Search

Europe's capacity to explore the envisaged pathways that achieve its near- and long-term energy and climate objectives needs to be significantly enhanced. In this perspective, we discuss how this capacity is supported by energy and climate-economy models, and how international modelling teams are organised within structured communication channels and consortia as well as coordinate multi-model analyses to provide robust scientific evidence. Noting the lack of such a dedicated channel for the highly active yet currently fragmented European modelling landscape, we highlight the importance of transparency of modelling capabilities and processes, harmonisation of modelling parameters, disclosure of input and output datasets, interlinkages among models of different geographic granularity, and employment of models that transcend the highly harmonised core of tools used in model inter-comparisons. Finally, drawing from the COVID-19 pandemic, we discuss the need to expand the modelling comfort zone, by exploring extreme scenarios, disruptive innovations, and questions that transcend the energy and climate goals across the sustainability spectrum. A comprehensive and comprehensible multi-model framework offers a real example of "collective" science diplomacy, as an instrument to further support the ambitious goals of the EU Green Deal, in compliance with the EU claim to responsible research. • EU energy & climate policy can benefit from a harmonised European modelling landscape. • Transparency, harmonisation, interlinkages, and granularity aspects are highlighted. • Employment of models transcending the highly harmonised core of models is stressed. • Disruptive innovations, extremes, and broad sustainability questions must be explored. • Policy responsiveness, international cooperation & science diplomacy can be enhanced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This exploratory study was conducted to find out how well the concept of evidence-based research (EBR) is known among European health researchers with substantial clinical research experience, and which barriers affect the use of an EBR approach. The concept of EBR implies that researchers use evidence synthesis to justify new studies and to inform their design., Design: A cross-sectional exploratory survey study., Setting and Participants: The survey was conducted among European health researchers. Respondents included 205 health researchers (physicians, nurses, dentists, allied health researchers and members of other professions involved in health research) with a doctoral degree or at least 5 years of research experience., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measures were the level of awareness of the concept of EBR and the presence of barriers affecting the use of an EBR approach. Secondary outcome measures include correlations between sociodemographic characteristics (eg, profession) and awareness of EBR., Results: We discovered that 84.4% of the respondents initially indicated their awareness of the concept of EBR. Nevertheless, 22.5% of them concluded that, on reading the definition, they either do not know or do not fully comprehend the concept of EBR. The main barriers affecting the use of an EBR approach were related to organisational issues, such as not being attributed resources (30.5% of the respondents), time (24.8%) or access to implement it (14.9%)., Conclusions: Despite the limitations, this study clearly shows that ongoing initiatives are necessary to raise awareness about the importance of implementing the EBR approach in health research. This paper contributes to a discussion of the issues that obstruct the implementation of the EBR approach and potential solutions to overcome these issues, such as improving the knowledge and skills necessary to practice the EBR approach., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) are increasingly common with a significant impact on individuals and society. Non-pharmacological treatments are considered essential to reduce pain and improve function and quality of life. EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee OA were published in 2013. Given the large number of subsequent studies, an update is needed., Methods: The Standardised Operating Procedures for EULAR recommendations were followed. A multidisciplinary Task Force with 25 members representing 14 European countries was established. The Task Force agreed on an updated search strategy of 11 research questions. The systematic literature review encompassed dates from 1 January 2012 to 27 May 2022. Retrieved evidence was discussed, updated recommendations were formulated, and research and educational agendas were developed., Results: The revised recommendations include two overarching principles and eight evidence-based recommendations including (1) an individualised, multicomponent management plan; (2) information, education and self-management; (3) exercise with adequate tailoring of dosage and progression; (4) mode of exercise delivery; (5) maintenance of healthy weight and weight loss; (6) footwear, walking aids and assistive devices; (7) work-related advice and (8) behaviour change techniques to improve lifestyle. The mean level of agreement on the recommendations ranged between 9.2 and 9.8 (0-10 scale, 10=total agreement). The research agenda highlighted areas related to these interventions including adherence, uptake and impact on work., Conclusions: The 2023 updated recommendations were formulated based on research evidence and expert opinion to guide the optimal management of hip and knee OA., Competing Interests: Competing interests: TPMVV was the Vice president EULAR health professionals 2020–2022 and is part of the EULAR Advocacy Committee 2020–present. MG holds a leadership position in OpenReuma/Spanish Association of Health Professionals in Rheumatology (unpaid). CDM received Grants from Versus Arthritis, MRC, NIHR (paid to Keele University) and is the director of the NIHR School for Primary Care Research. SL received payment as scientific consultant from Arthro Therapeutics AB and received payment from AstraZeneca as a member of DSMB. DC received grants from Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia SFRH/BD/148420/2019 and Pfizer (ID 64165707). GZ received payment for expert testimony from Casa di Cura San Francesco, Verona and Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Orthotech and Jtech, payment for participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from VIVENKO for Gruenenthal and Ethos for Angelini and holds other financial interests related to clinical practice as an orthopedic surgeon (performing total joint replacement, arthroscopies and other types of surgeries), either directly from private patients or indirectly from the health system or insurances acting as a private consultant. JEV has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Lilly Netherlands BV. TG has received paid honoraria for lectures by Abbvie, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, UCB, Berlin-Chemie/A. Menarini Bulgaria, Sandoz and received support for attending meetings by Abbvie, Pfizer and UCB. DW is an International Advisory Board Member of DRFZ (Germany) 2019–current and was the EULAR PARE Chair 2015–2017and an EULAR Vice President representing PARE 2017–2021., (© European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, EULAR 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC-ND. No commercial re-use. No derivatives. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ on behalf of EULAR.)