35 research outputs found

    NEOTROPICAL XENARTHRANS: a data set of occurrence of xenarthran species in the Neotropics

    Get PDF
    Xenarthrans – anteaters, sloths, and armadillos – have essential functions for ecosystem maintenance, such as insect control and nutrient cycling, playing key roles as ecosystem engineers. Because of habitat loss and fragmentation, hunting pressure, and conflicts with 24 domestic dogs, these species have been threatened locally, regionally, or even across their full distribution ranges. The Neotropics harbor 21 species of armadillos, ten anteaters, and six sloths. Our dataset includes the families Chlamyphoridae (13), Dasypodidae (7), Myrmecophagidae (3), Bradypodidae (4), and Megalonychidae (2). We have no occurrence data on Dasypus pilosus (Dasypodidae). Regarding Cyclopedidae, until recently, only one species was recognized, but new genetic studies have revealed that the group is represented by seven species. In this data-paper, we compiled a total of 42,528 records of 31 species, represented by occurrence and quantitative data, totaling 24,847 unique georeferenced records. The geographic range is from the south of the USA, Mexico, and Caribbean countries at the northern portion of the Neotropics, to its austral distribution in Argentina, Paraguay, Chile, and Uruguay. Regarding anteaters, Myrmecophaga tridactyla has the most records (n=5,941), and Cyclopes sp. has the fewest (n=240). The armadillo species with the most data is Dasypus novemcinctus (n=11,588), and the least recorded for Calyptophractus retusus (n=33). With regards to sloth species, Bradypus variegatus has the most records (n=962), and Bradypus pygmaeus has the fewest (n=12). Our main objective with Neotropical Xenarthrans is to make occurrence and quantitative data available to facilitate more ecological research, particularly if we integrate the xenarthran data with other datasets of Neotropical Series which will become available very soon (i.e. Neotropical Carnivores, Neotropical Invasive Mammals, and Neotropical Hunters and Dogs). Therefore, studies on trophic cascades, hunting pressure, habitat loss, fragmentation effects, species invasion, and climate change effects will be possible with the Neotropical Xenarthrans dataset

    Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

    Get PDF
    Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

    Representations of personalised medicine in family medicine: a qualitative analysis.

    No full text
    The promise of personalised medicine (PM) to transform healthcare has sparked great enthusiasm in the last years. Yet, its lack of consensus around the nature and scope of the concept has ended in terminological confusion amongst the users in primary care. We aimed to investigate the perceptions of doctors and their patients in response to this evolving concept. This present article focuses on the general understanding of personalised medicine, underlining the confusion over the concept. Semi-structured comprehensive interviews were conducted with 10 general practitioners (GPs) and 10 of their patients. The purposive sampling took into account the doctor's age, sex, and place of practice (rural/urban); each doctor recruited one patient of the same age and sex. Each interview began with the same open-ended question about the participant's knowledge of the topic, after which a working definition was provided to continue the discussion. Using the grounded theory method, the analysis consisted of open coding, axial coding and selective coding. From our present analysis focusing on the general understanding of PM, three main themes representing the concept emerged. The first two representations being "centred on the person as a whole" and "focused on alternative and complementary methods", in which the therapeutic relationship was stated as key. The third theme "medicine open to innovation" involved the few participants who had a good understanding of the concept and could associate personalised medicine with genomics. For those who value therapeutic relationship, the risks of accepting innovation could result in "fast-food" medicine and interpersonal barriers. PM is predominantly unfamiliar in family medicine. It is misinterpreted as a holistic or integrative type of medicine. This semantic confusion probably lies in the choice of the label "personalised" or from the lack of a uniform definition for the term
    corecore