This review highlights 10 recent advances in climate change research with high policy relevance, spanning diverse topics: (1) the global temperature jump of 2023–2024; (2) sea surface warming and marine heatwaves; (3) land carbon sinks; (4) interactions between climate change and biodiversity loss; (5) accelerated groundwater decline; (6) global dengue incidence; (7) income and labour productivity loss; (8) strategic considerations for scaling carbon dioxide removal (CDR); (9) integrity of carbon credit markets; and (10) policy mixes for climate change mitigation.

Interdisciplinary understanding is vital for delivering sound climate policy advice. However, navigating the ever-growing and increasingly diverse scholarly literature on climate change is challenging for any individual researcher. This annual synthesis highlights and explains recent advances across a variety of fields of climate change research. This year, the 10 insights focus on: (1) the record-warmth of 2023/2024 and the elevated Earth energy imbalance; (2) acceleration of ocean warming and intensifying marine heatwaves; (3) northern land carbon sinks under strain; (4) reinforcing feedback between biodiversity loss and climate change; (5) accelerated depletion of groundwater; (6) global dengue incidence; (7) global income losses and labour productivity declines; (8) strategic scaling of CDR; (9) integrity challenges in carbon credit markets and emerging responses; and (10) effective policy mixes for emissions reductions. The insights have been written to be accessible to researchers from different fields, serving as entry-points to specific topics, as well as providing an overview of the evolving landscape of climate change research. In the final section, the insights are used to develop overarching policy-relevant messages. This paper provides the basis for a science-policy report that was shared with all Party delegations ahead of COP30 in Belém, Brazil.

Highlights of climate change research in 2024–2025: 10insightsclimate.science

The objectives of this study were to develop and refine EMPOWER (Enhancing and Mobilizing the POtential for Wellness and Resilience), a brief manualized cognitive-behavioral, acceptance-based intervention for surrogate decision-makers of critically ill patients and to evaluate its preliminary feasibility, acceptability, and promise in improving surrogates’ mental health and patient outcomes.

Part 1 involved obtaining qualitative stakeholder feedback from 5 bereaved surrogates and 10 critical care and mental health clinicians. Stakeholders were provided with the manual and prompted for feedback on its content, format, and language. Feedback was organized and incorporated into the manual, which was then re-circulated until consensus. In Part 2, surrogates of critically ill patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) reporting moderate anxiety or close attachment were enrolled in an open trial of EMPOWER. Surrogates completed six, 15–20 min modules, totaling 1.5–2 h. Surrogates were administered measures of peritraumatic distress, experiential avoidance, prolonged grief, distress tolerance, anxiety, and depression at pre-intervention, post-intervention, and at 1-month and 3-month follow-up assessments.

Part 1 resulted in changes to the EMPOWER manual, including reducing jargon, improving navigability, making EMPOWER applicable for a range of illness scenarios, rearranging the modules, and adding further instructions and psychoeducation. Part 2 findings suggested that EMPOWER is feasible, with 100% of participants completing all modules. The acceptability of EMPOWER appeared strong, with high ratings of effectiveness and helpfulness (M = 8/10). Results showed immediate post-intervention improvements in anxiety (d = −0.41), peritraumatic distress (d = −0.24), and experiential avoidance (d = −0.23). At the 3-month follow-up assessments, surrogates exhibited improvements in prolonged grief symptoms (d = −0.94), depression (d = −0.23), anxiety (d = −0.29), and experiential avoidance (d = −0.30).

Preliminary data suggest that EMPOWER is feasible, acceptable, and associated with notable improvements in psychological symptoms among surrogates. Future research should examine EMPOWER with a larger sample in a randomized controlled trial.

Studies have shown that when religious and spiritual concerns are addressed by the medical team, patients are more satisfied with their care and have lower healthcare costs. However, little is known about how intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians address these concerns. The objective of this study was to determine how ICU clinicians address the religious and spiritual needs of patients and families.

We performed a cross-sectional survey study of ICU physicians, nurses, and advance practice providers (APPs) to understand their attitudes and beliefs about addressing the religious and spiritual needs of ICU patients and families. Each question was designed on a 4- to 5-point Likert scale. A total of 219 surveys were collected over a 4-month period.

A majority of clinicians agreed that it is their responsibility to address the religious/spiritual needs of patients. A total of 79% of attendings, 74% of fellows, 89% of nurses, and 83% of APPs agreed with this statement. ICU clinicians also feel comfortable talking to patients about their religious/spiritual concerns. In practice, few clinicians frequently address religious/spiritual concerns. Only 14% of attendings, 3% of fellows, 26% of nurses, and 17% of APPs say they frequently ask patients about their religious/spiritual needs.

This study shows that ICU clinicians see it as their role to address the religious and spiritual needs of their patients, and report feeling comfortable talking about these issues. Despite this, a minority of clinicians regularly address religious and spiritual needs in clinical practice. This highlights a potential deficit in comprehensive critical care as outlined by many national guidelines.

Describe the epidemiology of healthcare-related (ie, healthcare-associated and hospital-acquired) pneumonia due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) among hospitalized patients in community hospitals.

Retrospective cohort study.

Twenty-four community hospitals in the southeastern United States affiliated with the Duke Infection Control Outreach Network (median size, 211 beds; range, 103–658 beds).

Adult patients with healthcare-related MRSA pneumonia admitted to study hospitals from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2012, were identified using surveillance data. Seasonal and annual incidence rates (cases per 100,000 patient-days) were estimated using generalized estimating equation models. Characteristics of community-onset and hospital-onset cases were compared.

A total of 1,048 cases of healthcare-related pneumonia due to MRSA were observed during 5,863,941 patient-days. The annual incidence rate of healthcare-related MRSA pneumonia increased from 11.3 cases per 100,000 patient-days (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.8–18.7) in 2008 to 15.5 cases per 100,000 patient-days (95% CI, 8.4–28.5) in 2012 (P = .055). The incidence rate was highest in winter months and lowest in summer months (15.4 vs 11.1 cases per 100,000 patient-days; incidence rate ratio, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.06–1.82]; P = .016). A total of 814 cases (77.7%) were community-onset healthcare-associated pneumonia cases; only 49 cases (4.7%) were ventilator-associated cases. Of 811 patients whose disposition was known, 240 (29.6%) died during hospitalization or were discharged to hospice.

From 2008 through 2012, the incidence of healthcare-related MRSA pneumonia among patients who were admitted to a large network of community hospitals increased, despite the decreasing incidence of invasive MRSA infections nationwide. Additional study is warranted to evaluate trends in this important and potentially modifiable public health problem.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35(12):1452–1457