Reducing green tape or rolling back IA in Australia: What are found jurisdictions up to?

EIA has been practiced in Australia and the rest of the world for over 40 years, but despite its successes, EIA may now be facing its biggest challenge since it came into being in 1970 with the US National Environmental Policy Act. As Morgan (2012, 11) notes: “As governments look to stimulate economic growth and create employment in response to the current financial crisis, many are promoting a major expansion of physical infrastructure, encouraging resource development projects, and generally seeking to speed decision-making about development projects. Both EIA and SEA should be even more important in such circumstances, yet the moves taken in some countries to speed up decision-making may weaken the provisions for environmental protection, including impact assessment.” In this political and economic environment, EIA is under scrutiny. Proposed changes to the EU directive on EIA released in October 2012 contain ten changes to the Articles of the Directive, with six of these referring to either ‘streamlining’ EIA or introducing specific timeframes for parts of the EIA process (European Commission 2012). This scrutiny has not been restricted to economies in recession, but includes those that have avoided recession because of strong resources sectors. The same appears to be happening in Australia, and this paper reports on these and other possible ‘efficiency’ changes to EIA in Australia at both national and sub-national levels. We attempt to critically examine the nature of such changes and the risks that may be associated with their implementation. Changes to three of the sub-national EIA processes are reviewed in detail, as well as the proposed changes to the national EIA process. There is always room for more timely assessments, but a critical examination of the potential consequences of these “reforms” on the conduct of EIAs is needed, including whether these efficiency changes will deliver sound environmental management and sustainability-oriented decision-making

Emotional and Behavioral Outcomes in Childhood for Survivors of Invasive Group B Streptococcus Disease in Infancy: Findings From 5 Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

BACKGROUND: Survivors of invasive group B Streptococcus (iGBS) disease, notably meningitis, are at increased risk of neurodevelopmental impairment. However, the limited studies to date have a median follow-up to 18 months and have mainly focused on moderate or severe neurodevelopmental impairment, with no previous studies on emotional-behavioral problems among iGBS survivors. METHODS: In this multicountry, matched cohort study, we included children aged 18 months to 17 years with infant iGBS sepsis and meningitis from health demographic surveillance systems, or hospital records in Argentina, India, Kenya, Mozambique, and South Africa. Children without an iGBS history were matched to iGBS survivors for sex and age. Our primary outcomes were emotional-behavioral problems and psychopathological conditions as measured with the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). The CBCL was completed by the child's primary caregiver. RESULTS: Between October 2019 and April 2021, 573 children (mean age, 7.18 years) were assessed, including 156 iGBS survivors and 417 non-iGBS comparison children. On average, we observed more total problems and more anxiety, attention, and conduct problems for school-aged iGBS survivors compared with the non-iGBS group. No differences were found in the proportion of clinically significant psychopathological conditions defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggested that school-aged iGBS survivors experienced increased mild emotional behavioral problems that may affect children and families. At-risk neonates including iGBS survivors need long-term follow-up with integrated emotional-behavioral assessments and appropriate care. Scale-up will require simplified assessments that are free and culturally adapted

Ethics review as a component of institutional approval for a multicentre continuous quality improvement project: the investigator's perspective

BACKGROUND: For ethical approval of a multicentre study in Canada, investigators must apply separately to individual Research Ethics Boards (REBs). In principle, the protection of human research subjects is of utmost importance. However, in practice, the process of multicentre ethics review can be time consuming and costly, requiring duplication of effort for researchers and REBs. We used our experience with ethical review of The Canadian Perinatal Network (CPN), to gain insight into the Canadian system. METHODS: The applications forms of 16 different REBs were abstracted for a list of standardized items. The application process across sites was compared. Correspondence between the REB and the investigators was documented in order to construct a timeline to approval, identify the specific issues raised by each board, and describe how they were resolved. RESULTS: Each REB had a different application form. Most (n = 9) had a two or three step application process. Overall, it took a median of 31 days (range 2-174 days) to receive an initial response from the REB. Approval took a median of 42 days (range 4-443 days). Privacy and consent were the two major issues raised. Several additional minor or administrative issues were raised which delayed approval. CONCLUSIONS: For CPN, the Canadian REB process of ethical review proved challenging. REBs acted independently and without unified application forms or submission procedures. We call for a critical examination of the ethical, privacy and institutional review processes in Canada, to determine the best way to undertake multicentre review

