Citizen observatory based soil moisture monitoring – The GROW example

GROW Observatory is a project funded under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. Its aim is to establish a large scale (more than 20,000 participants), resilient and integrated ‘Citizen Observatory’ (CO) and community for environmental monitoring that is self-sustaining beyond the life of the project. This article describes how the initial framework and tools were developed to evolve, bring together and train such a community; raising interest, engaging participants, and educating to support reliable observations, measurements and documentation, and considerations with a special focus on the reliability of the resulting dataset for scientific purposes. The scientific purposes of GROW observatory are to test the data quality and the spatial representativity of a citizen engagement driven spatial distribution as reliably inputs for soil moisture monitoring and to create timely series of gridded soil moisture products based on citizens’ observations using low cost soil moisture (SM) sensors, and to provide an extensive dataset of in situ soil moisture observations which can serve as a reference to validate satellite-based SM products and support the Copernicus in situ component. This article aims to showcase the initial steps of setting up such a monitoring network that has been reached at the mid-way point of the project’s funded period, focusing mainly on the design and development of the CO monitoring network

Genomic investigations of unexplained acute hepatitis in children

Since its first identification in Scotland, over 1,000 cases of unexplained paediatric hepatitis in children have been reported worldwide, including 278 cases in the UK1. Here we report an investigation of 38 cases, 66 age-matched immunocompetent controls and 21 immunocompromised comparator participants, using a combination of genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic and immunohistochemical methods. We detected high levels of adeno-associated virus 2 (AAV2) DNA in the liver, blood, plasma or stool from 27 of 28 cases. We found low levels of adenovirus (HAdV) and human herpesvirus 6B (HHV-6B) in 23 of 31 and 16 of 23, respectively, of the cases tested. By contrast, AAV2 was infrequently detected and at low titre in the blood or the liver from control children with HAdV, even when profoundly immunosuppressed. AAV2, HAdV and HHV-6 phylogeny excluded the emergence of novel strains in cases. Histological analyses of explanted livers showed enrichment for T cells and B lineage cells. Proteomic comparison of liver tissue from cases and healthy controls identified increased expression of HLA class 2, immunoglobulin variable regions and complement proteins. HAdV and AAV2 proteins were not detected in the livers. Instead, we identified AAV2 DNA complexes reflecting both HAdV-mediated and HHV-6B-mediated replication. We hypothesize that high levels of abnormal AAV2 replication products aided by HAdV and, in severe cases, HHV-6B may have triggered immune-mediated hepatic disease in genetically and immunologically predisposed children

The Effect of Prognostic Communication on Patient Outcomes in Palliative Cancer Care: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: While prognostic information is considered important for treatment decision-making, physicians struggle to communicate prognosis to advanced cancer patients. This systematic review aimed to offer up-to-date, evidence-based guidance on prognostic communication in palliative oncology. METHODS: PubMed and PsycInfo were searched until September 2019 for literature on the association between prognostic disclosure (strategies) and patient outcomes in palliative cancer care, and its moderators. Methodological quality was reported. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included. Concerning prognostic disclosure, results revealed a positive association with patients\u27 prognostic awareness. Findings showed no or positive associations between prognostic disclosure and the physician-patient relationship or the discussion of care preferences. Evidence for an association with the documentation of care preferences or physical outcomes was lacking. Findings on the emotional consequences of prognostic disclosure were multifaceted. Concerning disclosure strategies, affective communication seemingly reduced patients\u27 physiological arousal and improved perceived physician\u27s support. Affective and explicit communication showed no or beneficial effects on patients\u27 psychological well-being and satisfaction. Communicating multiple survival scenarios improved prognostic understanding. Physicians displaying expertise, positivity and collaboration fostered hope. Evidence on demographic, clinical and personality factors moderating the effect of prognostic communication was weak. CONCLUSION: If preferred by patients, physicians could disclose prognosis using sensible strategies. The combination of explicit and affective communication, multiple survival scenarios and expert, positive, collaborative behaviour likely benefits most patients. Still, more evidence is needed, and tailoring communication to individual patients is warranted. IMPLICATIONS: Future research should examine the effect of prognostic communication on psychological well-being over time and treatment decision-making, and focus on individualising care

The Effect of Prognostic Communication on Patient Outcomes in Palliative Cancer Care: a Systematic Review

Background: While prognostic information is considered important for treatment decision-making, physicians struggle to communicate prognosis to advanced cancer patients. This systematic review aimed to offer up-to-date, evidence-based guidance on prognostic communication in palliative oncology. Methods: PubMed and PsycInfo were searched until September 2019 for literature on the association between prognostic disclosure (strategies) and patient outcomes in palliative cancer care, and its moderators. Methodological quality was reported. Results: Eighteen studies were included. Concerning prognostic disclosure, results revealed a positive association with patients’ prognostic awareness. Findings showed no or positive associations between prognostic disclosure and the physician-patient relationship or the discussion of care preferences. Evidence for an association with the documentation of care preferences or physical outcomes was lacking. Findings on the emotional consequences of prognostic disclosure were multifaceted. Concerning disclosure strategies, affective communication seemingly reduced patients' physiological arousal and improved perceived physician’s support. Affective and explicit communication showed no or beneficial effects on patients’ psychological well-being and satisfaction. Communicating multiple survival scenarios improved prognostic understanding. Physicians displaying expertise, positivity and collaboration fostered hope. Evidence on demographic, clinical and personality factors moderating the effect of prognostic communication was weak. Conclusion: If preferred by patients, physicians could disclose prognosis using sensible strategies. The combination of explicit and affective communication, multiple survival scenarios and expert, positive, collaborative behaviour likely benefits most patients. Still, more evidence is needed, and tailoring communication to individual patients is warranted. Implications: Future research should examine the effect of prognostic communication on psychological well-being over time and treatment decision-making, and focus on individualising care

Prevalence and Predictors of Physician-Patient Discordance in Prognostic Perceptions in Advanced Cancer

Background: Discordance between physicians’ and patients’ prognostic perceptions in advanced cancer care threatens informed medical decision-making and end-of-life preparation, yet this phenomenon is poorly understood. We sought to: (1) describe the extent and direction of prognostic discordance, patients’ prognostic information preferences in cases of prognostic discordance, and physicians’ awareness of prognostic discordance; and (2) examine which patient, physician, and caregiver factors predict prognostic discordance. Materials and Methods: Oncologists and advanced cancer patients (median survival ≤12 months; n = 515) from 7 Dutch hospitals completed structured surveys in a cross-sectional study. Prognostic discordance was operationalized by comparing physicians’ and patients’ perceptions of the likelihood of cure, 2-year mortality risk, and 1-year mortality risk. Results: Prognostic discordance occurred in 20% (likelihood of cure), 24%, and 35% (2-year and 1-year mortality risk) of physician-patient dyads, most often involving patients with more optimistic perceptions than their physician. Among patients demonstrating prognostic discordance, the proportion who preferred not knowing prognosis varied from 7% (likelihood of cure) to 37% (1-year mortality risk), and 45% (2-year mortality risk). Agreement between physician-perceived and observed prognostic discordance or concordance was poor (kappa = 0.186). Prognostic discordance was associated with several patient factors (stronger fighting spirit, self-reported absence of prognostic discussions, an information source other than the healthcare provider), and greater physician-reported uncertainty about prognosis. Conclusion: Up to one-third of the patients perceive prognosis discordantly from their physician, among whom a substantial proportion prefers not knowing prognosis. Most physicians lack awareness of prognostic discordance, raising the need to explore patients’ prognostic information preferences and perceptions, and to tailor prognostic communication.</p