Search

The long-term ecological success of compensatory freshwater wetland projects has come into question based on follow-up monitoring studies over the past few decades. Given that wetland restoration may require many years to decades to converge to desired outcomes, long-term monitoring of successional patterns may increase our ability to fully evaluate success of wetland mitigation projects or guide adaptive management when needed. In Portsmouth, New Hampshire a 4 ha wetland was constructed in an abandoned gravel quarry as off-site compensatory mitigation for impacts to a scrub-shrub swamp associated with property expansion. Building upon prior evaluations from 1992 and 2002, we conducted a floral survey in 2020 to compare results with prior surveys to document vegetation successional trends over time. In addition, we monitored the avian community throughout the growing season as a measure of habitat quality. The plant community mirrored documented successional trends of freshwater wetland restoration projects as native hydrophytes dominated species composition. Plant species composition stabilized as the rate of turnover, the measurement of succession, declined by nearly half after 17 years. Researchers should consider long-term monitoring of specific sites to better understand successional patterns of created wetlands as we documented long time frames required for the development of scrub-shrub swamps, red maple swamps, and sedge meadows. High species richness was attributed to beaver activity, topographic heterogeneity from Carex stricta tussocks, and the seed bank from the application of peat from the original wetland. Habitat heterogeneity of open water, herbaceous cover, and woody vegetation supports a diverse avian community including 11 wetland dependent species. Although the mitigation project has not created the full area of lost scrub-shrub swamp after 35 years, it has developed a structurally complex habitat and diverse avian community that effectively provides the functions and values of the impacted system.

Background Emergencies and disasters impact population health. Despite the importance of upstream readiness, a persistent challenge for public health practitioners is defining what it means to be prepared. There is a knowledge gap in that existing frameworks lack consideration for complexity relevant to health systems and the emergency context. The objective of this study is to describe the essential elements of a resilient public health system and how the elements interact as a complex adaptive system. Methods This study used a qualitative design employing the Structured Interview Matrix facilitation technique in six focus groups across Canada. Focus group participants were practitioners from public health and related sectors. Data collection generated qualitative data on the essential elements, and interactions between elements, for a resilient public health system. Data analysis employed qualitative content analysis and the lens of complexity theory to account for the complex nature of public health emergency preparedness (PHEP). The unit of study was the local/regional public health agency. Ethics and values were considered in the development of the framework. Results A total of 130 participants attended the six focus groups. Urban, urban-rural and rural regions from across Canada participated and focus group size ranged from 15 to 33 across the six sites. Eleven elements emerged from the data; these included one cross-cutting element (Governance and leadership) and 10 distinct but interlinked elements. The essential elements define a conceptual framework for PHEP. The framework was refined to ensure practice and policy relevance for local/regional public health agencies; the framework has ethics and values at its core. Conclusions This framework describes the complexity of the system yet moves beyond description to use tenets of complexity to support building resilience. This applied public health framework for local/regional public health agencies is empirically-derived and theoretically-informed and represents a complex adaptive systems approach to upstream readiness for PHEP. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-6250-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Despite clinical practice guideline recommendations mandating that fertility preservation be discussed with young cancer patients, many providers fail to initiate such discussions with adolescents. Researchers and clinicians often focus on system-level changes to improve access to fertility preservation for adolescents and young adults in Canada. However, little of the available information considers the way in which health care providers approach those discussions. Research has shown that, even when fertility preservation options are broached with adolescents, survivors often report dissatisfaction with those conversations, thus raising additional concerns about their content and quality. Here, we consider how a narrative approach—and the Frank narrative typology in particular—could improve the quality of such conversations by helping providers to more accurately and thoughtfully respond to the needs of adolescent patients when discussing the possibility of fertility preservation. Based on findings from a qualitative research project, we provide concrete suggestions for how to more sensitively approach fertility preservation conversations with male adolescent cancer patients and survivors.

