Science-based restoration monitoring of coastal habitats, Volume Two: Tools for monitoring coastal habitats

Healthy coastal habitats are not only important ecologically; they also support healthy coastal communities and improve the quality of people’s lives. Despite their many benefits and values, coastal habitats have been systematically modified, degraded, and destroyed throughout the United States and its protectorates beginning with European colonization in the 1600’s (Dahl 1990). As a result, many coastal habitats around the United States are in desperate need of restoration. The monitoring of restoration projects, the focus of this document, is necessary to ensure that restoration efforts are successful, to further the science, and to increase the efficiency of future restoration efforts

Science-based restoration monitoring of coastal habitats, Volume One: A framework for monitoring plans under the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 (Public Law 160-457)

Executive Summary: The Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (ERA), Title I of the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000, was created to promote the restoration of habitats along the coast of the United States (including the US protectorates and the Great Lakes). The NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science was charged with the development of a guidance manual for monitoring plans under this Act. This guidance manual, titled Science-Based Restoration Monitoring of Coastal Habitats, is written in two volumes. It provides technical assistance, outlines necessary steps, and provides useful tools for the development and implementation of sound scientific monitoring of coastal restoration efforts. In addition, this manual offers a means to detect early warnings that the restoration is on track or not, to gauge how well a restoration site is functioning, to coordinate projects and efforts for consistent and successful restoration, and to evaluate the ecological health of specific coastal habitats both before and after project completion (Galatowitsch et al. 1998). The following habitats have been selected for discussion in this manual: water column, rock bottom, coral reefs, oyster reefs, soft bottom, kelp and other macroalgae, rocky shoreline, soft shoreline, submerged aquatic vegetation, marshes, mangrove swamps, deepwater swamps, and riverine forests. The classification of habitats used in this document is generally based on that of Cowardin et al. (1979) in their Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, as called for in the ERA Estuary Habitat Restoration Strategy. This manual is not intended to be a restoration monitoring “cookbook” that provides templates of monitoring plans for specific habitats. The interdependence of a large number of site-specific factors causes habitat types to vary in physical and biological structure within and between regions and geographic locations (Kusler and Kentula 1990). Monitoring approaches used should be tailored to these differences. However, even with the diversity of habitats that may need to be restored and the extreme geographic range across which these habitats occur, there are consistent principles and approaches that form a common basis for effective monitoring. Volume One, titled A Framework for Monitoring Plans under the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000, begins with definitions and background information. Topics such as restoration, restoration monitoring, estuaries, and the role of socioeconomics in restoration are discussed. In addition, the habitats selected for discussion in this manual are briefly described. (PDF contains 116 pages

Achieving integrated self-directed Cancer aftercare (ASICA) for melanoma: how a digital intervention to support total skin self-examination was used by people treated for cutaneous melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Melanoma incidence has quadrupled since 1970 and melanoma is now the second most common cancer in individuals under 50. Targeted immunotherapies for melanoma now potentially enable long-term remission even in advanced melanoma, but these melanoma survivors require ongoing surveillance, with implications for NHS resources and significant social and psychological consequences for patients. Total skin self-examination (TSSE) can detect recurrence earlier and improve clinical outcomes but is underperformed in the UK. To support survivors, the Achieving Self-directed Integrated Cancer Aftercare (ASICA) intervention was developed to prompt and improve TSSE performance, with subsequent reporting of concerns and submission of skin photos to a Dermatology Nurse Practitioner (DNP). ASICA was delivered as a randomized pilot trial. METHODS: This paper reports on process evaluation. Data on participants' demographics and the concerns they reported during the trial were tabulated and displayed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS. We explored which participants used ASICA, and how frequently, to report any skin concerns. We also determined how the interactions had worked in terms of quality of skin photographs submitted, clinical assessments made by the DNP, and the assessments and decisions made for each concern. Finally, we explored significant events occurring during the trial. Data on participants' demographics and the concerns they reported during the trial were tabulated and displayed using SPSS. A semi-structured interview was undertaken with the DNP to gain perspective on the range of concerns presented and how they were resolved. RESULTS: Of 121 recruited melanoma patients receiving ASICA for 12 months, 69 participants submitted a total of 123 reports detailing 189 separate skin-related concerns and including 188 skin photographs. Where participants fully complied with follow-up by the DNP, concerns were usually resolved remotely, but 19 (10.1%) were seen at a secondary care clinic and 14 (7.4%) referred to their GP. 49 (25.9%) of concerns were not completely resolved due to partial non-compliance with DNP follow-up. CONCLUSION: Melanoma patients randomized to the ASICA intervention were able to report skin-related concerns that could be resolved remotely through interaction with a DNP. Feasibility issues highlighted by ASICA will support further development and optimization of this digital tool. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov , NCT03328247 . Registered on 1 November 2017