Reporting of ethical approval and informed consent in clinical research published in leading nursing journals : a retrospective observational study

Background: Ethical considerations play a prominent role in the protection of human subjects in clinical research. To date the disclosure of ethical protection in clinical research published in the international nursing journals has not been explored. Our research objective was to investigate the reporting of ethical approval and informed consent in clinical research published in leading international nursing journals. Methods: This is a retrospective observational study. All clinical research published in the five leading international nursing journals from the SCI Journal Citation Reports between 2015 and 2017 were retrieved to evaluate for evidence of ethical review. Results: A total of 2041 citations have been identified from the contents of all the five leading nursing journals that were published between 2015 and 2017. Out of these, 1284 clinical studies have been included and text relating to ethical review has been extracted. From these, most of prospective clinical studies (87.5%) discussed informed consent. Only half of those (52.9%) reported that written informed consent had been obtained; few (3.6%) reported oral consent, and few (6.8%) used other methods such as online consent or completion and return of data collection (such as surveys) to denote assent. Notably, 36.2% of those did not describe the method used to obtain informed consent and merely described that “consent was obtained from participants or participants agreed to join in the research”. Furthermore, whilst most of clinical studies (93.7%) mentioned ethical approval; 92.5% of those stated the name of ethical committee and interestingly, only 37.1% of those mentioned the ethical approval reference. The rates of reporting ethical approval were different between different study type, country, and whether financial support was received (all P<0.05). Conclusion: The reporting of ethics in leading international nursing journals demonstrates progress, but improvement of the transparency and the standard of ethical reporting in nursing clinical research is required

Irbesartan in Marfan syndrome (AIMS): a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Irbesartan, a long acting selective angiotensin-1 receptor inhibitor, in Marfan syndrome might reduce aortic dilatation, which is associated with dissection and rupture. We aimed to determine the effects of irbesartan on the rate of aortic dilatation in children and adults with Marfan syndrome. METHODS: We did a placebo-controlled, double-blind randomised trial at 22 centres in the UK. Individuals aged 6-40 years with clinically confirmed Marfan syndrome were eligible for inclusion. Study participants were all given 75 mg open label irbesartan once daily, then randomly assigned to 150 mg of irbesartan (increased to 300 mg as tolerated) or matching placebo. Aortic diameter was measured by echocardiography at baseline and then annually. All images were analysed by a core laboratory blinded to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the rate of aortic root dilatation. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN90011794. FINDINGS: Between March 14, 2012, and May 1, 2015, 192 participants were recruited and randomly assigned to irbesartan (n=104) or placebo (n=88), and all were followed for up to 5 years. Median age at recruitment was 18 years (IQR 12-28), 99 (52%) were female, mean blood pressure was 110/65 mm Hg (SDs 16 and 12), and 108 (56%) were taking β blockers. Mean baseline aortic root diameter was 34·4 mm in the irbesartan group (SD 5·8) and placebo group (5·5). The mean rate of aortic root dilatation was 0·53 mm per year (95% CI 0·39 to 0·67) in the irbesartan group compared with 0·74 mm per year (0·60 to 0·89) in the placebo group, with a difference in means of -0·22 mm per year (-0·41 to -0·02, p=0·030). The rate of change in aortic Z score was also reduced by irbesartan (difference in means -0·10 per year, 95% CI -0·19 to -0·01, p=0·035). Irbesartan was well tolerated with no observed differences in rates of serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Irbesartan is associated with a reduction in the rate of aortic dilatation in children and young adults with Marfan syndrome and could reduce the incidence of aortic complications