Addendum to A Blueprint for Ocean Energy Development 2010-2015

OWET convened the second annual OWET Developersʼ Summit on August 2, 2011 in Portland, Oregon. The Summit brought together participants, both new and those who had attended the first OWET Developersʼ Summit 2010, to review the Blueprint for Ocean Energy Development 2010-2015 and to discuss: the progress made in developing ocean energy during the past year, ongoing challenges, and modifications to the Blueprint needed to refine its strategies to advance ocean energy development in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest of North America by 2015. This addendum to the Blueprint captures the results of the Summit. OWET intends for this addendum to supplement the action plan focused on advancing a responsible ocean energy industry that is presented in the Blueprint. Blueprint action items will continue to define OWETʼs work

A Blueprint for Ocean Energy Development 2010-2015

In an effort to foster a collaborative approach to advancing the ocean energy industry, OWET convened the OWET 2010 Developersʼ Summit on September 27 and 28, 2010 in Portland, Oregon. The purpose of the Summit was to create an open dialogue among developers, utilities, and regulatory and policy leaders to develop a strategy to advance ocean energy development in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest of North America by 2015. Approximately 40 attendees gathered for two days of dialog and brainstorming sessions, information sharing, and discussion about opportunities to advance the industry. Key topics addressed in the Summit included regulatory and permitting processes, policies to encourage and finance the early stages of ocean energy development, and connecting facilities to the electrical transmission infrastructure. This Blueprint captures the results of the Summit, identifies goals for 2015, and recommends actions discussed at the Summit. OWET intends for this Blueprint to be used as a focused action plan to advance a responsible ocean energy industry.2 This Blueprint also introduces the concept of “Blue Tag Power” that was discussed at the Summit and developed further at Ocean Renewable Energy Conference V. Blue Tag Power is a designation that would include wave, tidal, in-stream current and offshore wind

Co-located wind and wave energy farms: Uniformly distributed arrays

publisher: Elsevier articletitle: Co-located wind and wave energy farms: Uniformly distributed arrays journaltitle: Energy articlelink: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.07.069 content_type: article copyright: © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Randomized controlled trial and economic evaluation of nurse-led group support for young mothers during pregnancy and the first year postpartum versus usual care

Background Child maltreatment is a significant public health problem. Group Family Nurse Partnership (gFNP) is a new intervention for young, expectant mothers implemented successfully in pilot studies. This study was designed to determine the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of gFNP in reducing risk factors for maltreatment with a potentially vulnerable population. Methods A multi-site randomized controlled parallel-arm trial and prospective economic evaluation was conducted, with allocation via remote randomization (minimization by site, maternal age group) to gFNP or usual care. Participants were expectant mothers aged <20 with at least one live birth, or 20–24 with no live births and with low educational qualifications. Data from maternal interviews at baseline and when infants were two, six and 12 months, and video recording at 12 months, were collected by researchers blind to allocation. Cost information came from weekly logs completed by gFNP family nurses and other service delivery data reported by participants. Primary outcomes measured at 12 months were parenting attitudes (Adult- Adolescent Parenting Index, AAPI-2) and maternal sensitivity (CARE index). The economic evaluation was conducted from a UK NHS and personal social services perspective with cost-effectiveness expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Main analyses were intention to treat with additional complier average causal effects (CACE) analyses. Results Between August 2013 and September 2014, 492 names of potential participants were received of whom 319 were eligible and 166 agreed to take part, 99 randomly assigned to receive gFNP and 67 to usual care. There were no between-arms differences in AAPI-2 total (7·5/10 in both, SE 0.1), difference adjusted for baseline, site and maternal age-group 0·06 (95% CI -0·15 to 0·28, p=0·59) or CARE Index (intervention 4·0 (SE 0·3); control 4·7(SE 0·4); difference adjusted for site and maternal age-group -0·68; 95% CI -1·62 to 0·16, p=0·25) scores. The probability that gFNP is cost-effective based on the QALY measure did not exceed 3%. Conclusions The trial did not support gFNP as a means of reducing the risk of child maltreatment in this population but slow recruitment adversely affected group size and consequently delivery of the intervention

Results of the First Steps study: a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of the Group Family Nurse Partnership (gFNP) programme compared with usual care in improving outcomes for high-risk mothers and their children and preventing abuse

Background: Family Nurse Partnership (FNP) is a home-based nurse home-visiting programme to support vulnerable parents. Group Family Nurse Partnership (gFNP) has similar aims and materials and was demonstrated to be feasible in implementation evaluations. Objectives: To determine whether or not gFNP, compared with usual care, could reduce risk factors for maltreatment in a vulnerable group and be cost-effective. Design: A multisite randomised controlled parallel-group trial and prospective economic evaluation, with eligible women allocated (minimised by site and maternal age group) to gFNP or usual care. Setting: Community locations in the UK. Participants: Expectant mothers aged < 20 years with one or more previous live births, or expectant mothers aged 20–24 years with no previous live births and with low educational qualifications (defined as General Certificate of Education at grade C or higher in neither mathematics nor English language or, if they had both, no more than four General Certificates of Education at grade C or higher). Intervention: Forty-four sessions of gFNP (14 during pregnancy and 30 in the first 12 months after birth) were offered to groups of between 8 and 12 women with similar expected delivery dates (the difference between the earliest and latest expected delivery date ranged from 8 to 10 weeks depending on the group) by two family nurses (FNs), one of whom had notified her intention to practise as a midwife. Main outcome measures: Parenting was assessed by a self-report measure of parenting opinions, the Adult Adolescent Parenting Inventory Version 2 (AAPI-2), and an objective measure of maternal sensitivity, the CARE-Index. Cost-effectiveness was primarily expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Data sources: Interviews with participants at baseline and when infants were aged 2, 6 and 12 months. Cost information from nurse weekly logs and other service delivery data. Results: In total, 166 women were enrolled (99 to the intervention group and 67 to the control group). Adjusting for site and maternal age group, the intention-to-treat analysis found no effect of gFNP on either of the primary outcomes. AAPI-2 total was 7.5/10 [standard error (SE) 0.1] in both arms [difference also adjusted for baseline 0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.15 to 0.28; p = 0.50]. CARE-Index maternal sensitivity mean: intervention 4.0 (SE 0.3); control 4.7 (SE 0.4) (difference –0.76, 95% CI –1.67 to 0.13; p = 0.21). The sensitivity analyses supported the primary analyses. The probability that the gFNP intervention was cost-effective based on the QALY measure did not exceed 3%. However, in terms of change in AAPI-2 score (baseline to 12 months), the probability that gFNP was cost-effective reached 25.1%. A separate discrete choice experiment highlighted the value placed by both pregnant women and members of the general population on non-health outcomes that were not included in the QALY metric. Limitations: Slow recruitment resulted in smaller than ideal group sizes. In some cases, few or no sessions took place owing to low initial group size, and small groups may have contributed to attrition from the intervention. Exposure to gFNP sessions was below maximum for most group members, with only 58 of the 97 intervention participants receiving any sessions; FNs were experienced with FNP but were mainly new to delivering gFNP. Conclusions: The trial does not support the delivery of gFNP as a means of reducing the risk of child abuse or neglect in this population. Future work: A randomised controlled trial with modified eligibility to enable first-time mothers aged < 20 years to be included, and a modified recruitment strategy to enable faster identification of potential participants from antenatal medical records