Molecular tools for bathing water assessment in Europe:Balancing social science research with a rapidly developing environmental science evidence-base

The use of molecular tools, principally qPCR, versus traditional culture-based methods for quantifying microbial parameters (e.g., Fecal Indicator Organisms) in bathing waters generates considerable ongoing debate at the science-policy interface. Advances in science have allowed the development and application of molecular biological methods for rapid (~2 h) quantification of microbial pollution in bathing and recreational waters. In contrast, culture-based methods can take between 18 and 96 h for sample processing. Thus, molecular tools offer an opportunity to provide a more meaningful statement of microbial risk to water-users by providing near-real-time information enabling potentially more informed decision-making with regard to water-based activities. However, complementary studies concerning the potential costs and benefits of adopting rapid methods as a regulatory tool are in short supply. We report on findings from an international Working Group that examined the breadth of social impacts, challenges, and research opportunities associated with the application of molecular tools to bathing water regulations

Feasibility of Home-Use Animal-Assisted Activities in Patients With Implanted Cardiac Electronic Devices

Animal-assisted activities (AAAs) are mainly carried out in institutions. The aim of this prospective pilot study was to assess the willingness of patients with cardiac implanted electronic devices (IEDs) to participate in AAA. The sample included 75 ambulatory patients (18 females, M age = 69 years), who attended an outpatient clinic for control of antibradycardic pacemakers ( n = 15) or implanted cardioverter defibrillators ( n = 60). Twenty-three percent were current and 48% were previous pet-owners. Current pet-owners were younger than non-pet-owners (63.5 vs. 72.0 years, p = .0003). Twelve patients (16%) showed interest in AAA visits. However, only two patients agreed to an AAA visit. Both patients were visited once, but declined further visits. Hence, AAA sessions at home were poorly accepted, mainly because the patients considered themselves too busy or healthy, or due to a general disinterest in AAA. Potential health benefits associated with AAA may not be feasible to investigate during home visits of AAA-teams in patients with IEDs who are healthy enough to leave their homes. For further studies concerning AAA in patients with cardiovascular diseases, we suggest focusing on institutions like rehabilitation centers or day care centers and on more severely sick, homebound patients