Search

The largely negative impacts of human activities on social-ecological systems are becoming increasingly apparent. Efforts to address these impacts require effective knowledge exchange among researchers and decision-makers to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making processes. Despite this, however, examples of achieving effective knowledge exchange in practice are few. One solution to reducing barriers to knowledge exchange and building capacity for evidence-informed decision-making is through the use of knowledge brokers. Recognition of the role and value of knowledge brokers is becoming increasingly common in the environmental sector, but there are important gaps in understanding the divergent practices of knowledge brokers working to inform solutions to environmental challenges that hinder their successful implementation. To this end, we undertake a systematic map of the peer-reviewed and grey literature on knowledge brokering at the interface of environmental science and policy. We find that traditional conceptualisations of knowledge brokers are insufficient for capturing the true diversity of practices and identities that knowledge brokers can take. Instead, we show that within the environment sector, knowledge brokers, and the work they do, can take a variety of forms that are influenced by (among other things) the processes through which brokering roles were created, their mission, their budgets, and the contexts in which they work. In doing so, we also emphasize the 'invisible' work that knowledge brokers do, seeking to bring to the fore the range of activities that are central to supporting knowledge exchange, but often go unnoticed and are almost impossible to quantify. Drawing on our results and our collective knowledge, we outline a research agenda that articulates the most critical remaining knowledge gaps relating to knowledge brokering. Bringing these together, a core goal of this paper is to support and serve a growing global community of practice (both in theory and application) on knowledge brokering at the interface of environmental science and policy. • Knowledge brokers (KBs) can build capacity for evidence-informed decision-making. • We undertake a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature on KBs. • Traditional conceptualisations of KBs do not capture the diversity of practices and identities they can take. • We emphasize the 'invisible' work that KBs do; the range of activities that often go unnoticed. • We outline a research agenda of the most critical remaining knowledge gaps relating to KBs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objectives: Growth failure is a permanent sequelae in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). The aim of the study was to compare pubertal growth in control and growth hormone (GH) treated JIA subjects. Design: 64 children with JIA at a mean age of 10.38±2.80 years were enrolled and followed until final height (measured in standard deviation (SD) scores). 39 children (20m) received GH therapy and 24 (9m) served as controls. GH dose was 0.33mg/kg/week. Linear regression analysis was performed to identify factors influencing total pubertal growth. Results: Mean total pubertal growth was 21.1±1.3cm (mean±SD) in GH treated JIA patients and 13.8±1.5cm in controls. Final height was significantly higher with GH treatment (−1.67±1.20 SD) compared to controls (−3.20±1.84 SD). Linear regression model identified age at onset of puberty (ß=−4.2,CI: −5.9, −2.6 in controls and ß=−2.3,CI: −3.6, −1.1 in GH treated) as the main factor for total pubertal growth. Final height SDS was determined by the difference to target height at onset of puberty (ß=−0.59;CI: −0.80, −0.37 in controls and ß=−0.30,CI: −0.52, −0.08 in GH treated), age at onset of puberty (ß=0.47;CI:0.02,0.93 in controls and 0.23;CI: −0.00,0.46 in GH treated) and height gain during puberty (ß=0.13;CI:0.05,0.21 in controls and ß=0.11;CI:0.07,0.16 in GH treated). Conclusion: Total pubertal growth in JIA patients treated with GH was increased by a factor of 1.5 greater in comparison to controls leading to a significantly better final height. To maximize final height GH treatment should be initiated early to reduce the height deficit at onset of puberty. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]