Addressing the environmental, community and health impacts of resource development: Challenges across scales, sectors and sites

Work that addresses the cumulative impacts of resource extraction on environment, community, and health is necessarily large in scope. This paper presents experiences from initiating research at this intersection and explores implications for the ambitious, integrative agenda of planetary health. The purpose is to outline origins, design features, and preliminary insights from our intersectoral and international project, based in Canada and titled the “Environment, Community, Health Observatory” (ECHO) Network. With a clear emphasis on rural, remote, and Indigenous communities, environments, and health, the ECHO Network is designed to answer the question: How can an Environment, Community, Health Observatory Network support the integrative tools and processes required to improve understanding and response to the cumulative health impacts of resource development? The Network is informed by four regional cases across Canada where we employ a framework and an approach grounded in observation, “taking notice for action”, and collective learning. Sharing insights from the foundational phase of this five-year project, we reflect on the hidden and obvious challenges of working across scales, sectors, and sites, and the overlap of generative and uncomfortable entanglements associated with health and resource development. Yet, although intersectoral work addressing the cumulative impacts of resource extraction presents uncertainty and unresolved tensions, ultimately we argue that it is worth staying with the trouble

Addressing the environmental, community and health impacts of resource development: Challenges across scales, sectors and sites

Work that addresses the cumulative impacts of resource extraction on environment, community, and health is necessarily large in scope. This paper presents experiences from initiating research at this intersection and explores implications for the ambitious, integrative agenda of planetary health. The purpose is to outline origins, design features, and preliminary insights from our intersectoral and international project, based in Canada and titled the “Environment, Community, Health Observatory” (ECHO) Network. With a clear emphasis on rural, remote, and Indigenous communities, environments, and health, the ECHO Network is designed to answer the question: How can an Environment, Community, Health Observatory Network support the integrative tools and processes required to improve understanding and response to the cumulative health impacts of resource development? The Network is informed by four regional cases across Canada where we employ a framework and an approach grounded in observation, “taking notice for action”, and collective learning. Sharing insights from the foundational phase of this five-year project, we reflect on the hidden and obvious challenges of working across scales, sectors, and sites, and the overlap of generative and uncomfortable entanglements associated with health and resource development. Yet, although intersectoral work addressing the cumulative impacts of resource extraction presents uncertainty and unresolved tensions, ultimately we argue that it is worth staying with the trouble

Predictors of stable return-to-work in non-acute, non-specific spinal pain: low total prior sick-listing, high self prediction and young age. A two-year prospective cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Non-specific spinal pain (NSP), comprising back and/or neck pain, is one of the leading disorders in long-term sick-listing. During 2000-2004, 125 Swedish primary-care patients with non-acute NSP, full-time sick-listed 6 weeks-2 years, were included in a randomized controlled trial to compare a cognitive-behavioural programme with traditional primary care. This prospective cohort study is a re-assessment of the data from the randomized trial with the 2 treatment groups considered as a single cohort. The aim was to investigate which baseline variables predict a stable return-to-work during a 2-year period after baseline: objective variables from function tests, socioeconomic, subjective and/or treatment variables. Stable return-to-work was a return-to-work lasting for at least 1 month from the start of follow-up.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p><it>Stable return-to-work </it>was the outcome variable, the above-mentioned factors were the predictive variables in multiple-logistic regression models, one per follow-up at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after baseline. The factors from univariate analyzes with a <it>p</it>-value of at most .10 were included. The non-significant variables were excluded stepwise to yield models comprising only significant factors (<it>p </it>< .05). As the comparatively few cases made it risky to associate certain predictors with certain time-points, we finally considered the predictors which were represented in at least 3 follow-ups. They are presented with odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Three variables qualified, all of them represented in 3 follow-ups: <it>Low total prior sick-listing </it>(including all diagnoses) was the strongest predictor in 2 follow-ups, 18 and 24 months, OR 4.8 [1.9-12.3] and 3.8 [1.6-8.7] respectively, <it>High self prediction </it>(the patients' own belief in return-to-work) was the strongest at 12 months, OR 5.2 [1.5-17.5] and <it>Young age </it>(max 44 years) the second strongest at 18 months, OR 3.5 [1.3-9.1].</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In primary-care patients with non-acute NSP, the strong predictors of stable return-to-work were 2 socioeconomic variables, <it>Low total prior sick-listing </it>and <it>Young age</it>, and 1 subjective variable, <it>High self-prediction</it>. Objective variables from function tests and treatment variables were non-predictors. Except for <it>Young age</it>, the predictors have previously been insufficiently studied, and so our study should widen knowledge within clinical practice.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Trial registration number for the original trial NCT00488735.</p

