Predicting the future effectiveness of protected areas for bird conservation in Mediterranean ecosystems under climate change and novel fire regime scenarios

AimGlobal environmental changes challenge traditional conservation approaches based on the selection of static protected areas due to their limited ability to deal with the dynamic nature of driving forces relevant to biodiversity. The Natura 2000 network (N2000) constitutes a major milestone in biodiversity conservation in Europe, but the degree to which this static network will be able to reach its long-term conservation objectives raises concern. We assessed the changes in the effectiveness of N2000 in a Mediterranean ecosystem between 2000 and 2050 under different combinations of climate and land cover change scenarios. LocationCatalonia, Spain. MethodsPotential distribution changes of several terrestrial bird species of conservation interest included in the European Union's Birds Directive were predicted within an ensemble-forecasting framework that hierarchically integrated climate change and land cover change scenarios. Land cover changes were simulated using a spatially explicit fire-succession model that integrates fire management strategies and vegetation encroachment after the abandonment of cultivated areas as the main drivers of landscape dynamics in Mediterranean ecosystems. ResultsOur results suggest that the amount of suitable habitats for the target species will strongly decrease both inside and outside N2000. However, the effectiveness of N2000 is expected to increase in the next decades because the amount of suitable habitats is predicted to decrease less inside than outside this network. Main conclusionsSuch predictions shed light on the key role that the current N2000may play in the near future and emphasize the need for an integrative conservation perspective wherein agricultural, forest and fire management policies should be considered to effectively preserve key habitats for threatened birds in fire-prone, highly dynamic Mediterranean ecosystems. Results also show the importance of considering landscape dynamics and the synergies between different driving forces when assessing the long-term effectiveness of protected areas for biodiversity conservation.

Chronic disease management programmes for adults with asthma (intervention Review)

BACKGROUND: The burden of asthma on patients and healthcare systems is substantial. Interventions have been developed to overcome difficulties in asthma management. These include chronic disease management programmes, which are more than simple patient education, encompassing a set of coherent interventions that centre on the patients' needs, encouraging the co-ordination and integration of health services provided by a variety of healthcare professionals, and emphasising patient self-management as well as patient education. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of chronic disease management programmes for adults with asthma. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations), EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched up to June 2014. We also handsearched selected journals from 2000 to 2012 and scanned reference lists of relevant reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individual or cluster-randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, and controlled before-after studies comparing chronic disease management programmes with usual care in adults over 16 years of age with a diagnosis of asthma. The chronic disease management programmes had to satisfy at least the following five criteria: an organisational component targeting patients; an organisational component targeting healthcare professionals or the healthcare system, or both; patient education or self-management support, or both; active involvement of two or more healthcare professionals in patient care; a minimum duration of three months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: After an initial screen of the titles, two review authors working independently assessed the studies for eligibility and study quality; they also extracted the data. We contacted authors to obtain missing information and additional data, where necessary. We pooled results using the random-effects model and reported the pooled mean or standardised mean differences (SMDs). MAIN RESULTS: A total of 20 studies including 81,746 patients (median 129.5) were included in this review, with a follow-up ranging from 3 to more than 12 months. Patients' mean age was 42.5 years, 60% were female, and their asthma was mostly rated as moderate to severe. Overall the studies were of moderate to low methodological quality, because of limitations in their design and the wide confidence intervals for certain results.Compared with usual care, chronic disease management programmes resulted in improvements in asthma-specific quality of life (SMD 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.37), asthma severity scores (SMD 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.30), and lung function tests (SMD 0.19, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.30). The data for improvement in self-efficacy scores were inconclusive (SMD 0.51, 95% CI -0.08 to 1.11). Results on hospitalisations and emergency department or unscheduled visits could not be combined in a meta-analysis because the data were too heterogeneous; results from the individual studies were inconclusive overall. Only a few studies reported results on asthma exacerbations, days off work or school, use of an action plan, and patient satisfaction. Meta-analyses could not be performed for these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate to low quality evidence that chronic disease management programmes for adults with asthma can improve asthma-specific quality of life, asthma severity, and lung function tests. Overall, these results provide encouraging evidence of the potential effectiveness of these programmes in adults with asthma when compared with usual care. However, the optimal composition of asthma chronic disease management programmes and their added value, compared with education or self-management alone that is usually offered to patients with asthma, need further investigation.

Simulated Patient as Co-facilitators: Benefits and Challenges of the Interprofessional Team OSCE (Submission #9350).

