Economic Impacts of Removing Federal Grazing Used by Cattle Ranches in Idaho, Oregon, and Wyoming

Lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) are an important source of livestock grazing for many ranching operations in the Western United States. There are currently more than 22,000 authorized federal grazing permits representing 15.7 million animal unit months (AUMs) of grazing. Idaho, Oregon and Wyoming are examples of western states where many ranches are dependent on federal grazing. The combined total for the three states is 5,389 federal grazing permits, representing 5.6 million AUMs of grazing. In recent years, the use of federal lands for livestock grazing has become increasingly controversial with some organizations calling for the complete removal of all livestock grazing from public lands. The purpose of this analysis is to estimate the economic impact of removal of federal grazing by cattle on the combined Idaho, Oregon and Wyoming economy. The net effect of removal of federal cattle grazing in the three-state area is estimated to be a loss of $186.2 million in direct economic impact, and a reduction of$560.5 million in total economic impact. These impacts equate to a loss of more than 4,000 jobs and decreased labor income of $205.4 million annually. Due to the cumulative nature of the impact, these negative effects are expected to continue for many years into the future if federal grazing is removed. The analysis indicates that removing federal cattle grazing would have significant negative economic impact on the three-state area, particularly on many rural counties that have sensitive economies due to their dependency on agricultural production and limited alternative employment opportunities

A Methodological Review of the Articles Publishes in Georgia Educational Researcher from 2003-2010

Methodological reviews, reviews that concentrate on research methods rather than research outcomes, have been used in a variety of fields to improve research practice, inform debate, and identify islands of practice. In this article, we report on the results of a methodological review of all of the articles published in Georgia Educational Researcher from 2003-2010. We examined the methodological characteristics, authorial characteristics, and methodological quality of those articles using quantitative content analysis. The major findings were that (a) the proportions of the type and traditions of articles published in Georgia Educational Researcher were similar to the proportions in education research articles in general, (b) case study research and correlational research were most prominent, (c) a few universities accounted for most of the articles published, (d) male and female authors’ articles were published in equitable proportions, and (e) there were no statistically significant differences in methodological quality between genders, university affiliations, types of research, or years of publication. We end with a few suggestions for improving the quality of qualitative research articles in the Georgia Educational Researcher

Comparison of Caregiver- and Child-Reported Quality of Life in Children With Sleep-Disordered Breathing

Objective. Caregivers frequently report poor quality of life(QOL) in children with sleep-disordered breathing (SDB).Our objective is to assess the correlation between care-giver- and child-reported QOL in children with mild SDBand identify factors associated with differences between caregiver and child report. Study Design. Analysis of baseline data from a multi-institutional randomized trialSetting. Pediatric Adenotonsillectomy Trial for Snoring, where children with mild SDB (obstructive apnea-hypopnea index\3) were randomized to observation or adenotonsillectomy. Methods. The Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (Peds QL)assessed baseline global QOL in participating children 5 to12 years old and their caregivers. Caregiver and child scores were compared. Multivariable regression assessed whether clinical factors were associated with differences between caregiver and child report. Results. Peds QL scores were available for 309 families (mean child age, 7.0 years). The mean caregiver-reported PedsQLscore was higher at 75.2 (indicating better QOL) than the mean child-reported score of 67.9 (P \ .001). The agreement between caregiver and child total Peds QL scores was poor, with intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.03 (95%CI, –0.09 to 0.15) for children 5 to 7 years old and 0.21(95% CI, 0.03-0.38) for children 8 to 12 years old. Higher child age and health literacy were associated with closer agreement between caregiver and child report. Conclusion. Caregiver- and child-reported global QOL in children with SDB was weakly correlated, more so for young children. In pediatric SDB, child-perceived QOL may be poorer than that reported by caregivers. Further research is needed to assess whether similar trends exist for disease-specific QOL metrics

What Do Youth Service Librarians Need? Reassessing Goals and Curricula in the Context of Changing Information Needs and Behaviors of Youth

The ALISE Youth Services Special Interest Group (SIG) presents a panel that explores what “youth services” means in the context of LIS education today, including novel additions to youth services curricula and how the changing needs of youth impact LIS education. The session begins with five research presentations, followed by an open discussion and Q&A. The five presentations incorporate the following topics: critical youth information needs, methods of incorporating design thinking and interdisciplinary research into MLIS youth services courses, an investigation of dialogue between librarians and youth, and the role of family and community in youth information behavior. The discussion prompted by this scholarship serves as an important contribution to the continued reform and evolution of youth services education

