Free-Surface Viscous Flow Solution Methods for Ship Hydrodynamics

The simulation of viscous free-surface water flow is a subject that has reached a certain maturity and is nowadays used in industrial applications, like the simulation of the flow around ships. While almost all methods used are based on the Navier-Stokes equations, the discretisation methods for the water surface differ widely. Many of these highly different methods are being used with success. We review three of these methods, by describing in detail their implementation in one particular code that is being used in industrial practice. The descriptions concern the principle of the method, numerical details, and the method’s strengths and limitations. For each code, examples are given of its use. Finally, the methods are compared to determine the best field of application for each. The following surface descretisation methods are reviewed. First, surface fitting/mesh deformation in PARNASSOS, developed by MARIN; the description focuses on the efficient steady-state solution method of this code. Then surface capturing with Volume-of-Fluid in ISIS-CFD, developed by CNRS/Ecole Centrale de Nantes; the main topic of this review are the compressive flux discretisation schemes for the volume fraction that are used in this code. And fi- nally, the Level Set method in SURF, developed by NMRI; this description contains a modified formulation of the Level Set method that is optimised for ship flow computation

Towards the integration and development of a cross-European research network and infrastructure:the DEterminants of DIet and Physical ACtivity (DEDIPAC) Knowledge Hub

To address major societal challenges and enhance cooperation in research across Europe, the European Commission has initiated and facilitated ‘joint programming’. Joint programming is a process by which Member States engage in defining, developing and implementing a common strategic research agenda, based on a shared vision of how to address major societal challenges that no Member State is capable of resolving independently. Setting up a Joint Programming Initiative (JPI) should also contribute to avoiding unnecessary overlap and repetition of research, and enable and enhance the development and use of standardised research methods, procedures and data management. The Determinants of Diet and Physical Activity (DEDIPAC) Knowledge Hub (KH) is the first act of the European JPI ‘A Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life’. The objective of DEDIPAC is to contribute to improving understanding of the determinants of dietary, physical activity and sedentary behaviours. DEDIPAC KH is a multi-disciplinary consortium of 46 consortia and organisations supported by joint programming grants from 12 countries across Europe. The work is divided into three thematic areas: (I) assessment and harmonisation of methods for future research, surveillance and monitoring, and for evaluation of interventions and policies; (II) determinants of dietary, physical activity and sedentary behaviours across the life course and in vulnerable groups; and (III) evaluation and benchmarking of public health and policy interventions aimed at improving dietary, physical activity and sedentary behaviours. In the first three years, DEDIPAC KH will organise, develop, share and harmonise expertise, methods, measures, data and other infrastructure. This should further European research and improve the broad multi-disciplinary approach needed to study the interactions between multilevel determinants in influencing dietary, physical activity and sedentary behaviours. Insights will be translated into more effective interventions and policies for the promotion of healthier behaviours and more effective monitoring and evaluation of the impacts of such intervention

Variation in population levels of sedentary time in European adults according to cross European studies: a systematic literature review within DEDIPAC

peer-reviewedBackground: Sedentary behaviour is increasingly recognized as a public health risk that needs to be monitored at the population level. Across Europe, there is increasing interest in assessing population levels of sedentary time. This systematic literature review aims to provide an overview of all existing cross-European studies that measure sedentary time in adults, to describe the variation in population levels across these studies and to discuss the impact of assessment methods. Methods: Six literature databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SportDiscus and OpenGrey) were searched, supplemented with backward- and forward tracking and searching authors’ and experts’ literature databases. Articles were included if they reported on observational studies measuring any form of sedentary time in the general population in two or more European countries. Each record was reviewed, extracted and assessed by two independent researchers, and disagreements were resolved by a third researcher. The review protocol of this review is registered in the PROSPERO database under registration number CRD42014010335. Results: Of the 9,756 unique articles that were identified in the search, twelve articles were eligible for inclusion in this review, reporting on six individual studies and three Eurobarometer surveys. These studies represented 2 to 29 countries, and 321 to 65,790 participants. Eleven studies focused on total sedentary time, while one studied screen time. The majority of studies used questionnaires to assess sedentary time, while two studies used accelerometers. Total sedentary time was reported most frequently and varied from 150 (median) to 620 (mean) minutes per day aConclusions: One third of European countries were not included in any of the studies. Objective measures of European adults are currently limited, and most studies used single-item self-reported questions without assessing sedentary behaviour types or domains. Findings varied substantially between studies, meaning that population levels of sedentary time in European adults are currently unknown. In general, people living in northern Europe countries appear to report more sedentary time than southern Europeans. The findings of this review highlight the need for standardisation of the measurement methods and the added value of cross-European surveillance of sedentary behaviour.cross studies and countries

