Discard survival in Trammel net and Danish seine

European plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) is a key species for Danish commercial and recreational fishing. A discard ban in the reformed European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy includes the possibility of exempting from the landing obligation “species for which scientific evidence demonstrates high survival rates”. Although smaller coastal fishing vessels make up a substantial part of the commercial Danish fishing fleet, discard survival in plaice from these vessels is not well studied. To address this issue, a study on discard survival in plaice from trammel net and Danish Seine was established as a cooperation between Aalborg University, Copenhagen University and Foreningen for Skånsomt Kystfiskeri. Methodology was developed to collect, assess and observe discard survival in plaice from trammel net and Danish Seine. Experiments were conducted in 2017 and 2018 from three commercial coastal fishing vessels. Livewells were designed to house captured individuals for up to 11 days for observation of short-term survival rate. Catch-damage-index (CDI) and Reflex Action Mortality Predictor (RAMP) were used to assess fish condition immediately after capture and at the end of the observation periods. Results showed 100% survival rate in plaice from trammel net and 87% survival rate in plaice from Danish Seine. For the majority of fish assessed after capture, reflex impairments were absent and injuries were primarily minor bruises, fin fraying, and net marks. Assessments of injuries and reflex impairments after observation showed the condition of the fish generally did not worsen during the observation periods. The project is financed by the European Fisheries Fund and the Ministry of Environment and Food of Denmark

Can group-based reassuring information alter low back pain behavior? A cluster-randomized controlled trial?

Background Low back pain (LBP) is common in the population and multifactorial in nature, often involving negative consequences. Reassuring information to improve coping is recommended for reducing the negative consequences of LBP. Adding a simple non-threatening explanation for the pain (temporary muscular dysfunction) has been successful at altering beliefs and behavior when delivered with other intervention elements. This study investigates the isolated effect of this specific information on future occupational behavior outcomes when delivered to the workforce. Design A cluster-randomized controlled trial. Methods Publically employed workers (n=505) from 11 Danish municipality centers were randomized at center-level (cluster) to either intervention (two 1-hour group-based talks at the workplace) or control. The talks provided reassuring information together with a simple non-threatening explanation for LBP - the ‘functional-disturbance’-model. Data collections took place monthly over a 1-year period using text message tracking (SMS). Primary outcomes were self-reported days of cutting down usual activities and work participation. Secondary outcomes were self-reported back beliefs, work ability, number of healthcare visits, bothersomeness, restricted activity, use of pain medication, and sadness/depression. Results There was no between-group difference in the development of LBP during follow-up. Cumulative logistic regression analyses showed no between-group difference on days of cutting down activities, but increased odds for more days of work participation in the intervention group (OR=1.83 95% CI: 1.08-3.12). Furthermore, the intervention group was more likely to report: higher work ability, reduced visits to healthcare professionals, lower bothersomeness, lower levels of sadness/depression, and positive back beliefs. Conclusion Reassuring information involving a simple non-threatening explanation for LBP significantly increased the odds for days of work participation and higher work ability among workers who went on to experience LBP during the 12-month follow-up. Our results confirm the potential for public-health education for LBP, and add to the discussion of simple versus multidisciplinary interventions