Enhancing the relevance of Shared Socioeconomic Pathways for climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability research

This paper discusses the role and relevance of the shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) and the new scenarios that combine SSPs with representative concentration pathways (RCPs) for climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability (IAV) research. It first provides an overview of uses of social–environmental scenarios in IAV studies and identifies the main shortcomings of earlier such scenarios. Second, the paper elaborates on two aspects of the SSPs and new scenarios that would improve their usefulness for IAV studies compared to earlier scenario sets: (i) enhancing their applicability while retaining coherence across spatial scales, and (ii) adding indicators of importance for projecting vulnerability. The paper therefore presents an agenda for future research, recommending that SSPs incorporate not only the standard variables of population and gross domestic product, but also indicators such as income distribution, spatial population, human health and governance

CONNECT for quality: protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial to improve fall prevention in nursing homes

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Quality improvement (QI) programs focused on mastery of content by individual staff members are the current standard to improve resident outcomes in nursing homes. However, complexity science suggests that learning is a social process that occurs within the context of relationships and interactions among individuals. Thus, QI programs will not result in optimal changes in staff behavior unless the context for social learning is present. Accordingly, we developed CONNECT, an intervention to foster systematic use of management practices, which we propose will enhance effectiveness of a nursing home Falls QI program by strengthening the staff-to-staff interactions necessary for clinical problem-solving about complex problems such as falls. The study aims are to compare the impact of the CONNECT intervention, plus a falls reduction QI intervention (CONNECT + FALLS), to the falls reduction QI intervention alone (FALLS), on fall-related process measures, fall rates, and staff interaction measures.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>Sixteen nursing homes will be randomized to one of two study arms, CONNECT + FALLS or FALLS alone. Subjects (staff and residents) are clustered within nursing homes because the intervention addresses social processes and thus must be delivered within the social context, rather than to individuals. Nursing homes randomized to CONNECT + FALLS will receive three months of CONNECT first, followed by three months of FALLS. Nursing homes randomized to FALLS alone receive three months of FALLs QI and are offered CONNECT after data collection is completed. Complexity science measures, which reflect staff perceptions of communication, safety climate, and care quality, will be collected from staff at baseline, three months after, and six months after baseline to evaluate immediate and sustained impacts. FALLS measures including quality indicators (process measures) and fall rates will be collected for the six months prior to baseline and the six months after the end of the intervention. Analysis will use a three-level mixed model.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>By focusing on improving local interactions, CONNECT is expected to maximize staff's ability to implement content learned in a falls QI program and integrate it into knowledge and action. Our previous pilot work shows that CONNECT is feasible, acceptable and appropriate.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00636675">NCT00636675</a></p

Guidelines for Modeling and Reporting Health Effects of Climate Change Mitigation Actions.

BACKGROUND: Modeling suggests that climate change mitigation actions can have substantial human health benefits that accrue quickly and locally. Documenting the benefits can help drive more ambitious and health-protective climate change mitigation actions; however, documenting the adverse health effects can help to avoid them. Estimating the health effects of mitigation (HEM) actions can help policy makers prioritize investments based not only on mitigation potential but also on expected health benefits. To date, however, the wide range of incompatible approaches taken to developing and reporting HEM estimates has limited their comparability and usefulness to policymakers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this effort was to generate guidance for modeling studies on scoping, estimating, and reporting population health effects from climate change mitigation actions. METHODS: An expert panel of HEM researchers was recruited to participate in developing guidance for conducting HEM studies. The primary literature and a synthesis of HEM studies were provided to the panel. Panel members then participated in a modified Delphi exercise to identify areas of consensus regarding HEM estimation. Finally, the panel met to review and discuss consensus findings, resolve remaining differences, and generate guidance regarding conducting HEM studies. RESULTS: The panel generated a checklist of recommendations regarding stakeholder engagement: HEM modeling, including model structure, scope and scale, demographics, time horizons, counterfactuals, health response functions, and metrics; parameterization and reporting; approaches to uncertainty and sensitivity analysis; accounting for policy uptake; and discounting. DISCUSSION: This checklist provides guidance for conducting and reporting HEM estimates to make them more comparable and useful for policymakers. Harmonization of HEM estimates has the potential to lead to advances in and improved synthesis of policy-relevant research that can inform evidence-based decision making and practice. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6745