This article provides detailed guidelines for the implementation of systematic method for setting priorities in health research investments that was recently developed by Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI). The target audience for the proposed method are international agencies, large research funding donors, and national governments and policy-makers. The process has the following steps: (i) selecting the managers of the process; (ii) specifying the context and risk management preferences; (iii) discussing criteria for setting health research priorities; (iv) choosing a limited set of the most useful and important criteria; (v) developing means to assess the likelihood that proposed health research options will satisfy the selected criteria; (vi) systematic listing of a large number of proposed health research options; (vii) pre-scoring check of all competing health research options; (viii) scoring of health research options using the chosen set of criteria; (ix) calculating intermediate scores for each health research option; (x) obtaining further input from the stakeholders; (xi) adjusting intermediate scores taking into account the values of stakeholders; (xii) calculating overall priority scores and assigning ranks; (xiii) performing an analysis of agreement between the scorers; (xiv) linking computed research priority scores with investment decisions; (xv) feedback and revision. The CHNRI method is a flexible process that enables prioritizing health research investments at any level: institutional, regional, national, international, or global.

Background Hospitals and regional health authorities must set priorities in the face of resource constraints. Decision-makers seek practical ways to set priorities fairly in strategic planning, but find limited guidance from the literature. Very little has been reported from the perspective of Board members and senior managers about what criteria, processes and parameters of success they would use to set priorities fairly. Discussion We facilitated workshops for board members and senior leadership at three health care organizations to assist them in developing a strategy for fair priority setting. Workshop participants identified 8 priority setting criteria, 10 key priority setting process elements, and 6 parameters of success that they would use to set priorities in their organizations. Decision-makers in other organizations can draw lessons from these findings to enhance the fairness of their priority setting decision-making. Summary Lessons learned in three workshops fill an important gap in the literature about what criteria, processes, and parameters of success Board members and senior managers would use to set priorities fairly.

Background Prior to the 2009 H1N1 Influenza pandemic, public health authorities in Canada and elsewhere prepared for the future outbreak, partly guided by an ethical framework developed within the Canadian Program of Research on Ethics in a Pandemic (CanPREP). We developed a telephone-based survey based on that framework, which was delivered across Canada in late 2008. In June, 2009, the WHO declared pandemic Phase 6 status and from the subsequent October (2009) until May 2010, the CanPREP team fielded a second (revised) survey, collecting another 1,000 opinions from Canadians during a period of pre-pandemic anticipation and peri-pandemic experience. Methods Surveys were administered by telephone with random sampling achieved via random digit dialing. Eligible participants were adults, 18 years or older, with per province stratification approximating provincial percentages of national population. Descriptive results were tabulated and logistic regression analyses used to assess whether demographic factors were significantly associated with outcomes, and to identify divergences (between the pre-pandemic and intra-pandemic surveys). Results N = 1,029 interviews were completed from 1,986 households, yielding a gross response rate of 52% (AAPOR Standard Definition 3). Over 90% of subjects indicated the most important goal of pandemic influenza preparations was saving lives, with 41% indicating that saving lives solely in Canada was the highest priority and 50% indicating saving lives globally was the highest priority. About 90% of respondents supported the obligation of health care workers to report to work and face influenza pandemic risks excepting those with serious health conditions which that increased risks. Strong majorities favoured stocking adequate protective antiviral dosages for all Canadians (92%) and, if effective, influenza vaccinations (95%). Over 70% agreed Canada should provide international assistance to poorer countries for pandemic preparation, even if resources for Canadians were reduced. Conclusions Results suggest Canadians trust public health officials to make difficult decisions, providing emphasis is maintained on reciprocity and respect for individual rights. Canadians also support international obligations to help poorer countries and associated efforts to save lives outside the country, even if intra-national efforts are reduced.

Background Decision makers in health care organizations struggle with how to set priorities for new technologies in medicine. Traditional approaches to priority setting for new technologies in medicine are insufficient and there is no widely accepted model that can guide decision makers. Discussion Daniels and Sabin have developed an ethically based account about how priority setting decisions should be made. We have developed an empirically based account of how priority setting decisions are made. In this paper, we integrate these two accounts into a transdisciplinary model of priority setting for new technologies in medicine that is both ethically and empirically based. Summary We have developed a transdisciplinary model of priority setting that provides guidance to decision makers that they can operationalize to help address priority setting problems in their institution.