Recovering and harmonizing research cruises information

The IEO has maintained since late 60s, a local database with basic information on oceanographic campaigns, formerly known as ROSCOF reports, which were established in the framework of IODE initiatives, as a low-level inventory for future access to data. Technological advances in recent decades and different coordination activities between NODCs have favored the implementation of these reports in standardized digital formats (Cruise Summary Reports, CSR) that allow their integration in international repositories as SeaDataNet or POGO. However, this inventory and cataloging activity has suffered ups and downs over 40 years of activity, changes in storage criteria and periods of less activity. In the search for a unique criterion that can last over time and that unifies this information as much as possible with the data generated in these campaigns, an exhaustive review of the existing information has been carried out. The result has been the retrieval of information from short-term campaigns carried out on smaller vessels with great coastal activity, as well as updating information regarding old campaigns performed on the first half of the 20th century onboard of decommissioned vessels. All this is completed with the systematic campaigns carried out by INTECMAR in the Galician rias, research vessels operated by the national Fisheries Administration, and information on research surveys carried out by foreign ships in national waters, forming a catalog of more than 4000 entries. This approach is also followed by the UTM-CSIC, on its own-managed vessels and campaigns carried out since 1991. The common approach allows a unified response to the governmental needs for the planning of future campaigns, and in successive improvements in data recovering, archiving and accessing at NODC/CEDO

Midwifery continuity of care versus standard maternity care for women at increased risk of preterm birth : a hybrid implementation–effectiveness, randomised controlled pilot trial in the UK

Background: Midwifery continuity of care is the only health system intervention shown to reduce preterm birth (PTB) and improve perinatal survival, but no trial evidence exists for women with identified risk factors for PTB. We aimed to assess feasibility, fidelity, and clinical outcomes of a model of midwifery continuity of care linked with a specialist obstetric clinic for women considered at increased risk for PTB. Methods and findings: We conducted a hybrid implementation–effectiveness, randomised, controlled, unblinded, parallel-group pilot trial at an inner-city maternity service in London (UK), in which pregnant women identified at increased risk of PTB were randomly assigned (1:1) to either midwifery continuity of antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care (Pilot study Of midwifery Practice in Preterm birth Including women’s Experiences [POPPIE] group) or standard care group (maternity care by different midwives working in designated clinical areas). Pregnant women attending for antenatal care at less than 24 weeks' gestation were eligible if they fulfilled one or more of the following criteria: previous cervical surgery, cerclage, premature rupture of membranes, PTB, or late miscarriage; previous short cervix or short cervix this pregnancy; or uterine abnormality and/or current smoker of tobacco. Feasibility outcomes included eligibility, recruitment and attrition rates, and fidelity of the model. The primary outcome was a composite of appropriate and timely interventions for the prevention and/or management of preterm labour and birth. We analysed by intention to treat. Between 9 May 2017 and 30 September 2018, 334 women were recruited; 169 women were allocated to the POPPIE group and 165 to the standard group. Mean maternal age was 31 years; 32% of the women were from Black, Asian, and ethnic minority groups; 70% were in employment; and 46% had a university degree. Nearly 70% of women lived in areas of social deprivation. More than a quarter of women had at least one pre-existing medical condition and multiple risk factors for PTB. More than 75% of antenatal and postnatal visits were provided by a named/partner midwife, and a midwife from the POPPIE team was present at 80% of births. The incidence of the primary composite outcome showed no statistically significant difference between groups (POPPIE group 83.3% versus standard group 84.7%; risk ratio 0.98 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.08]; p = 0.742). Infants in the POPPIE group were significantly more likely to have skin-to-skin contact after birth, to have it for a longer time, and to breastfeed immediately after birth and at hospital discharge. There were no differences in other secondary outcomes. The number of serious adverse events was similar in both groups and unrelated to the intervention (POPPIE group 6 versus standard group 5). Limitations of this study included the limited power and the nonmasking of group allocation; however, study assignment was masked to the statistician and researchers who analysed the data. Conclusions: In this study, we found that it is feasible to set up and achieve fidelity of a model of midwifery continuity of care linked with specialist obstetric care for women at increased risk of PTB in an inner-city maternity service in London (UK), but there is no impact on most outcomes for this population group. Larger appropriately powered trials are needed, including in other settings, to evaluate the impact of relational continuity and hypothesised mechanisms of effect based on increased trust and engagement, improved care coordination, and earlier referral on disadvantaged communities, including women with complex social factors and social vulnerability. Trial registration: We prospectively registered the pilot trial on the UK Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database (ID number: 31951, 24 April 2017). We registered the trial on the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) (Number: 37733900, 21 August 2017) and before trial recruitment was completed (30 September 2018) when informed that prospective registration for a pilot trial was also required in a primary clinical trial registry recognised by WHO and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The protocol as registered and published has remained unchanged, and the analysis conforms to the original plan