Longer-term efficiency and safety of increasing the frequency of whole blood donation (INTERVAL): extension study of a randomised trial of 20 757 blood donors

Background: The INTERVAL trial showed that, over a 2-year period, inter-donation intervals for whole blood donation can be safely reduced to meet blood shortages. We extended the INTERVAL trial for a further 2 years to evaluate the longer-term risks and benefits of varying inter-donation intervals, and to compare routine versus more intensive reminders to help donors keep appointments. Methods: The INTERVAL trial was a parallel group, pragmatic, randomised trial that recruited blood donors aged 18 years or older from 25 static donor centres of NHS Blood and Transplant across England, UK. Here we report on the prespecified analyses after 4 years of follow-up. Participants were whole blood donors who agreed to continue trial participation on their originally allocated inter-donation intervals (men: 12, 10, and 8 weeks; women: 16, 14, and 12 weeks). They were further block-randomised (1:1) to routine versus more intensive reminders using computer-generated random sequences. The prespecified primary outcome was units of blood collected per year analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes related to safety were quality of life, self-reported symptoms potentially related to donation, haemoglobin and ferritin concentrations, and deferrals because of low haemoglobin and other factors. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN24760606, and has completed. Findings: Between Oct 19, 2014, and May 3, 2016, 20 757 of the 38 035 invited blood donors (10 843 [58%] men, 9914 [51%] women) participated in the extension study. 10 378 (50%) were randomly assigned to routine reminders and 10 379 (50%) were randomly assigned to more intensive reminders. Median follow-up was 1·1 years (IQR 0·7–1·3). Compared with routine reminders, more intensive reminders increased blood collection by a mean of 0·11 units per year (95% CI 0·04–0·17; p=0·0003) in men and 0·06 units per year (0·01–0·11; p=0·0094) in women. During the extension study, each week shorter inter-donation interval increased blood collection by a mean of 0·23 units per year (0·21–0·25) in men and 0·14 units per year (0·12–0·15) in women (both p&lt;0·0001). More frequent donation resulted in more deferrals for low haemoglobin (odds ratio per week shorter inter-donation interval 1·19 [95% CI 1·15–1·22] in men and 1·10 [1·06–1·14] in women), and lower mean haemoglobin (difference per week shorter inter-donation interval −0·84 g/L [95% CI −0·99 to −0·70] in men and −0·45 g/L [–0·59 to −0·31] in women) and ferritin concentrations (percentage difference per week shorter inter-donation interval −6·5% [95% CI −7·6 to −5·5] in men and −5·3% [–6·5 to −4·2] in women; all p&lt;0·0001). No differences were observed in quality of life, serious adverse events, or self-reported symptoms (p&gt;0.0001 for tests of linear trend by inter-donation intervals) other than a higher reported frequency of doctor-diagnosed low iron concentrations and prescription of iron supplements in men (p&lt;0·0001). Interpretation: During a period of up to 4 years, shorter inter-donation intervals and more intensive reminders resulted in more blood being collected without a detectable effect on donors' mental and physical wellbeing. However, donors had decreased haemoglobin concentrations and more self-reported symptoms compared with the initial 2 years of the trial. Our findings suggest that blood collection services could safely use shorter donation intervals and more intensive reminders to meet shortages, for donors who maintain adequate haemoglobin concentrations and iron stores. Funding: NHS Blood and Transplant, UK National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, and British Heart Foundation

The 2020 report of The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: responding to converging crises

The Lancet Countdown is an international collaboration, established to provide an independent, global monitoring system dedicated to tracking the emerging health profile of the changing climate. The 2020 report presents 43 indicators across five sections: climate change impacts, exposures, and vulnerability; adaptation, planning, and resilience for health; mitigation actions and health co-benefits; economics and finance; and public and political engagement. This report represents the findings and consensus of the 35 leading academic institutions and UN agencies that make up the Lancet Countdown, and draws on the expertise of climate scientists, geographers, and engineers; of energy, food, and transport experts; and of economists, social and political scientists, data scientists, public health professionals, and doctors