Search

A common management intervention to support declining wild pollinators is 'pollinator planting'. However, despite years of inclusion in conservation initiatives, global pollinator declines continue.Using the agent‐based model BEE‐STEWARD with two example species, Bombus terrestris (L. 1758) and B. pascuorum (Scopoli, 1763) (Hymenoptera: Apidae), we explore when during the year bumblebee resource demand is the highest and how that relates to seasonal changes in colony composition (numbers of eggs, larvae, pupae and adults). We then examine the impact of two‐week periods of resource scarcity across the year. Finally, we explore how enhancement with early spring‐blooming herbaceous species or trees changes colony survival and queen production.In the United Kingdom, there is a previously under‐appreciated 'hungry gap' for bumblebees in March–April, before the peak flight period, driven by the demands of larvae for protein and thermoregulation in the colony, rather than the number of adult bees.A 2‐week gap in forage availability during this period drives a 50%–87% drop in the production of daughter queens. Adding early‐blooming species in the model had significant, positive, long‐term effects on colony survival probability and daughter queen production.Pollinator‐planting initiatives in both national and international conservation schemes need to include plants that flower up to 1 month before the adults of target social pollinator species are apparent in the field, during the period that larvae dominate the colony. This approach is likely to increase colony survival and queen production, contributing towards halting and reversing global pollinator decline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Children living in families impacted by parental mental illness are at increased risk of adverse mental and physical health outcomes compared with children living in families unaffected by mental illness. Considered to be a hard‐to reach group, it is likely that there are unique barriers for these young people in seeking help for their difficulties. This systematized review synthesizes what is currently known about help‐seeking barriers, facilitators and interventions for young people affected by parental mental illness. Methods: Three databases were searched, yielding 2556 results and three studies were identified through other sources. Studies were screened on title and abstract review and were excluded if they were published before 2005 or if they did not include the perspectives of young people. At a second stage, full‐text articles were screened based on the inclusion criteria. Eleven studies were included for data extraction and quality appraisal. Results: Qualitative and quantitative data synthesis revealed three significant barriers (i) stigma, (ii) family communication and (iii) lack of belonging and shared experience, three key facilitators (i) individual characteristics, (ii) group identification and (iii) anonymity and three primary components of therapeutic interventions (i) psychoeducation, (ii) connection with peers and (iii) accessibility. Conclusions: It was found that stigma towards mental illness is highly salient amongst young people impacted by parental mental illness and has unique effects on their patterns of help‐seeking. Help‐seeking research amongst this group is still emerging, with a need for greater clarity in operationalisation of help‐seeking constructs and more robust methodological designs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study assessed the psychological predictors of preferences for return of comprehensive tumor genomic profiling (CTGP) results in patients with advanced cancers, enrolled in the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program. Patients completed a questionnaire prior to undergoing CTGP. Of the 1434 who completed a questionnaire, 96% would like to receive results that can guide treatment for their cancer, and preference for receiving this type of result was associated with lower tolerance of uncertainty. Sixty‐four percent would like to receive results that cannot guide treatment, and lower tolerance of uncertainty, self‐efficacy, and perceived importance were associated with this preference. Fifty‐nine percent would like to receive variants of unknown significance, which was associated with lower tolerance of uncertainty, higher self‐efficacy, and perceived importance. Eighty‐six percent wanted to receive germline results that could inform family risk. This was associated with higher self‐efficacy, perceived importance, and perceived susceptibility. Although most patients wanted to receive all types of results, given the differing patient preferences regarding the return of results depending on the utility of the different types of results, it appears critical to safeguard patient understanding of result utility to achieve informed patient choices. This should be accompanied by appropriate consent processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genomic Sequencing (GS) to identify high cancer risk will soon enter clinical practice at significant cost to the health system. This study aimed to quantify perceived value of GS to Australian cancer patients and their first‐degree relatives participating in a genomic sequencing study, and factors associated with value. Participants were recruited upon consent to the genomics study. Eligible participants (with cancer of likely genetic etiology, or a first‐degree relative) completed a questionnaire prior to GS. Willingness to pay was assessed via hypothetical trade‐off scenarios of actionable result return rates of 1%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% or 50%. Of 348 probands and 213 relatives (92% and 93% response rate), 81% would consistently have GS for as little as a 1% actionable return rate. Participants would pay a median of $1,000 for return rates of at least 20% (probands) or 30% (relatives), and $300 for lower return rates. Probands with common cancers and negative attitudes to uncertainty were more likely to have GS; those with higher education were more willing to pay $1,000 and $3,000 for lower return rates. This study found high interest in, but lower willingness to pay for GS in cancer patients and their first‐degree relatives, possibly due to inability to pay. Further research is needed to improve our understanding of how individuals in different risk circumstances, trade‐off the risks, harms, and benefits of GS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]