Building resilience for social-ecological sustainability in Atlantic Europe

This thesis argues that complex adaptive social–ecological systems (SES) theory has important implications for the design of integrated ocean and coastal governance in the EU. Traditional systems of governance have struggled to deal with the global changes, complexity and uncertainties that challenge a transition towards sustainability in Europe’s maritime macro-regions. There is an apparent disconnect between governance strategies for sustainability in Europe’s maritime macro-regions and a sound theoretical basis for them. My premise is that the design of governance architecture for maritime regional sustainability should be informed by SES theory. Therefore, the aim of this research was to gain insight into a multilevel adaptive governance architecture that combines notions of sustainability and development in the context of the Atlantic Europe maritime macro-region. The central research question asked whether it is possible to achieve this insight by using a SES as a framework and analytical tool. This research adopted social ecology and sustainability science as a foundation for understanding society–nature relations. Concepts from complex adaptive systems, SES and resilience theories were integrated into a conceptual framework that guided the investigation and analysis. A study was conducted to conceptualise the European Atlantic social–ecological system (EASES). This was used to represent and understand the Atlantic Europe macro-region as a SES. The study examined the proposition that governance can be focused on building SES resilience to help achieve maritime regional sustainability. A workbook method was developed and used to elicit expert opinion regarding EASES. The study identified sources of resilience and resilience dynamics that require management in the context of multilevel adaptive governance. This research found that the Atlantic Europe macro-region is a key focal level for multilevel adaptive governance architecture. The majority of the findings are specific to Atlantic Europe and not generalisable to other maritime macro-regions in Europe.

Time-limited home-care reablement services for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults

Background: Reablement, also known as restorative care, is one possible approach to home-care services for older adults at risk of functional decline. Unlike traditional home-care services, reablement is frequently time-limited (usually six to 12 weeks) and aims to maximise independence by offering an intensive multidisciplinary, person-centred and goal-directed intervention. Objectives: To assess the effects of time-limited home-care reablement services (up to 12 weeks) for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults (aged 65 years or more) when compared to usual home-care or wait-list control group. Search methods: We searched the following databases with no language restrictions during April to June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (OvidSP); Embase (OvidSP); PsycINFO (OvidSP); ERIC; Sociological Abstracts; ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; CINAHL (EBSCOhost); SIGLE (OpenGrey); AgeLine and Social Care Online. We also searched the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews as well as contacting authors in the field. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised or quasi-randomised trials of time-limited reablement services for older adults (aged 65 years or more) delivered in their home; and incorporated a usual home-care or wait-list control group. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and considered quality of the evidence using GRADE. We contacted study authors for additional information where needed. Main results: Two studies, comparing reablement with usual home-care services with 811 participants, met our eligibility criteria for inclusion; we also identified three potentially eligible studies, but findings were not yet available. One included study was conducted in Western Australia with 750 participants (mean age 82.29 years). The second study was conducted in Norway (61 participants; mean age 79 years). We are very uncertain as to the effects of reablement compared with usual care as the evidence was of very low quality for all of the outcomes reported. The main findings were as follows. Functional status: very low quality evidence suggested that reablement may be slightly more effective than usual care in improving function at nine to 12 months (lower scores reflect greater independence; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53 to -0.06; 2 studies with 249 participants). Adverse events: reablement may make little or no difference to mortality at 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.29; 2 studies with 811 participants) or rates of unplanned hospital admission at 24 months (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03; 1 study with 750 participants). The very low quality evidence also means we are uncertain whether reablement may influence quality of life (SMD -0.23; 95% CI -0.48 to 0.02; 2 trials with 249 participants) or living arrangements (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.34; 1 study with 750 participants) at time points up to 12 months. People receiving reablement may be slightly less likely to have been approved for a higher level of personal care than people receiving usual care over the 24 months' follow-up (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; 1 trial, 750 participants). Similarly, although there may be a small reduction in total aggregated home and healthcare costs over the 24-month follow-up (reablement: AUD 19,888; usual care: AUD 22,757; 1 trial with 750 participants), we are uncertain about the size and importance of these effects as the results were based on very low quality evidence. Neither study reported user satisfaction with the service. Authors' conclusions: There is considerable uncertainty regarding the effects of reablement as the evidence was of very low quality according to our GRADE ratings. Therefore, the effectiveness of reablement services cannot be supported or refuted until more robust evidence becomes available. There is an urgent need for high quality trials across different health and social care systems due to the increasingly high profile of reablement services in policy and practice in several countries.

The Trier Social Stress Test: principles and practice

Researchers interested in the neurobiology of the acute stress response in humans require a valid and reliable acute stressor that can be used under experimental conditions. The Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) provides such a testing platform. It induces stress by requiring participants to make an interview-style presentation, followed by a surprise mental arithmetic test, in front of an interview panel who do not provide feedback or encouragement. In this review, we outline the methodology of the TSST, and discuss key findings under conditions of health and stress-related disorder. The TSST has unveiled differences in males and females, as well as different age groups, in their neurobiological response to acute stress. The TSST has also deepened our understanding of how genotype may moderate the cognitive neurobiology of acute stress, and exciting new inroads have been made in understanding epigenetic contributions to the biological regulation of the acute stress response using the TSST. A number of innovative adaptations have been developed which allow for the TSST to be used in group settings, with children, in combination with brain imaging, and with virtual committees. Future applications may incorporate the emerging links between the gut microbiome and the stress response. Future research should also maximise use of behavioural data generated by the TSST. Alternative acute stress paradigms may have utility over the TSST in certain situations, such as those that require repeat testing. Nonetheless, we expect that the TSST remains the gold standard for examining the cognitive neurobiology of acute stress in humans.