Prioritization of knowledge-needs to achieve best practices for bottom trawling in relation to seabed habitats

Management and technical approaches that achieve a sustainable level of fish production while at the same time minimizing or limiting the wider ecological effects caused through fishing gear contact with the seabed might be considered to be ‘best practice’. To identify future knowledge-needs that would help to support a transition towards the adoption of best practices for trawling, a prioritization exercise was undertaken with a group of 39 practitioners from the seafood industry and management, and 13 research scientists who have an active research interest in bottom-trawl and dredge fisheries. A list of 108 knowledge-needs related to trawl and dredge fisheries was developed in conjunction with an ‘expert task force’. The long list was further refined through a three stage process of voting and scoring, including discussions of each knowledge-need. The top 25 knowledge-needs are presented, as scored separately by practitioners and scientists. There was considerable consistency in the priorities identified by these two groups. The top priority knowledge-need to improve current understanding on the distribution and extent of different habitat types also reinforced the concomitant need for the provision and access to data on the spatial and temporal distribution of all forms of towed bottom-fishing activities. Many of the other top 25 knowledge-needs concerned the evaluation of different management approaches or implementation of different fishing practices, particularly those that explore trade-offs between effects of bottom trawling on biodiversity and ecosystem services and the benefits of fish production as food.Fil: Kaiser, Michel J.. Bangor University; Reino UnidoFil: Hilborn, Ray. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Jennings, Simon. Fisheries and Aquaculture Science; Reino UnidoFil: Amaroso, Ricky. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Andersen, Michael. Danish Fishermen; DinamarcaFil: Balliet, Kris. Sustainable Fisheries Partnership; Estados UnidosFil: Barratt, Eric. Sanford Limited; Nueva ZelandaFil: Bergstad, Odd A. Institute of Marine Research; NoruegaFil: Bishop, Stephen. Independent Fisheries Ltd; Nueva ZelandaFil: Bostrom, Jodi L. Marine Stewardship Council; Reino UnidoFil: Boyd, Catherine. Clearwater Seafoods; CanadáFil: Bruce, Eduardo A. Friosur S.A.; ChileFil: Burden, Merrick. Marine Conservation Alliance; Estados UnidosFil: Carey, Chris. Independent Fisheries Ltd.; Estados UnidosFil: Clermont, Jason. New England Aquarium; Estados UnidosFil: Collie, Jeremy S. University of Rhode Island,; Estados UnidosFil: Delahunty, Antony. National Federation of Fishermen; Reino UnidoFil: Dixon, Jacqui. Pacific Andes International Holdings Limited; ChinaFil: Eayrs, Steve. Gulf of Maine Research Institute; Estados UnidosFil: Edwards, Nigel. Seachill Ltd.; Reino UnidoFil: Fujita, Rod. Environmental Defense Fund; Reino UnidoFil: Gauvin, John. Alaska Seafood Cooperative; Estados UnidosFil: Gleason, Mary. The Nature Conservancy; Estados UnidosFil: Harris, Brad. Alaska Pacific University; Estados UnidosFil: He, Pingguo. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth; Estados UnidosFil: Hiddink, Jan G. Bangor University; Reino UnidoFil: Hughes, Kathryn M. Bangor University; Reino UnidoFil: Inostroza, Mario. EMDEPES; ChileFil: Kenny, Andrew. Fisheries and Aquaculture Science; Reino UnidoFil: Kritzer, Jake. Environmental Defense Fund; Estados UnidosFil: Kuntzsch, Volker. Sanford Limited; Estados UnidosFil: Lasta, Mario. Diag. Montegrande N° 7078. Mar del Plata; ArgentinaFil: Lopez, Ivan. Confederacion Española de Pesca; EspañaFil: Loveridge, Craig. South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation; Nueva ZelandaFil: Lynch, Don. Gorton; Estados UnidosFil: Masters, Jim. Marine Conservation Society; Reino UnidoFil: Mazor, Tessa. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research; AustraliaFil: McConnaughey, Robert A. US National Marine Fisheries Service; Estados UnidosFil: Moenne, Marcel. Pacificblu; ChileFil: Francis. Marine Scotland Science; Reino UnidoFil: Nimick, Aileen M. Alaska Pacific University; Estados UnidosFil: Olsen, Alex. A. Espersen; DinamarcaFil: Parker, David. Young; Reino UnidoFil: Parma, Ana María. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Nacional Patagónico; ArgentinaFil: Penney, Christine. Clearwater Seafoods; CanadáFil: Pierce, David. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries; Estados UnidosFil: Pitcher, Roland. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research; AustraliaFil: Pol, Michael. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries; Estados UnidosFil: Richardson, Ed. Pollock Conservation Cooperative; Estados UnidosFil: Rijnsdorp, Adriaan D. Wageningen IMARES; Países BajosFil: Rilatt, Simon. A. Espersen; DinamarcaFil: Rodmell, Dale P. National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations; Reino UnidoFil: Rose, Craig. FishNext Research; Estados UnidosFil: Sethi, Suresh A. Alaska Pacific University; Estados UnidosFil: Short, Katherine. F.L.O.W. Collaborative; Nueva ZelandaFil: Suuronen, Petri. Fisheries and Aquaculture Department; ItaliaFil: Taylor, Erin. New England Aquarium; Estados UnidosFil: Wallace, Scott. The David Suzuki Foundation; CanadáFil: Webb, Lisa. Gorton's Inc.; Estados UnidosFil: Wickham, Eric. Unit four –1957 McNicoll Avenue; CanadáFil: Wilding, Sam R. Monterey Bay Aquarium; Estados UnidosFil: Wilson, Ashley. Department for Environment; Reino UnidoFil: Winger, Paul. Memorial University Of Newfoundland; CanadáFil: Sutherland, William J. University of Cambridge; Reino Unid

