Search

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is currently no standardised way to share information across disciplines about initiatives, including fields such as health, environment, basic science, manufacturing, media and international development. All problems, including complex global problems such as air pollution and pandemics require reliable data sharing between disciplines in order to respond effectively. Current reporting methods also lack information about the ways in which different people and organisations are involved in initiatives, making it difficult to collate and appraise data about the most effective ways to involve different people. The objective of STARDIT (Standardised Data on Initiatives) is to address current limitations and inconsistencies in sharing data about initiatives. The STARDIT system features standardised data reporting about initiatives, including who has been involved, what tasks they did, and any impacts observed. STARDIT was created to help everyone in the world find and understand information about collective human actions, which are referred to as 'initiatives'. STARDIT enables multiple categories of data to be reported in a standardised way across disciplines, facilitating appraisal of initiatives and aiding synthesis of evidence for the most effective ways for people to be involved in initiatives. This article outlines progress to date on STARDIT; current usage; information about submitting reports; planned next steps and how anyone can become involved. METHOD: STARDIT development is guided by participatory action research paradigms, and has been co-created with people from multiple disciplines and countries. Co-authors include cancer patients, people affected by rare diseases, health researchers, environmental researchers, economists, librarians and academic publishers. The co-authors also worked with Indigenous peoples from multiple countries and in partnership with an organisation working with Indigenous Australians. RESULTS AND DISCU

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented health care challenges mandating surgical service reconfiguration. Within our hospital, emergency and elective streams were separated and self-contained Protected Elective Surgical Units were developed to mitigate against infection-related morbidity. Aims of this study were to determine the risk of COVID-19 transmission and mortality and whether the development of Protected Elective Surgical Units can result in significant reduction in risk. METHODS: A retrospective observational study of consecutive patients from 18 specialties undergoing elective or emergency surgery under general, spinal, or epidural anaesthetic over a 12-month study period was undertaken. Primary outcome measures were 30-day postoperative COVID-19 transmission rate and mortality. Secondary adjusted analyses were performed to ascertain hospital and Protected Elective Surgical Unit transmission rates. RESULTS: Between 15 March 2020 and 14 March 2021, 9,925 patients underwent surgery: 6,464 (65.1%) elective, 5,116 (51.5%) female, and median age 57 (39-70). A total of 69.5% of all procedures were performed in Protected Elective Surgical Units. Overall, 30-day postoperative COVID-19 transmission was 2.8% (3.4% emergency vs 1.2% elective P < .001). Protected Elective Surgical Unit postoperative transmission was significantly lower than non-Protected Elective Surgical Unit (0.42% vs 3.2% P < .001), with an adjusted likely in-hospital Protected Elective Surgical Unit transmission of 0.04%. The 30-day all-cause mortality was 1.7% and was 14.6% in COVID-19-positive patients. COVID-19 infection, age > 70, male sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade > 2, and emergency surgery were all independently associated with mortality. CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated that Protected Elective Surgical Units can facilitate high-volume elective surgical services throughout peaks of the COVID-19 pandemic while minimising viral transmission and mor

Next generation risk assessment (NGRA) is an exposure-led, hypothesis-driven approach that has the potential to support animal-free safety decision-making. However, significant effort is needed to develop and test the in vitro and in silico (computational) approaches that underpin NGRA to enable confident application in a regulatory context. A workshop was held in Montreal in 2019 to discuss where effort needs to be focussed and to agree on the steps needed to ensure safety decisions made on cosmetic ingredients are robust and protective. Workshop participants explored whether NGRA for cosmetic ingredients can be protective of human health, and reviewed examples of NGRA for cosmetic ingredients. From the limited examples available, it is clear that NGRA is still in its infancy, and further case studies are needed to determine whether safety decisions are sufficiently protective and not overly conservative. Seven areas were identified to help progress application of NGRA, including further investments in case studies that elaborate on scenarios frequently encountered by industry and regulators, including those where a 'high risk' conclusion would be expected. These will provide confidence that the tools and approaches can reliably discern differing levels of risk. Furthermore, frameworks to guide performance and reporting should be developed.

Consumer involvement in clinical research is an essential component of a comprehensive response during emergent health challenges. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the moderation of research policies and regulation to facilitate research may raise ethical issues. Meaningful, diverse consumer involvement can help to identify practical approaches to prioritize, design, and conduct rapidly developed clinical research amid current events. Consumer involvement might also elucidate the acceptability of flexible ethics review approaches that aim to protect participants whilst being sensitive to the challenging context in which research is taking place. This article describes the main ethical challenges arising from pandemic research and how involving consumers and the community could enable resolution of such issues.

AIMS: The concept of using specific dietary components to selectively modulate the gut microbiota to confer a health benefit, defined as prebiotics, originated in 1995. In 2018, a group of scientists met at the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics annual meeting in Singapore to discuss advances in the prebiotic field, focussing on issues affecting functionality, research methodology and geographical differences. METHODS AND RESULTS: The discussion ranged from examining scientific literature supporting the efficacy of established prebiotics, to the prospects for establishing health benefits associated with novel compounds, isolated from different sources. CONCLUSIONS: While many promising candidate prebiotics from across the globe have been highlighted in preliminary research, there are a limited number with both demonstrated mechanism of action and defined health benefits as required to meet the prebiotic definition. Prebiotics are part of a food industry with increasing market sales, yet there are great disparities in regulations in different countries. Identification and commercialization of new prebiotics with unique health benefits means that regulation must improve and remain up-to-date so as not to risk stifling research with potential health benefits for humans and other animals. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF STUDY: This summary of the workshop discussions indicates potential avenues for expanding the range of prebiotic substrates, delivery methods to enhance health benefits for the end consumer and guidance to better elucidate their activities in human studies.