Search

Basins along the Scotian Margin formed as part of North Atlantic opening, with Middle Triassic rifting leading to eventual Early-Middle Jurassic breakup. In the overlying passive margin succession, the Lower Cretaceous section is dominated by siliciclastic deposits reported from a variety of marine, shallow marine, and fluvial settings. In concert with ongoing palynological analyses, the present study contributes to the development of an event stratigraphic scheme by focussing on paleoenvironmental interpretations. Ichnological and sedimentological analyses were used to build a preliminary facies model, with an initial focus on the Upper Member of the Missisauga Formation conventional cores from Panuke B-90 and Cohasset A-52. Depositional conditions began as wave-influenced normal marine, with a distal Skolithos Ichnofacies. Restricted bay and possible deltaic deposits followed, with wave-influence decreasing up section and the ichnofossil assemblage gradually replaced by an impoverished archetypal expression of the Cruziana Ichnofacies. Overlying sandstone bodies are interpreted as tidally influenced estuarine channels based on the presence of herringbone cross-stratification, cyclical bedding, wood with Teredolites borings, and rare elements of a highly impoverished Skolithos Ichnofacies; however, barrier shoreface and tidal flats are present, suggesting a mixed wave- and tide-influenced estuary. Outer estuary conditions followed, with barrier shoreface, tidal flat and central bay deposits. Impoverished Cruziana Ichnofacies dominate, with elements of the Skolithos Ichnofacies locally present. The top of the Missisauga Formation shows indication of more normal marine conditions, with intermittent marine macrofauna and limited ichnological suites implying some degree of dysoxia. Storm influence is evident near the transition into the overlying Naskapi Member of the Logan Canyon Formation based on the presence of possible hummocky cross-stratification, a weakly stressed Cruziana Ichnofacies and more diverse marine macrofauna. Future work will entail detailed facies analysis and comparison with palynofacies to build a comprehensive paleoenvironmental model and a refined sequence stratigraphic framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, we build on a foundation of previous biostratigraphic studies for the Scotian Basin, offshore eastern Canada, by conducting new quantitative multidisciplinary biostratigraphic studies of the Mesozoic sections in eight wells: Bonnet P-23, Chebucto K-90, Cohasset L-97, Glenelg J-48, Glooscap C-63, Mohican I-100, South Desbarres O-76, and South Griffin J-13. These wells were chosen to provide good spatial coverage, stratigraphic penetration, and correlation with the seismic grid. We have also evaluated pre-existing biostratigraphic data and undertaken the well-log sequence-stratigraphic interpretation of Upper Triassic to Cenozoic sediments in 16 additional wells using a consistent multidisciplinary event scheme derived from the new wells. Key to the dating of some horizons has been integration of the palynology and micropaleontology (disciplines mostly used previously on the Scotian Margin) with new nannofossil data. Simultaneously we have closely integrated the biostratigraphic results with lithofacies, well-log, and seismic interpretations. Using this integrated approach, we have identified nine regionally mappable sequence-stratigraphic events (unconformities and maximum flooding surfaces, or MFSs): the Intra-Oligocene Unconformity; the Ypresian Unconformity; the Turonian/Cenomanian Unconformity; the Late Albian Unconformity; the Aptian/Barremian Unconformity; the Intra-Hauterivian MFS; the Near-Base Cretaceous Unconformity; the Tithonian MFS; and the Top-Callovian MFS. Additional events of local extent were also recognized in some wells. Our study has led to significant revision of some previous lithostratigraphic picks. The Early Jurassic on the Scotian Margin remains poorly resolved and may be represented by an unconformity on much of the basin periphery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Examining ways to support persons with dementia and their caregivers to help minimize the disease's impact on individuals, families, and society is critical. One emerging avenue for support is technology (eg, smartphones and smart homes)., Objective: Given the increasing presence of technology in caregiving, it is pertinent to appreciate whether and how technology can be most useful to a care partner's everyday life. This study aims to further understand care partner technology use, attitudes, and the potential role of off-the-shelf technologies (eg, smartphones and smart homes) in supporting caregiving from the perspective of care partners for persons with dementia., Methods: We conducted a telephone cross-sectional survey using random digit dialing with 67 self-identified care partners of persons with dementia across one Canadian province. Participants were asked about attitudes toward technology, barriers to and facilitators for technology use, technology use with caregiving, and demographic information. Eight open-ended questions were analyzed using content analysis; 2 closed-ended questions about comfort with and helpfulness of technology (rated on a scale of 1 to 10) were analyzed with frequencies. From these data, an in-depth semistructured interview was created, and 10 (15%) randomly sampled care partners from the initial collection of 67 care partners were interviewed approximately 1 year later, with responses analyzed using content analysis., Results: Frequency analysis rated on a scale of 1 to 10 suggested that care partners were comfortable with technology (wearable technology mean 7.94, SD 2.02; smart home technology mean 6.94, SD 2.09), although they rated the helpfulness of technology less strongly (mean 5.02, SD 2.85). Qualitatively, care partners described using technology for functional tasks and some caregiving. Barriers to technology use included cost, lack of knowledge, security or privacy concerns, and undesirable features of technology. Facilitators included access to support and the presence of desirable features. Some care partners described merging technology with caregiving and reported subsequent benefits. Others stated that technology could not be adopted for caregiving due to the degree of impairment, fear of negative consequences for the person living with dementia, or due to incongruity with the caregiving philosophy. Furthermore, care partners noted that their technology use either increased or was unchanged as they moved through the COVID-19 pandemic., Conclusions: The 2 analyses were conducted separately, but there was notable overlap in the data, suggesting temporal stability of identified content. Both analyses suggested care partners' relative comfort with technology and its use, but other care partners noted concerns about integrating technology and caregiving. Care partners' reports of increased technology use throughout the COVID-19 pandemic may also suggest that the pandemic impacted their perceptions of the usefulness of technology, being influenced by the requirements of their reality. Future investigations should examine how to support care partners in adopting relevant technology., (©Karl S Grewal, Rory Gowda-Sookochoff, Shelley Peacock, Allison Cammer, Lachlan A McWilliams, Raymond J Spiteri, Kristen R Haase, Mary Harrison, Lorraine Holtslander, Rhoda MacRae, Joanne Michael, Shoshana Green, Megan E O'Connell. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 13.12.2024.)

