We summarize some of the past year's most important findings within climate change-related research. New research has improved our understanding about the remaining options to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, through overcoming political barriers to carbon pricing, taking into account non-CO2 factors, a well-designed implementation of demand-side and nature-based solutions, resilience building of ecosystems and the recognition that climate change mitigation costs can be justified by benefits to the health of humans and nature alone. We consider new insights about what to expect if we fail to include a new dimension of fire extremes and the prospect of cascading climate tipping elements.

A synthesis is made of 10 topics within climate research, where there have been significant advances since January 2020. The insights are based on input from an international open call with broad disciplinary scope. Findings include: (1) the options to still keep global warming below 1.5 °C; (2) the impact of non-CO2 factors in global warming; (3) a new dimension of fire extremes forced by climate change; (4) the increasing pressure on interconnected climate tipping elements; (5) the dimensions of climate justice; (6) political challenges impeding the effectiveness of carbon pricing; (7) demand-side solutions as vehicles of climate mitigation; (8) the potentials and caveats of nature-based solutions; (9) how building resilience of marine ecosystems is possible; and (10) that the costs of climate change mitigation policies can be more than justified by the benefits to the health of humans and nature.

How do we limit global warming to 1.5 °C and why is it crucial? See highlights of latest climate science.

Female stroke patients may experience poorer functional outcomes than males following inpatient rehabilitation.

Data from Alberta inpatient stroke rehabilitation units were examined to determine: (1) the impact of sex on time to inpatient rehabilitation, functional gains (using the Functional Independence Measure (FIM)), length of stay (LOS), and discharge destination; (2) if sex was related to age at the time of stroke, stroke severity, and living arrangement at discharge from rehabilitation; and (3) whether patients’ age and preadmission living arrangement had an influence on LOS in rehabilitation or discharge destination.

Two thousand two hundred sixty-six adult stroke patients (1283 males and 983 females) were subcategorized as mild (FIM >80; n = 1155), moderate (FIM 40–80; n = 994), or severe (FIM <40; n = 117). Fifty-five percent of males (45.7% females) had mild stroke; 39.5% of males (49.5% females) had moderate stroke; and 5.5% of males (4.8% females) had severe stroke. Females were significantly older than males (p = 2.4 × 10−4). No sex difference existed in time from acute care to rehabilitation admission (p = 0.73) or in mean FIM change (p = 0.294). Mean LOS was longer for females than males (p=0.018). Males were more likely than females to be discharged home (p = 1.8 × 10−13). Further, male patients (p = 6.4 × 10−7) and those < 65 years (p = 1.4 × 10−23) were more likely to be discharged home without homecare.

There are significant sex and age differences in LOS in rehabilitation and discharge destination of stroke patients. These differences may suggest that sex and age of the patient need to be considered in care planning.

We examined the impact of stroke severity and timing to inpatient rehabilitation admission on length of stay (LOS), functional gains, and discharge destination.

Alberta inpatient stroke rehabilitation data between April 2013 and March 2017 were analyzed. We evaluated the impact of stroke severity, as measured by the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), on timing to inpatient rehabilitation, functional gains, LOS, and discharge destination. Further, we examined whether timing to inpatient rehabilitation impacted the latter three factors.

The 2404 adults were subcategorized as mild (1237), moderate (1031), or severe (136) based on FIM at inpatient rehabilitation admission. Length of time to rehabilitation admission was not significantly (p = 0.232) different between stroke severities. Mean length of time (days) to rehabilitation admission was 19.79 (20.3 SD) for mild, 27.7 (35.7 SD) for moderate, and 37.70 (56.8 SD) for severe stroke. Mean FIM change for mild (M = 16.3, 9.9 SD) differed significantly (p = 5.1 × 10–9) from moderate (M = 30.4, 16.4 SD) and severe (M = 31.0, 25.7 SD) stroke. The mean LOS for mild stroke (M = 41.3, 31.9 SD) was significantly (p = 5.1 × 10–9) different from moderate stroke (M = 86.8, 76.4 SD) and severe stroke (M = 126.1, 104.2 SD). Time to inpatient rehabilitation admission showed a small, significant impact on FIM change (p = 1.4 × 10–9, partial η2 0.022) and LOS (p = 1.1 × 10–19, partial η2 0.042). Shorter times to rehabilitation admission and mild stroke were associated with discharging home without needing homecare.

Stroke severity has a significant impact on the conduct of inpatient rehabilitation. Yet, despite suggestions shortening timing to rehabilitation should improve outcomes, the impact on functional gains and rehabilitation LOS was small.