Approaches in Sustainable, Biobased Multilayer Packaging Solutions

The depletion of fossil resources and the growing demand for plastic waste reduction has put industries and academic researchers under pressure to develop increasingly sustainable packaging solutions that are both functional and circularly designed. In this review, we provide an overview of the fundamentals and recent advances in biobased packaging materials, including new materials and techniques for their modification as well as their end-of-life scenarios. We also discuss the composition and modification of biobased films and multilayer structures, with particular attention to readily available drop-in solutions, as well as coating techniques. Moreover, we discuss end-of-life factors, including sorting systems, detection methods, composting options, and recycling and upcycling possibilities. Finally, regulatory aspects are pointed out for each application scenario and end-of-life option. Moreover, we discuss the human factor in terms of consumer perception and acceptance of upcycling

Targeted health and social care interventions for women and infants who are disproportionately impacted by health inequalities in high-income countries: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Disadvantaged populations (such as women from minority ethnic groups and those with social complexity) are at an increased risk of poor outcomes and experiences. Inequalities in health outcomes include preterm birth, maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality, and poor-quality care. The impact of interventions is unclear for this population, in high-income countries (HIC). The review aimed to identify and evaluate the current evidence related to targeted health and social care service interventions in HICs which can improve health inequalities experienced by childbearing women and infants at disproportionate risk of poor outcomes and experiences. METHODS: Twelve databases searched for studies across all HICs, from any methodological design. The search concluded on 8/11/22. The inclusion criteria included interventions that targeted disadvantaged populations which provided a component of clinical care that differed from standard maternity care. RESULTS: Forty six index studies were included. Countries included Australia, Canada, Chile, Hong Kong, UK and USA. A narrative synthesis was undertaken, and results showed three intervention types: midwifery models of care, interdisciplinary care, and community-centred services. These intervention types have been delivered singularly but also in combination of each other demonstrating overlapping features. Overall, results show interventions had positive associations with primary (maternal, perinatal, and infant mortality) and secondary outcomes (experiences and satisfaction, antenatal care coverage, access to care, quality of care, mode of delivery, analgesia use in labour, preterm birth, low birth weight, breastfeeding, family planning, immunisations) however significance and impact vary. Midwifery models of care took an interpersonal and holistic approach as they focused on continuity of carer, home visiting, culturally and linguistically appropriate care and accessibility. Interdisciplinary care took a structural approach, to coordinate care for women requiring multi-agency health and social services. Community-centred services took a place-based approach with interventions that suited the need of its community and their norms. CONCLUSION: Targeted interventions exist in HICs, but these vary according to the context and infrastructure of standard maternity care. Multi-interventional approaches could enhance a targeted approach for at risk populations, in particular combining midwifery models of care with community-centred approaches, to enhance accessibility, earlier engagement, and increased attendance

Postoperative outcomes in oesophagectomy with trainee involvement

BACKGROUND: The complexity of oesophageal surgery and the significant risk of morbidity necessitates that oesophagectomy is predominantly performed by a consultant surgeon, or a senior trainee under their supervision. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of trainee involvement in oesophagectomy on postoperative outcomes in an international multicentre setting. METHODS: Data from the multicentre Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Study Group (OGAA) cohort study were analysed, which comprised prospectively collected data from patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer between April 2018 and December 2018. Procedures were grouped by the level of trainee involvement, and univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to compare patient outcomes across groups. RESULTS: Of 2232 oesophagectomies from 137 centres in 41 countries, trainees were involved in 29.1 per cent of them (n = 650), performing only the abdominal phase in 230, only the chest and/or neck phases in 130, and all phases in 315 procedures. For procedures with a chest anastomosis, those with trainee involvement had similar 90-day mortality, complication and reoperation rates to consultant-performed oesophagectomies (P = 0.451, P = 0.318, and P = 0.382, respectively), while anastomotic leak rates were significantly lower in the trainee groups (P = 0.030). Procedures with a neck anastomosis had equivalent complication, anastomotic leak, and reoperation rates (P = 0.150, P = 0.430, and P = 0.632, respectively) in trainee-involved versus consultant-performed oesophagectomies, with significantly lower 90-day mortality in the trainee groups (P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Trainee involvement was not found to be associated with significantly inferior postoperative outcomes for selected patients undergoing oesophagectomy. The results support continued supervised trainee involvement in oesophageal cancer surgery