Thoracic spine pain in the general population: Prevalence, incidence and associated factors in children, adolescents and adults. A systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Thoracic spine pain (TSP) is experienced across the lifespan by healthy individuals and is a common presentation in primary healthcare clinical practice. However, the epidemiological characteristics of TSP are not well documented compared to neck and low back pain. A rigorous evaluation of the prevalence, incidence, correlates and risk factors needs to be undertaken in order for epidemiologic data to be meaningfully used to develop evidence-based prevention and treatment recommendations for TSP.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic review method was followed to report the evidence describing prevalence, incidence, associated factors and risk factors for TSP among the general population. Nine electronic databases were systematically searched to identify studies that reported either prevalence, incidence, associated factors (cross-sectional study) or risk factors (prospective study) for TSP in healthy children, adolescents or adults. Studies were evaluated for level of evidence and method quality.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 1389 studies identified in the literature, 33 met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The mean (SD) quality score (out of 15) for the included studies was 10.5 (2.0). TSP prevalence data ranged from 4.0–72.0% (point), 0.5–51.4% (7-day), 1.4–34.8% (1-month), 4.8–7.0% (3-month), 3.5–34.8% (1-year) and 15.6–19.5% (lifetime). TSP prevalence varied according to the operational definition of TSP. Prevalence for any TSP ranged from 0.5–23.0%, 15.8–34.8%, 15.0–27.5% and 12.0–31.2% for 7-day, 1-month, 1-year and lifetime periods, respectively. TSP associated with backpack use varied from 6.0–72.0% and 22.9–51.4% for point and 7-day periods, respectively. TSP interfering with school or leisure ranged from 3.5–9.7% for 1-year prevalence. Generally, studies reported a higher prevalence for TSP in child and adolescent populations, and particularly for females. The 1 month, 6 month, 1 year and 25 year incidences were 0–0.9%, 10.3%, 3.8–35.3% and 9.8% respectively. TSP was significantly associated with: concurrent musculoskeletal pain; growth and physical; lifestyle and social; backpack; postural; psychological; and environmental factors. Risk factors identified for TSP in adolescents included age (being older) and poorer mental health.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>TSP is a common condition in the general population. While there is some evidence for biopsychosocial associations it is limited and further prospectively designed research is required to inform prevention and management strategies.</p

Thoracic spine pain in the general population: Prevalence, incidence and associated factors in children, adolescents and adults. A systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Thoracic spine pain (TSP) is experienced across the lifespan by healthy individuals and is a common presentation in primary healthcare clinical practice. However, the epidemiological characteristics of TSP are not well documented compared to neck and low back pain. A rigorous evaluation of the prevalence, incidence, correlates and risk factors needs to be undertaken in order for epidemiologic data to be meaningfully used to develop evidence-based prevention and treatment recommendations for TSP.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic review method was followed to report the evidence describing prevalence, incidence, associated factors and risk factors for TSP among the general population. Nine electronic databases were systematically searched to identify studies that reported either prevalence, incidence, associated factors (cross-sectional study) or risk factors (prospective study) for TSP in healthy children, adolescents or adults. Studies were evaluated for level of evidence and method quality.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 1389 studies identified in the literature, 33 met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The mean (SD) quality score (out of 15) for the included studies was 10.5 (2.0). TSP prevalence data ranged from 4.0–72.0% (point), 0.5–51.4% (7-day), 1.4–34.8% (1-month), 4.8–7.0% (3-month), 3.5–34.8% (1-year) and 15.6–19.5% (lifetime). TSP prevalence varied according to the operational definition of TSP. Prevalence for any TSP ranged from 0.5–23.0%, 15.8–34.8%, 15.0–27.5% and 12.0–31.2% for 7-day, 1-month, 1-year and lifetime periods, respectively. TSP associated with backpack use varied from 6.0–72.0% and 22.9–51.4% for point and 7-day periods, respectively. TSP interfering with school or leisure ranged from 3.5–9.7% for 1-year prevalence. Generally, studies reported a higher prevalence for TSP in child and adolescent populations, and particularly for females. The 1 month, 6 month, 1 year and 25 year incidences were 0–0.9%, 10.3%, 3.8–35.3% and 9.8% respectively. TSP was significantly associated with: concurrent musculoskeletal pain; growth and physical; lifestyle and social; backpack; postural; psychological; and environmental factors. Risk factors identified for TSP in adolescents included age (being older) and poorer mental health.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>TSP is a common condition in the general population. While there is some evidence for biopsychosocial associations it is limited and further prospectively designed research is required to inform prevention and management strategies.</p

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field