacts on energy systems are not sufficiently visible within either research or policy. We argue that this serves as a barrier to change, and that increasing the visibility of these complex and multi-faceted connections is thus a vital task for researchers and policymakers alike.

Decades of techno-economic energy policymaking and research have meant evidence from the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH)—including critical reflections on what changing a society’s relation to energy (efficiency) even means—have been underutilised. In particular, (i) the SSH have too often been sidelined and/or narrowly pigeonholed by policymakers, funders, and other decision-makers when driving research agendas, and (ii) the setting of SSH-focused research agendas has not historically embedded inclusive and deliberative processes. The aim of this paper is to address these gaps through the production of a research agenda outlining future SSH research priorities for energy efficiency. A Horizon Scanning exercise was run, which sought to identify 100 priority SSH questions for energy efficiency research. This exercise included 152 researchers with prior SSH expertise on energy efficiency, who together spanned 62 (sub-)disciplines of SSH, 23 countries, and a full range of career stages. The resultant questions were inductively clustered into seven themes as follows: (1) Citizenship, engagement and knowledge exchange in relation to energy efficiency; (2) Energy efficiency in relation to equity, justice, poverty and vulnerability; (3) Energy efficiency in relation to everyday life and practices of energy consumption and production; (4) Framing, defining and measuring energy efficiency; (5) Governance, policy and political issues around energy efficiency; (6) Roles of economic systems, supply chains and financial mechanisms in improving energy efficiency; and (7) The interactions, unintended consequences and rebound effects of energy efficiency interventions. Given the consistent centrality of energy efficiency in policy programmes, this paper highlights that well-developed SSH approaches are ready to be mobilised to contribute to the development, and/or to understand the implications, of energy efficiency measures and governance solutions. Implicitly, it also emphasises the heterogeneity of SSH policy evidence that can be produced. The agenda will be of use for both (1) those new to the energy-SSH field (including policyworkers), for learnings on the capabilities and capacities of energy-SSH, and (2) established energy-SSH researchers, for insights on the collectively held futures of energy-SSH research.