Midwifery continuity of care versus standard maternity care for women at increased risk of preterm birth: A hybrid implementation–effectiveness, randomised controlled pilot trial in the UK

Background Midwifery continuity of care is the only health system intervention shown to reduce preterm birth (PTB) and improve perinatal survival, but no trial evidence exists for women with identified risk factors for PTB. We aimed to assess feasibility, fidelity, and clinical outcomes of a model of midwifery continuity of care linked with a specialist obstetric clinic for women considered at increased risk for PTB. Methods and findings We conducted a hybrid implementation–effectiveness, randomised, controlled, unblinded, parallel-group pilot trial at an inner-city maternity service in London (UK), in which pregnant women identified at increased risk of PTB were randomly assigned (1:1) to either midwifery continuity of antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care (Pilot study Of midwifery Practice in Preterm birth Including women’s Experiences [POPPIE] group) or standard care group (maternity care by different midwives working in designated clinical areas). Pregnant women attending for antenatal care at less than 24 weeks’ gestation were eligible if they fulfilled one or more of the following criteria: previous cervical surgery, cerclage, premature rupture of membranes, PTB, or late miscarriage; previous short cervix or short cervix this pregnancy; or uterine abnormality and/or current smoker of tobacco. Feasibility outcomes included eligibility, recruitment and attrition rates, and fidelity of the model. The primary outcome was a composite of appropriate and timely interventions for the prevention and/or management of preterm labour and birth. We analysed by intention to treat. Between 9 May 2017 and 30 September 2018, 334 women were recruited; 169 women were allocated to the POPPIE group and 165 to the standard group. Mean maternal age was 31 years; 32% of the women were from Black, Asian, and ethnic minority groups; 70% were in employment; and 46% had a university degree. Nearly 70% of women lived in areas of social deprivation. More than a quarter of women had at least one pre-existing medical condition and multiple risk factors for PTB. More than 75% of antenatal and postnatal visits were provided by a named/partner midwife, and a midwife from the POPPIE team was present at 80% of births. The incidence of the primary composite outcome showed no statistically significant difference between groups (POPPIE group 83.3% versus standard group 84.7%; risk ratio 0.98 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.08]; p = 0.742). Infants in the POPPIE group were significantly more likely to have skin-to-skin contact after birth, to have it for a longer time, and to breastfeed immediately after birth and at hospital discharge. There were no differences in other secondary outcomes. The number of serious adverse events was similar in both groups and unrelated to the intervention (POPPIE group 6 versus standard group 5). Limitations of this study included the limited power and the nonmasking of group allocation; however, study assignment was masked to the statistician and researchers who analysed the data. Conclusions In this study, we found that it is feasible to set up and achieve fidelity of a model of midwifery continuity of care linked with specialist obstetric care for women at increased risk of PTB in an inner-city maternity service in London (UK), but there is no impact on most outcomes for this population group. Larger appropriately powered trials are needed, including in other settings, to evaluate the impact of relational continuity and hypothesised mechanisms of effect based on increased trust and engagement, improved care coordination, and earlier referral on disadvantaged communities, including women with complex social factors and social vulnerability. Trial registration We prospectively registered the pilot trial on the UK Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database (ID number: 31951, 24 April 2017). We registered the trial on the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) (Number: 37733900, 21 August 2017) and before trial recruitment was completed (30 September 2018) when informed that prospective registration for a pilot trial was also required in a primary clinical trial registry recognised by WHO and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The protocol as registered and published has remained unchanged, and the analysis conforms to the original plan