Search

Abstract Background Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) is a program established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to reduce carbon emissions from forests in developing countries. REDD+ uses an incentive-based approach whereby participating countries are paid to reduce forest carbon loss and increase carbon storage. Country-level carbon accounting is challenging, and estimates of uncertainty in emission reductions are increasingly required in REDD+ reports. This requirement is hard to meet if countries lack the necessary resources, tools, and capabilities. Some REDD+ programs adjust their payments for the uncertainty reported, which presents a perverse incentive because uncertainties are larger if more sources of uncertainty are reported. We surveyed people involved in REDD+ reporting to assess current capacities and barriers to improving estimates of uncertainty. Results Representatives from 27 countries (44% of REDD+ countries at the time of survey implementation) responded to the survey. Nearly all respondents thought it important to include uncertainty in REDD+ reports, but most felt that the uncertainty reporting by their countries was inadequate. Our independent assessment of reports by these countries to the UNFCCC supported this opinion: Most countries reported uncertainty in activity data (91%) but not in emission factors (4–14%). Few countries use more advanced approaches to estimate uncertainty, such as Monte Carlo and Bayesian techniques, and many respondents indicated that they lack expertise, knowledge, or technical assistance. Other barriers include lack of financial resources and appropriate data. Despite these limitations, nearly all respondents indicated a strong desire to improve estimates of uncertainty in REDD+ reports. Conclusions The survey indicated that people involved in REDD+ reporting think it highly important to improve estimates of uncertainty in forest carbon accounting. To meet this challenge, it is essential to understand the obstacles countries face in quantifying uncertainty so we can identify where best to allocate efforts and funds. Investments in training and resources are clearly needed to better quantify uncertainty and would likely have successful outcomes given the strong desire for improvement. Tracking the efficacy of programs implemented to improve estimates of uncertainty would be useful for making further refinements.

Abstract Background Electronic clinical decision support tools (eCDS) are increasingly available to assist General Practitioners (GP) with the diagnosis and management of a range of health conditions. It is unclear whether the use of eCDS tools has an impact on GP workload. This scoping review aimed to identify the available evidence on the use of eCDS tools by health professionals in general practice in relation to their impact on workload and workflow. Methods A scoping review was carried out using the Arksey and O’Malley methodological framework. The search strategy was developed iteratively, with three main aspects: general practice/primary care contexts, risk assessment/decision support tools, and workload-related factors. Three databases were searched in 2019, and updated in 2021, covering articles published since 2009: Medline (Ovid), HMIC (Ovid) and Web of Science (TR). Double screening was completed by two reviewers, and data extracted from included articles were analysed. Results The search resulted in 5,594 references, leading to 95 full articles, referring to 87 studies, after screening. Of these, 36 studies were based in the USA, 21 in the UK and 11 in Australia. A further 18 originated from Canada or Europe, with the remaining studies conducted in New Zealand, South Africa and Malaysia. Studies examined the use of eCDS tools and reported some findings related to their impact on workload, including on consultation duration. Most studies were qualitative and exploratory in nature, reporting health professionals’ subjective perceptions of consultation duration as opposed to objectively-measured time spent using tools or consultation durations. Other workload-related findings included impacts on cognitive workload, “workflow” and dialogue with patients, and clinicians’ experience of “alert fatigue”. Conclusions The published literature on the impact of eCDS tools in general practice showed that limited efforts have focused on investigating the impact of such tools on workload and workflow. To gain an understanding of this area, further research, including quantitative measurement of consultation durations, would be useful to inform the future design and implementation of eCDS tools.

Abstract Background The English Cancer Patient Experience Survey (CPES) is a regularly conducted survey measuring the experience of cancer patients. We studied the survey's underlying structure using factor analysis to identify potential for improvements in reporting or questionnaire design. Methods Cancer Patient Experience Survey 2015 respondents (n = 71,186, response rate 66%) were split into two random subgroups. Using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on the first subgroup, we identified the survey's latent structure. EFA was then applied to 12 sets of items. A first (“core”) set was formed by questions that applied to all participants. The subsequent sets contained the “core set” plus questions corresponding to specific care pathways/patient groups. We used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the second data subgroup for cross‐validation. Results The EFA suggested that five latent factors underlie the survey's core questions. Analysis on the remaining 11 care pathway/patient group items also indicated the same five latent factors, although additional factors were present for questions applicable to patients with an overnight stay or those accessing specialist nursing. The five factors models had an excellent fit (comparative fit index = 0.95, root mean square error of approximation = 0.045 for core set of questions). Items loading on each factor generally corresponded to a specific section or subsection of the questionnaire. CFA findings were concordant with the EFA patterns. Conclusion The findings suggest five coherent underlying sub‐constructs relating to different aspects of cancer health care. The findings support the construction of evidence‐based composite indicators for different domains of experience and provide options for survey re‐design.

In October 2011, the Halloween Nor’easter produced unusually early and heavy snowfall while leaves were still on the trees, causing extensive damage throughout the northeastern United States. This storm is an example of winter weather whiplash, in which an abrupt, back-and-forth swing in winter weather affects coupled human and natural systems. Research on the social-ecological drivers and impacts of winter weather whiplash is scarce because most studies only consider meteorological causes and consequences of extreme events. In this study, we used publicly available data of snowfall accumulation, vegetation phenology, road density, and per capita income to predict storm impacts, which we estimated with textual analysis of Halloween Nor’easter newspaper coverage. We demonstrated that a combination of meteorological, natural, and human system drivers was better able to predict the impact of the storm than meteorological drivers alone. Although we focused on the Halloween Nor’easter, our work highlights the necessity of understanding how multiple drivers and hazards can intersect to create rare and possibly novel conditions that may become more common as the climate warms and becomes more variable.

Salvage logging has become a common practice to gain economic returns from naturally disturbed forests, but it could have considerable negative effects on biodiversity. Here the authors use a recently developed statistical method to estimate that ca. 75% of the naturally disturbed forest should be left unlogged to maintain 90% of the species unique to the area.