Patient-reported outcome measure use among older adults after emergency department care: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are gaining favor in clinical and research settings given their ability to capture a patient's symptom burden, functional status, and quality of life. Our objective in this systematic review was to summarize studies including PROMs assessed among older adults (age ≥ 65 years) after seeking emergency care. METHODS: With the assistance of a medical librarian, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science-Core Collection, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception through June 2023 for studies in which older adult ED patients had PROMs assessed in the post-emergency care time period. Independent reviewers performed title/abstract review, full-text screening, data extraction, study characteristic summarization, and risk-of-bias (RoB) assessments. RESULTS: Our search strategy yielded 5153 studies of which 56 met study inclusion criteria. Within included studies, 304 unique PROM assessments were performed at varying time points after the ED visit, including 61 unique PROMs. The most commonly measured domain was physical function, assessed within the majority of studies (47/56; 84%), with measures including PROMs such as Katz activities of daily living (ADLs), instrumental ADLs, and the Barthel Index. PROMs were most frequently assessed at 1-3 months after an ED visit (113/304; 37%), greater than 6 months (91/304; 30%), and 4-6 months (88/304; 29%), with very few PROMs assessed within 1 month of the ED visit (12/304; 4%). Of the 16 interventional studies, two were determined to have a low RoB, four had moderate RoB, nine had high RoB, and one had insufficient information. Of the 40 observational studies, 10 were determined to be of good quality, 20 of moderate quality, and 10 of poor quality. CONCLUSIONS: PROM assessments among older adults following an ED visit frequently measured physical function, with very few assessments occurring within the first 1 month after an ED visit.

Assessing the Human Health Benefits of Climate Mitigation, Pollution Prevention, and Biodiversity Preservation.

Background: Since the Industrial Revolution, humanity has amassed great wealth and achieved unprecedented material prosperity. These advances have come, however, at great cost to the planet. They are guided by an economic model that focuses almost exclusively on short-term gain, while ignoring natural capital and human capital. They have relied on the combustion of vast quantities of fossil fuels, massive consumption of the earth's resources, and production and environmental release of enormous quantities of chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers, and plastics. They have caused climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss, the "Triple Planetary Crisis". They are responsible for more than 9 million premature deaths per year and for widespread disease - impacts that fall disproportionately upon the poor and the vulnerable. Goals: To map the human health impacts of climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss. To outline a framework for assessing the health benefits of interventions against these threats. Findings: Actions taken by national governments and international agencies to mitigate climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss can improve health, prevent disease, save lives, and enhance human well-being. Yet assessment of health benefits is largely absent from evaluations of environmental remediation programs. This represents a lost opportunity to quantify the full benefits of environmental remediation and to educate policy makers and the public. Recommendations: We recommend that national governments and international agencies implementing interventions against climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss develop metrics and strategies for quantifying the health benefits of these interventions. We recommend that they deploy these tools in parallel with assessments of ecologic and economic benefits. Health metrics developed by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study may provide a useful starting point.Incorporation of health metrics into assessments of environmental restoration will require building transdisciplinary collaborations. Environmental scientists and engineers will need to work with health scientists to establish evaluation systems that link environmental and economic data with health data. Such systems will assist international agencies as well as national and local governments in prioritizing environmental interventions.