The downside of tobacco control? Smoking and self-stigma: a systematic review

Objective Little is known about the consequences of tobacco smoking stigma on smokers and how smokers may internalize smoking-related stigma. This review summarizes existing literature on tobacco smoking self-stigma, investigating to what extent smokers are aware of negative stereotypes, agree with them and apply them to themselves. Methods We carried out a systematic search of Pubmed/Web of Science/PsycInfo databases for articles related to smoking self-stigma through June 2013. Reference lists and citations of included studies were also checked and experts were contacted. After screening articles for inclusion/exclusion criteria we performed a quality assessment and summarized findings according to the stages of self-stigma as conceptualized in Corrigan's progressive model of self-stigma (aware, agree, apply and harm). Initial searches yielded 570 articles. Results Thirty of these articles (18 qualitative and 12 quantitative studies) met criteria for our review. Awareness of smoking stigma was virtually universal across studies. Coping strategies for smoking stigma and the degree to which individuals who smoke internalized this stigma varied both within and across studies. There was considerable variation in positive, negative, and non-significant consequences associated with smoking self-stigma. Limited evidence was found for subgroup differences in smoking-related stigma. Conclusion While there is some evidence that smoking self-stigma leads to reductions in smoking, this review also identified significant negative consequences of smoking self-stigma. Future research should assess the factors related to differences in how individuals respond to smoking stigma. Public health strategies which limit the stigmatization of smokers may be warranted

Species distribution models for crop pollination: a modelling framework applied to Great Britain

Insect pollination benefits over three quarters of the world\u27s major crops. There is growing concern that observed declines in pollinators may impact on production and revenues from animal pollinated crops. Knowing the distribution of pollinators is therefore crucial for estimating their availability to pollinate crops; however, in general, we have an incomplete knowledge of where these pollinators occur. We propose a method to predict geographical patterns of pollination service to crops, novel in two elements: the use of pollinator records rather than expert knowledge to predict pollinator occurrence, and the inclusion of the managed pollinator supply. We integrated a maximum entropy species distribution model (SDM) with an existing pollination service model (PSM) to derive the availability of pollinators for crop pollination. We used nation-wide records of wild and managed pollinators (honey bees) as well as agricultural data from Great Britain. We first calibrated the SDM on a representative sample of bee and hoverfly crop pollinator species, evaluating the effects of different settings on model performance and on its capacity to identify the most important predictors. The importance of the different predictors was better resolved by SDM derived from simpler functions, with consistent results for bees and hoverflies. We then used the species distributions from the calibrated model to predict pollination service of wild and managed pollinators, using field beans as a test case. The PSM allowed us to spatially characterize the contribution of wild and managed pollinators and also identify areas potentially vulnerable to low pollination service provision, which can help direct local scale interventions. This approach can be extended to investigate geographical mismatches between crop pollination demand and the availability of pollinators, resulting from environmental change or policy scenarios

Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services. Urban ecosystems

Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 requires member states to Map and Assess the state of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES). This report provides guidance for mapping and assessment of urban ecosystems. The MAES urban pilot is a collaboration between the European Commission, the European Environment Agency, volunteering Member States and cities, and stakeholders. Its ultimate goal is to deliver a knowledge base for policy and management of urban ecosystems by analysing urban green infrastructure, condition of urban ecosystems and ecosystem services. This report presents guidance for mapping urban ecosystems and includes an indicator framework to assess the condition of urban ecosystems and urban ecosystem services. The scientific framework of mapping and assessment is designed to support in particular urban planning policy and policy on green infrastructure at urban, metropolitan and regional scales. The results are based on the following different sources of information: a literature survey of 54 scientific articles, an online-survey (on urban ecosystems, related policies and planning instruments and with participation of 42 cities), ten case studies (Portugal: Cascais, Oeiras, Lisbon; Italy: Padua, Trento, Rome; The Netherlands: Utrecht; Poland: Poznań; Spain: Barcelona; Norway: Oslo), and a two-day expert workshop. The case studies constituted the core of the MAES urban pilot. They provided real examples and applications of how mapping and assessment can be organized to support policy; on top, they provided the necessary expertise to select a set of final indicators for condition and ecosystem services. Urban ecosystems or cities are defined here as socio-ecological systems which are composed of green infrastructure and built infrastructure. Urban green infrastructure (GI) is understood in this report as the multi-functional network of urban green spaces situated within the boundary of the urban ecosystem. Urban green spaces are the structural components of urban GI. This study has shown that there is a large scope for urban ecosystem assessments. Firstly, urban policies increasingly use urban green infrastructure and nature-based solutions in their planning process. Secondly, an increasing amount of data at multiple spatial scales is becoming available to support these policies, to provide a baseline, and to compare or benchmark cities with respect to the extent and management of the urban ecosystem. Concrete examples are given on how to delineate urban ecosystems, how to choose an appropriate spatial scale, and how to map urban ecosystems based on a combination of national or European datasets (including Urban Atlas) and locally collected information (e.g., location of trees). Also examples of typologies for urban green spaces are presented. This report presents an indicator framework which is composed of indicators to assess for urban ecosystem condition and for urban ecosystem services. These are the result of a rigorous selection process and ensure consistent mapping and assessment across Europe. The MAES urban pilot will continue with work on the interface between research and policy. The framework presented in this report needs to be tested and validated across Europe, e.g. on its applicability at city scale, on how far the methodology for measuring ecosystem condition and ecosystem service delivery in urban areas can be used to assess urban green infrastructure and nature-based solutions