Using YouTube to Disseminate Effective Vaccination Pain Treatment for Babies

<div><p>Background</p><p>Infant vaccinations are necessary for public health, but are painful, causing distress to the infant and caregivers. Breastfeeding and sucrose effectively reduce infants’ pain during vaccinations, and these strategies are recommended in health care provider (HCP)-targeted education and vaccination pain guidelines. However studies show these strategies are infrequently used. YouTube is a popular medium to publicly share and watch videos, and many consumer posted YouTube videos show distressed infants being vaccinated with no pain treatment. The aims of this study were to evaluate the reach and impact of a consumer-targeted YouTube video demonstrating use of effective pain reduction strategies during infant vaccinations.</p><p>Methods</p><p>A brief consumer-targeted video showing two infants being vaccinated was posted onto YouTube on October 2013. One infant was breastfed and another infant received sucrose by mouth before and during the injection. A link to a viewer survey was visible on a banner near the end of the video. An intensive strategically planned knowledge dissemination strategy using the media, social media and messages to professional organizations took place to promote the video. Data analysis of the viewer survey, YouTube analytics of the reach of the video in terms of number of views, country of viewers, and comments relating to the video took place 12 months after the video was posted.</p><p>Results</p><p>Twelve months after posting, the video had 65,478views, 68 comments, 245 likes, 17 dislikes, and 90 shares. Average duration of viewer time was 65% of the video. The viewer survey was completed by 156 (0.24%) viewers; 90 (58%) answered as HCPs and 66 (42%) as parents. Survey results showed that the video was persuasive; intent to use or support breastfeeding or sucrose was high in both parents and HCPs after viewing the video. Comments posted were often emotional in nature, and were related to anti-vaccination (n = 26, 38%); effectiveness or positive personal experiences (n = 21, 32%); research team comments or promotion (n = 12, 18%); pro-vaccination (n = 6, 8%) and barriers to using breastfeeding or sucrose during vaccinations (n = 3, 4%).</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>The video posted onto YouTube demonstrating effective pain treatment during infant vaccinations was viewed by large numbers of people around the world, however the response rate to the linked survey was extremely low. Using YouTube videos for knowledge dissemination has an extensive reach, however it is difficult to evaluate impact on behaviours and practices.</p></div

Viewer comments.

<p>Viewer comments.</p

Viewer survey results.

<p>Viewer survey results.</p

Rationale, design, and baseline characteristics in Evaluation of LIXisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome, a long-term cardiovascular end point trial of lixisenatide versus placebo

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular (CV) disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Furthermore, patients with T2DM and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) have a particularly high risk of CV events. The glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, lixisenatide, improves glycemia, but its effects on CV events have not been thoroughly evaluated. METHODS: ELIXA (www.clinicaltrials.gov no. NCT01147250) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study of lixisenatide in patients with T2DM and a recent ACS event. The primary aim is to evaluate the effects of lixisenatide on CV morbidity and mortality in a population at high CV risk. The primary efficacy end point is a composite of time to CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Data are systematically collected for safety outcomes, including hypoglycemia, pancreatitis, and malignancy. RESULTS: Enrollment began in July 2010 and ended in August 2013; 6,068 patients from 49 countries were randomized. Of these, 69% are men and 75% are white; at baseline, the mean ± SD age was 60.3 ± 9.7 years, body mass index was 30.2 ± 5.7 kg/m(2), and duration of T2DM was 9.3 ± 8.2 years. The qualifying ACS was a myocardial infarction in 83% and unstable angina in 17%. The study will continue until the positive adjudication of the protocol-specified number of primary CV events. CONCLUSION: ELIXA will be the first trial to report the safety and efficacy of a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist in people with T2DM and high CV event risk