Designing high-quality implementation research: development, application, feasibility and preliminary evaluation of the implementation science research development (ImpRes) tool and guide

Background:  Designing implementation research can be a complex and daunting task, especially for applied health researchers who have not received specialist training in implementation science. We developed the Implementation Science Research Development (ImpRes) tool and supplementary guide to address this challenge and provide researchers with a systematic approach to designing implementation research. Methods:  A multi-method and multi-stage approach was employed. An international, multidisciplinary expert panel engaged in an iterative brainstorming and consensus-building process to generate core domains of the ImpRes tool, representing core implementation science principles and concepts that researchers should consider when designing implementation research. Simultaneously, an iterative process of reviewing the literature and expert input informed the development and content of the tool. Once consensus had been reached, specialist expert input was sought on involving and engaging patients/service users; and economic evaluation. ImpRes was then applied to 15 implementation and improvement science projects across the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) South London, a research organisation in London, UK. Researchers who applied the ImpRes tool completed an 11-item questionnaire evaluating its structure, content and usefulness. Results:  Consensus was reached on ten implementation science domains to be considered when designing implementation research. These include implementation theories, frameworks and models, determinants of implementation, implementation strategies, implementation outcomes and unintended consequences. Researchers who used the ImpRes tool found it useful for identifying project areas where implementation science is lacking (median 5/5, IQR 4–5) and for improving the quality of implementation research (median 4/5, IQR 4–5) and agreed that it contained the key components that should be considered when designing implementation research (median 4/5, IQR 4–4). Qualitative feedback from researchers who applied the ImpRes tool indicated that a supplementary guide was needed to facilitate use of the tool. Conclusions:  We have developed a feasible and acceptable tool, and supplementary guide, to facilitate consideration and incorporation of core principles and concepts of implementation science in applied health implementation research. Future research is needed to establish whether application of the tool and guide has an effect on the quality of implementation research

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication

A large marine ecosystem governance framework

A large marine ecosystem (LME) governance framework, developed from a need to effectively address the sustainable management of the shared living marine resources of the Caribbean, is proposed. The framework is based on four propositions and focuses on a linked examination of two well-known components of LME-level governance: the policy cycle process by which decisions are made and the multi-level nature of LMEs. It accommodates the diversity of policy cycles at multiple levels and the linkages among them required for effective governance of LMEs. The framework takes into account of factors such as context, purpose, jurisdictional scale, capacity and complexity and provides a means to identify critical areas for intervention.Governance Policy cycle Multiple levels Scale Network Linkages

RASA1 mutations and associated phenotypes in 68 families with capillary malformation-arteriovenous malformation

Capillary malformation-arteriovenous malformation (CM-AVM) is an autosomal-dominant disorder, caused by heterozygous RASA1 mutations, and manifesting multifocal CMs and high risk for fast-flow lesions. A limited number of patients have been reported, raising the question of the phenotypic borders. We identified new patients with a clinical diagnosis of CM-AVM, and patients with overlapping phenotypes. RASA1 was screened in 261 index patients with: CM-AVM (n = 100), common CM(s) (port-wine stain; n = 100), Sturge-Weber syndrome (n = 37), or isolated AVM(s) (n = 24). Fifty-eight distinct RASA1 mutations (43 novel) were identified in 68 index patients with CM-AVM and none in patients with other phenotypes. A novel clinical feature was identified: cutaneous zones of numerous small white pale halos with a central red spot. An additional question addressed in this study was the "second-hit" hypothesis as a pathophysiological mechanism for CM-AVM. One tissue from a patient with a germline RASA1 mutation was available. The analysis of the tissue showed loss of the wild-type RASA1 allele. In conclusion, mutations in RASA1 underscore the specific CM-AVM phenotype and the clinical diagnosis is based on identifying the characteristic CMs. The high incidence of fast-flow lesions warrants careful clinical and radiologic examination, and regular follow-up