EU-wide methodology to map and assess ecosystem condition

The EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 calls for developing an EU-wide methodology to map, assess and achieve good condition of ecosystems, so they can deliver benefits to society through the provision of ecosystem services. The EU-wide methodology presented in this report addresses this methodological gap. The EU-wide methodology has adopted the System of Environmental Economic Accounting - Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA) as reference framework. The SEEA EA is an integrated framework for organizing biophysical information about ecosystems, adopted as a global statistical standard by the United Nations. The SEEA EA is also the reference framework under the proposal for the amendment of Regulation (EU) No 691/2011 on European environmental economic accounts. Building on previous work done within the MAES initiative, the EU-wide methodology presents useful insights to operationalise the SEEA EA at EU level by integrating different EU data streams in a consistent way with this global statistical standard to consistently map and assess ecosystem condition in the EU across all ecosystem types. The adoption of the SEEA EA framework offers the flexibility to integrate different data flows, leveraging the use of available EU data, such as data reported by MS under EU legislation and EU geospatial data. The EU-wide methodology. The implementation of the EU-wide methodology, making use of available data, will provide the scientific knowledge base to support a range of policies and legal instruments

Preparation Methods and Clinical Outcomes of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Intra-articular Hip Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Background: Despite its increasing use in the management of musculoskeletal conditions, questions remain regarding the preparation methods of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and its clinical applications for intra-articular hip disorders, including femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS), labral pathology, and osteoarthritis (OA). Purpose: To systematically review and assess the preparation methods and clinical outcomes from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the use of PRP for intra-articular hip disorders. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A systematic review in accordance with the 2009 PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was performed in September 2019. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Ovid Medline, and Embase were queried for studies regarding the use of PRP to treat intra-articular hip disorders. Qualifying articles were English-language RCTs describing the use of PRP for intra-articular hip disorders, either as standalone treatment or surgical augmentation. Two authors independently assessed article eligibility. Data pertaining to patient characteristics, indication for treatment, PRP preparation method, follow-up period, and clinical outcomes were extracted. Study results were qualitatively reported and quantitatively compared using meta-analysis when appropriate. Results: Seven RCTs met inclusion criteria. Four studies described the use of PRP for hip OA and 3 utilized PRP at arthroscopy for FAIS and labral tears. Outcomes after PRP for OA demonstrated improvement in validated patient-reported outcome measures for up to 1 year; however, pooled effect sizes found no statistically significant difference between PRP and hyaluronic acid (HA) regarding pain visual analog scale scores at short-term (≤2 months; P = .27), midterm (4-6 months; P = .85), or long-term (1 year; P = .42) follow-up. When injected at arthroscopy, 1 study reported improved outcomes, 1 reported no difference in outcomes, and 1 reported worse outcomes compared with controls. The meta-analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference on the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) between PRP and control cohorts at a minimum 1-year follow-up. There were considerable deficiencies and heterogeneity in the reporting of PRP preparation methods for both indications. Conclusion: Treatment of OA with PRP demonstrated reductions in pain and improved patient-reported outcomes for up to 1 year. However, there was no statistically significant difference between PRP and HA in pain reduction. Likewise, for FAIS and labral surgery there was no statistically significant difference in mHHS outcomes between patients treated with PRP and controls. Given the limited number of studies and variability in PRP preparations, additional high-quality randomized trials are warranted

Distribution of bumblebees across europe

peer reviewe

The Integrated system for Natural Capital Accounting (INCA) in Europe: twelve lessons learned from empirical ecosystem service accounting

Open Access Article; Published online: 16 Sep 2022The Integrated system for Natural Capital Accounting (INCA) was developed and supported by the European Commission to test and implement the System of integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA). Through the compilation of nine Ecosystem Services (ES) accounts, INCA can make available to any interested ecosystem accountant a number of lessons learned. Amongst the conceptual lessons learned, we can mention: (i) for accounting purposes, ES should be clustered according to the existence (or not) of a sustainability threshold; (ii) the assessment of ES flow results from the interaction of an ES potential and an ES demand; (iii) the ES demand can be spatially identified, but for an overarching environmental target, this is not possible; ES potential and ES demand could mis-match; (iv) because the demand remains unsatisfied; (v) because the ES is used above its sustainability threshold or (vi) because part of the potential flow is missed; (vii) there can be a cause-and-effect relationship between ecosystem condition and ES flow; (viii) ES accounts can complement the SEEA Central Framework accounts without overlapping or double counting. Amongst the methodological lessons learned, we can mention: (ix) already exiting ES assessments do not directly provide ES accounts, but will likely need some additional processing; (x) ES cannot be defined by default as intermediate; (xi) the ES remaining within ecosystems cannot be reported as final; (xii) the assessment and accounting of ES can be undertaken throughout a fast track approach or more demanding modelling procedures