A systematic review of correlates of sedentary behaviour in adults aged 18–65 years: a socio-ecological approach

Background: Recent research shows that sedentary behaviour is associated with adverse cardio-metabolic consequences even among those considered sufficiently physically active. In order to successfully develop interventions to address this unhealthy behaviour, factors that influence sedentariness need to be identified and fully understood. The aim of this review is to identify individual, social, environmental, and policy-related determinants or correlates of sedentary behaviours among adults aged 18-65 years. Methods: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science were searched for articles published between January 2000 and September 2015. The search strategy was based on four key elements and their synonyms: (a) sedentary behaviour (b) correlates (c) types of sedentary behaviours (d) types of correlates. Articles were included if information relating to sedentary behaviour in adults (18-65 years) was reported. Studies on samples selected by disease were excluded. The full protocol is available from PROSPERO (PROSPERO 2014:CRD42014009823). Results: 74 original studies were identified out of 4041: 71 observational, two qualitative and one experimental study. Sedentary behaviour was primarily measured as self-reported screen leisure time and total sitting time. In 15 studies, objectively measured total sedentary time was reported: accelerometry (n = 14) and heart rate (n = 1). Individual level factors such as age, physical activity levels, body mass index, socio-economic status and mood were all significantly correlated with sedentariness. A trend towards increased amounts of leisure screen time was identified in those married or cohabiting while having children resulted in less total sitting time. Several environmental correlates were identified including proximity of green space, neighbourhood walkability and safety and weather. Conclusions: Results provide further evidence relating to several already recognised individual level factors and preliminary evidence relating to social and environmental factors that should be further investigated. Most studies relied upon cross-sectional design limiting causal inference and the heterogeneity of the sedentary measures prevented direct comparison of findings. Future research necessitates longitudinal study designs, exploration of policy-related factors, further exploration of environmental factors, analysis of inter-relationships between identified factors and better classification of sedentary behaviour domains

Variation in population levels of physical activity in European adults according to cross-European studies: a systematic literature review within DEDIPAC

peer-reviewedBackground: Physical inactivity is a well-known public health risk that should be monitored at the population level. Physical activity levels are often surveyed across Europe. This systematic literature review aims to provide an overview of all existing cross-European studies that assess physical activity in European adults, describe the variation in population levels according to these studies, and discuss the impact of the assessment methods. Methods: Six literature databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SportDiscus and OpenGrey) were searched, supplemented with backward- and forward tracking and searching authors’ and experts’ literature databases. Articles were included if they reported on observational studies measuring total physical activity and/or physical activity in leisure time in the general population in two or more European countries. Each record was reviewed, extracted and assessed by two independent researchers and disagreements were resolved by a third researcher. The review protocol of this review is registered in the PROSPERO database under registration number CRD42014010334. Results: Of the 9,756 unique identified articles, twenty-five were included in this review, reporting on sixteen different studies, including 2 to 35 countries and 321 to 274,740 participants. All but two of the studies used questionnaires to assess physical activity, with the majority of studies using the IPAQ-short questionnaire. The remaining studies used accelerometers. The percentage of participants who either were or were not meeting the physical activity recommendations was the most commonly reported outcome variable, with the percentage of participants meeting the recommendations ranging from 7 % to 96 % across studies and countries. Conclusions: The included studies showed substantial variation in the assessment methods, reported outcome variables and, consequently, the presented physical activity levels. Because of this, absolute population levels of physical activity in European adults are currently unknown. However, when ranking countries, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Portugal, and Spain generally appear to be among the less active countries. Objective data of adults across Europe is currently limited. These findings highlight the need for standardisation of the measurement methods, as well as cross-European monitoring of physical activity levels

Variation in population levels of sedentary time in European children and adolescents according to cross-European studies: a systematic literature review within DEDIPAC

peer-reviewedBackground: A high amount of sedentary time has been proposed as a risk factor for various health outcomes in adults. While the evidence is less clear in children and adolescents, monitoring sedentary time is important to understand the prevalence rates and how this behaviour varies over time and by place. This systematic literature review aims to provide an overview of existing cross-European studies on sedentary time in children (0-12y) and adolescents (13-18y), to describe the variation in population levels of sedentary time, and to discuss the impact of assessment methods. Methods: Six literature databases were searched (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SportDiscus and OpenGrey), followed by backward- and forward tracking and searching authors’ and experts’ literature databases. Included articles were observational studies reporting on levels of sedentary time in the general population of children and/or adolescents in at least two European countries. Population levels were reported separately for children and adolescents. Data were reviewed, extracted and assessed by two researchers, with disagreements being resolved by a third researcher. The review protocol is published under registration number CRD42014013379 in the PROSPERO database. Forty-two eligible articles were identified, most were cross-sectional (n = 38). The number of included European countries per article ranged from 2 to 36. Levels of sedentary time were observed to be higher in East-European countries compared to the rest of Europe. There was a large variation in assessment methods and reported outcome variables. The majority of articles used a child-specific questionnaire (60 %). Other methods included accelerometers, parental questionnaires or interviews and ecological momentary assessment tools. Television time was reported as outcome variable in 57 % of included articles (ranging from a mean value of 1 h to 2.7 h in children and 1.3 h to 4.4 h in adolescents), total sedentary time in 24 % (ranging from a mean value of 192 min to 552 min in children and from 268 min to 506 min in adolescents). A substantial number of published studies report on levels of sedentary time in children and adolescents across European countries, but there was a large variation in assessment methods. Questionnaires (child specific) were used most often, but they mostly measured specific screen-based activities and did not assess total sedentary time. There is a need for harmonisation and standardisation of objective and subjective methods to assess sedentary time in children and adolescents to enable comparison across countries