With increasing numbers of persons living with dementia and their higher rates of hospitalizations, it is necessary to ensure they receive appropriate and effective acute care; yet, acute care environments are often harmful for persons with dementia. There is a lack of dementia education for acute health care providers in Canada. Scotland presently delivers a dementia education program for health care providers, known as the Scottish National Dementia Champions Programme. The objective of this Policy and Practice Note is to present the collaborative work of Scottish experts and Canadian stakeholders to adapt the Dementia Champions Programme for use in Canada. This work to date includes: (a) an environmental scan of Canadian dementia education for acute health care providers; (b) key informant interviews; and, (c) findings from a two-day planning meeting. The results of this collaborative work can and are being used to inform the next steps to develop and pilot a Canadian dementia education program.

Background: Little evidence has been generated for how best to manage patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) presenting with rarer clinical scenarios, including oligometastases, oligoprogression, and pseudoprogression. In each of those scenarios, oncologists have to consider how best to balance efficacy with quality of life, while maximizing the duration of each line of therapy and ensuring that patients are still eligible for later options, including clinical trial enrolment., Methods: An expert panel was convened to define the clinical questions. Using case-based presentations, consensus practice recommendations for each clinical scenario were generated through focused, evidence-based discussions., Results: Treatment strategies and best-practice or consensus recommendations are presented, with areas of consensus and areas of uncertainty identified., Conclusions: In each situation, treatment has to be tailored to suit the individual patient, but with the intent of extending and maximizing the use of each line of treatment, while keeping treatment options in reserve for later lines of therapy. Patient participation in clinical trials examining these issues should be encouraged., Competing Interests: CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare the following interests: SAL has received honoraria from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis; SB has served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Merck; NB has served on advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Roche; SB has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Eisai, and Merck; PKC has served as an advisor for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hoffmann–La Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Takeda, Eli Lilly, and Bristol–Myers Squibb, and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim and Hoffmann–La Roche; PC has received grants for investigator-initiated research projects from AbbVie, Pfizer, and Sanofi–Aventis; DH has served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol–Myers Squibb, and Merck, and has received honoraria from Pfizer; VH has participated on advisory boards for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer, and Roche; RJ has served as an advisor or consultant for AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer/emd Serono, and Roche, has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer/emd Serono, and Roche, and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol–Myers Squibb, and Merck; JL has received honoraria for talks from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Roche, and her institution has received grant funding for research trials from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Roche; in the last 2 years, NL has received honoraria for independent unrelated continuing medical education from AstraZeneca, Bristol–Myers Squibb, and Merck; DR has received honoraria and support from Accuray, BrainLab, Elekta, Pfizer/emd Serono, Siemens Healthineers, and Varian Medical Systems; JR has received speaker and advisory board fees and institutional research support for clinical trials funded by Astra-Zeneca, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer, and Roche; DJS has received honoraria (2015–2018) from Roche Canada, Boehringer Ingelheim Canada, Novartis Canada, Merck Canada, AstraZeneca Canada, Bristol–Myers Squibb Canada, Exactis Innovation, and Pfizer Canada, and has received institutional research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Bristol– Myers Squibb, and Celgene; MST has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Merck, and Roche/Ventana, and a research grant from Merck. The remaining authors have no conflicts to disclose.

We offer a critique of Canada's approach to domestic food security with respect to international agreements, justiciability and case law, the breakdown of the public safety net, the institutionalisation of charitable approaches to food insecurity, and the need for 'joined-up' food and nutrition policies. We examined Canada's commitments to the right to food, as well as Canadian policies, case law and social trends, in order to assess Canada's performance with respect to the human right to food. We found that while Canada has been a leader in signing international human rights agreements, including those relating to the right to food, domestic action has lagged and food insecurity increased. We provide recommendations for policy changes that could deal with complex issues of state accountability, social safety nets and vulnerable populations, and joined-up policy frameworks that could help realise the right to adequate food in Canada and other developed nations.