Spinning in circles?: A systematic review on the role of theory in social vulnerability, resilience and adaptation research

An increasing number of publications focus on social vulnerability, resilience, and adaptation (SVRA) towards natural hazards and climate change. Despite this proliferation of research, a systematic understanding of how these studies are theoretically grounded is lacking. Here, we systematically reviewed 4432 articles that address SVRA in various disciplinary fields (e.g. psychology, sociology, geography, mathematics) for various hazards, including floods, droughts, landslides, storm surges, wildfires, tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcano eruptions. We focus on the extent to which these studies explicate the frameworks, theoretical constructs or theories they rely on. Surprisingly, we found that about 90% of the reviewed studies do not explicitly refer to a theoretical un-derpinning. Overall, theories focusing on individuals' SVRA were more frequently used than those focusing on systems, society, groups, and networks. Moreover, the uptake of theories varied according to the hazard investigated and field of knowledge, being more frequent in wildfire and flood studies and articles published in social science journals. Based on our analysis, we propose a reflexive handling of theories to foster more transparent, comparable, and robust empirical research on SVRA

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Modes of mobilizing values for sustainability transformation

There is broad agreement on the potential role of values to incite intentional transformative change toward sustainability. However, there is no proposed heuristic on how to mobilize values for sustainability transformation, especially in the context of multilevel decision-making. We aim to fill this gap based on a literature analysis conducted as part of Chapter 5 of the IPBES Values Assessment. We outline four modes of mobilizing values for sustainability transformation: enabling, including, shifting, and reflecting. They differ in terms of the mix of agency and conversely of outside steering needed for each value mobilization mode. We then explore key tensions and insights that emerge through this classification: interdependencies between the modes of mobilizing values, tensions between shifting versus enabling and including values, tensions between which values to shift and which values to enable, and tensions between levels of values intervention (individuals, community, and society)

Impact of Immersion Media on Physical Properties and Bioactivity of Epoxy Resin-Based and Bioceramic Endodontic Sealers

This study assessed the effects of immersion media [distilled water (dw), phosphate buffered saline (pbs) and simulated body fluid (sbf)] in the physical properties [fluid uptake/sorption/solubility and alkalinization activity (pH)] and bioactivity of a bioceramic sealer: the BioRoot RCS (BioRoot) (Septodont). The epoxy-resin sealer AH Plus (Dentsply) was used as comparison. Sealers were immersed in dw, pbs and sbf to evaluate the fluid uptake/sorption/solubility and pH’s media. Bioactivity was assessed with SEM/EDS, FTIR-ATR and XRD. BioRoot solubility was as follows: sbf > pbs = dw. BioRoot had alkaline pH, and AH Plus had neutral pH, regardless of the medium. BioRoot presented mineral precipitates and peaks indicating hydroxyapatite-precursors in pbs and sbf. AH Plus physical properties were not affected by immersion media and it had no bioactivity. pbs and sbf should be preferred to investigate bioceramic sealers over distilled water, because they were able to highlight the sealer properties. BioRoot maintained the alkaline environment and favored hard tissue deposition

Spinning in circles? A systematic review on the role of theory in social vulnerability, resilience and adaptation research

An increasing number of publications focus on social vulnerability, resilience, and adaptation (SVRA) towards natural hazards and climate change. Despite this proliferation of research, a systematic understanding of how these studies are theoretically grounded is lacking. Here, we systematically reviewed 4432 articles that address SVRA in various disciplinary fields (e.g. psychology, sociology, geography, mathematics) for various hazards, including floods, droughts, landslides, storm surges, wildfires, tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcano eruptions. We focus on the extent to which these studies explicate the frameworks, theoretical constructs or theories they rely on. Surprisingly, we found that about 90% of the reviewed studies do not explicitly refer to a theoretical underpinning. Overall, theories focusing on individuals’ SVRA were more frequently used than those focusing on systems, society, groups, and networks. Moreover, the uptake of theories varied according to the hazard investigated and field of knowledge, being more frequent in wildfire and flood studies and articles published in social science journals. Based on our analysis, we propose a reflexive handling of theories to foster more transparent, comparable, and robust empirical research on SVRA

Es geht um unsere Lebensgrundlage: Wie wir jetzt handeln können, um die globalen Gemeingüter Biodiversität, Wälder und Meere für eine lebenswerte Zukunft zu erhalten

Die vorliegende Publikation ist die Kurzfassung der englischsprachigen Studie 'Transformative change for a sustainable management of global commons. Recommendations for international cooperation based on a review of global assessment reports and project experience' (veröffentlicht als UFZ-Bericht 3/2021) und wurde im Rahmen des Projekts 'Transformativer Wandel zum Schutz von globalen Gemeingütern' erstellt. Im ersten Teil werden die Folgen unserer Lebensweise für die globalen Gemeingüter Biodiversität, Wald und Meere beleuchtet und die Dringlichkeit des Handels betont. Warum eine Trendwende hin zu einem nachhaltigen Umgang mit unseren Lebensgrundlagen im Sinne der Agenda 2030 der Vereinten Nationen bisher nicht erreicht wurde und welche zentralen Herausforderungen in den Bereichen Biodiversität, Wald und Meere gelöst werden müssten, fasst der zweite Teil zusammen. Der letzte Teil wirbt für einen 'radikalen Inkrementalismus' der von einer übergeordneten, transformativen Vision für einen nachhaltigen Wandel geleitet ist und in dem zahlreiche unterschiedliche Maßnahmen gesamtgesellschaftlich verhandelt und neu ausgerichtet werden. Damit einher geht eine kluge Auswahl vieler Schritte, um schnell radikale Veränderungen in einzelnen Sektoren wie Energie, Wohnen, Landwirtschaft oder Finanzen, und in verschiedenen sozialen, ökonomischen und politischen Systemen einzuleiten. Der Kurzbericht schließt mit Handlungsoptionen für die drei zentralen Transformationshebel 1) strukturelle Verankerung des sozial-ökologischen Wandels und Gemeinwohlorientierung, 2) Ökologisierung der Landwirtschaft und 3) Globale Governance zum Schutz der globalen Gemeingüter Biodiversität, Wälder und Meere

Transformative change for a sustainable management of global commons: Biodiversity, forests and the ocean. Recommendations for international cooperation based on a review of global assessment reports and project experience

Global scientific assessments increasingly reach the conclusion that transformative change of global production and consumption systems is necessary to safeguard and maintain global commons, such as biodiversity, natural forests and the ocean, and to stabilise climate at the global scale. Against this background the present study analyses the conclusions of global assessments and derives recommendations on how to increase the transformative potential of international negotiations and agreements as well as development cooperation programs, projects, and initiatives. The study develops a conceptual framework building on the academic literature and argues that interventions are much more likely to achieve transformation to sustainability if they are embedded within a more comprehensive framing of transformative change consisting of 1. a compelling transformative vision, 2. knowledge on systemic change, 3. navigation of the dynamics inherent in changing development pathways, and 4. emancipated agency providing room for inclusive deliberation and 5. combine transformative modes of governance. The study identifies core challenges and gaps for the conservation and sustainable management of biodiversity in general and for forests and the ocean by (i) examining the recommendations from global assessments and reports on the state of nature and the environment, and (ii) by analysing international cooperation projects for biodiversity, forests and the ocean with regard to their transformative potential. Finally, the study provides recommendations on how Germany can support transformation in the context of international and development cooperation