Twelve-year outcomes of watchful waiting versus surgery of mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic inguinal hernia in men aged 50 years and older:a randomised controlled trial

Background: Inguinal hernia belongs to the most common surgical pathology worldwide. Approximately, one third is asymptomatic. The value of watchful waiting (WW) in patients with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic inguinal hernia has been established in a few randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this study was to assess long-term outcomes of a RCT comparing WW and elective surgery.Methods: In the original study, men aged ≥50 years with an asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic inguinal hernia were randomly assigned to WW or elective repair. In the present study, the primary outcome was the 12-year crossover rate to surgery, secondary outcomes were time-to-crossover, patient regret, pain, quality of life and incarceration. Dutch Trial Registry: NTR629. Findings: Out of 496 originally analysed patients, 488 (98.4%) were evaluable for chart review (WW: n = 258, surgery: n = 230), and 200 (41.0%) for telephone contact (WW: n = 106, surgery: n = 94) between November 2021 and March 2022 with a median 12 years follow-up (IQR 9–14). After 12 years, the estimated cumulative crossover rate to surgery was 64.2%, which was higher in mildly symptomatic than in asymptomatic patients (71.7% versus 60.4%, HR 1.451, 95% CI: 1.064–1.979). Time-to-crossover was longer in asymptomatic patients (50% after 6.0 years versus 2.0 years, p = 0.019). Patient regret was higher in the WW group (37.7 versus 18.0%, p = 0.002), as well as pain/discomfort (p = 0.031). Quality of life did not differ (p = 0.737). In the WW group, incarceration occurred in 10/255 patients (3.9%). Interpretation: During 12-year follow-up, most WW patients crossed over to surgery, significantly earlier with mildly symptomatic hernia. Considering the relatively low incarceration rate, WW might still be an option in asymptomatic patients with a clear preference and being well-informed about pros and cons.</p

Twelve-year outcomes of watchful waiting versus surgery of mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic inguinal hernia in men aged 50 years and older:a randomised controlled trial

Background: Inguinal hernia belongs to the most common surgical pathology worldwide. Approximately, one third is asymptomatic. The value of watchful waiting (WW) in patients with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic inguinal hernia has been established in a few randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this study was to assess long-term outcomes of a RCT comparing WW and elective surgery. Methods: In the original study, men aged ≥50 years with an asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic inguinal hernia were randomly assigned to WW or elective repair. In the present study, the primary outcome was the 12-year crossover rate to surgery, secondary outcomes were time-to-crossover, patient regret, pain, quality of life and incarceration. Dutch Trial Registry: NTR629. Findings: Out of 496 originally analysed patients, 488 (98.4%) were evaluable for chart review (WW: n = 258, surgery: n = 230), and 200 (41.0%) for telephone contact (WW: n = 106, surgery: n = 94) between November 2021 and March 2022 with a median 12 years follow-up (IQR 9–14). After 12 years, the estimated cumulative crossover rate to surgery was 64.2%, which was higher in mildly symptomatic than in asymptomatic patients (71.7% versus 60.4%, HR 1.451, 95% CI: 1.064–1.979). Time-to-crossover was longer in asymptomatic patients (50% after 6.0 years versus 2.0 years, p = 0.019). Patient regret was higher in the WW group (37.7 versus 18.0%, p = 0.002), as well as pain/discomfort (p = 0.031). Quality of life did not differ (p = 0.737). In the WW group, incarceration occurred in 10/255 patients (3.9%). Interpretation: During 12-year follow-up, most WW patients crossed over to surgery, significantly earlier with mildly symptomatic hernia. Considering the relatively low incarceration rate, WW might still be an option in asymptomatic patients with a clear preference and being well-informed about pros and cons. Funding: The initial trial was funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW). This long-term study did not receive funding.</p