Hypothesis: The quality of care for chronic patients depends on the collaborative skills of the healthcare providers.1,2 The literature lacks reports of the use of simulation to teach collaborative skills in non-acute care settings. We posit that simulation offers benefits for supporting the development of collaborative practice in non-acute settings. We explored the benefits and challenges of using an Interprofessional Team - Objective Structured Clinical Examination (IT-OSCE) as a formative assessment tool. IT-OSCE is an intervention which involves an interprofessional team of trainees interacting with a simulated patient (SP) enabling them to practice collaborative skills in non-acute care settings.5 A simulated patient are people trained to portray patients in a simulated scenario for educational purposes.6,7 Since interprofessional education (IPE) ultimately aims to provide collaborative patient-centered care.8,9 We sought to promote patient-centeredness in the learning process. Methods: The IT-OSCE was conducted with four trios of students from different professions. The debriefing was co-facilitated by the SP with a faculty. The participants were final-year students in nursing, physiotherapy and medicine. Our research question focused on the introduction of co-facilitated (SP and faculty) debriefing after an IT-OSCE: 1) What are the benefits and challenges of involving the SP during the debriefing? and 2) To evaluate the IT-OSCE, an exploratory case study was used to provide fine grained data 10, 11. Three focus groups were conducted - two with students (n=6; n=5), one with SPs (n=3) and one with faculty (n=4). Audiotapes were transcribed for thematic analysis performed by three researchers, who found a consensus on the final set of themes. Results: The thematic analysis showed little differentiation between SPs, student and faculty perspectives. The analysis of transcripts revealed more particularly, that the SP's co-facilitation during the debriefing of an IT-OSCE proved to be feasible. It was appreciated by all the participants and appeared to value and to promote patient-centeredness in the learning process. The main challenge consisted in SPs feedback, more particularly in how they could report accurate observations to a students' group rather than individual students. Conclusion: In conclusion, SP methodology using an IT-OSCE seems to be a useful and promising way to train collaborative skills, aligning IPE, simulation-based team training in a non-acute care setting and patient-centeredness. We acknowledge the limitations of the study, especially the small sample and consider the exploration of SP-based IPE in non-acute care settings as strength. Future studies could consider the preparation of SPs and faculty as co-facilitators. References: 1. Borrill CS, Carletta J, Carter AJ, et al. The effectiveness of health care teams in the National Health Service. Aston centre for Health Service Organisational Research. 2001. 2. Reeves S, Lewin S, Espin S, Zwarenstein M. Interprofessional teamwork for health and social care. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. 3. Issenberg S, McGaghie WC, Petrusa ER, Gordon DL, Scalese RJ. Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning - a BEME systematic review. Medical Teacher. 2005;27(1):10-28. 4. McGaghie W, Petrusa ER, Gordon DL, Scalese RJ. A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003-2009. Medical Education. 2010;44(1):50-63. 5. Simmons B, Egan-Lee E, Wagner SJ, Esdaile M, Baker L, Reeves S. Assessment of interprofessional learning: the design of an interprofessional objective structured clinical examination (iOSCE) approach. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2011;25(1):73-74. 6. Nestel D, Layat Burn C, Pritchard SA, Glastonbury R, Tabak D. The use of simulated patients in medical education: Guide Supplement 42.1 - Viewpoint. Medical teacher. 2011;33(12):1027-1029. Disclosures: None (C) 2014 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Cost-effectiveness of Tenofovir / Emtricitabine / Efavirenz versus Zidovudine / Lamivudine / Efavirenz as fist-line regimens for the treatment of HIV-infected patients in low-income settings

The Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy (HAART) is the combination of at least three antiretroviral compounds. The combination purpose is to reduce the likelihood of drug resistance. However in the long-term the resistance to the first-line combination occurs and leads to treatment failure. Thus, a second-line and even a third-line regimen are recommended in the long run. [...] [P. 5] The two treatment alternatives under comparison: Tenofovir (300 mg) CO-formulated with Emtricitabine (200 mg) and Efavirenz (600 mg) currently known under the brand name Atripla (R) was introduced in July 2006 in the United States market. The excellent safety profile and ease of use make this combination a perfect first-line regimen in low-income settings. Therefore, this treatment option was recommended in WHO 2006 reviewed guidelines. Unfortunately, Tenofovir and Emtricitabine compounds are still costly and not yet widely available. For a matter of simplification this regimen is referred in this report as "the recent" therapy. Initially, we had in mind to consider the most frequently used first-line regimen in low-income countries (Stavudine / Larnivudme / Nevirapine) as a comparator for this economic evaluation. Unfortunately, according to the literature review results (see Annex 3); there was no data available comparing head to head the effectiveness of this regimen with the recent one. Instead, we selected a less frequently but commonly used first-line regimen in low-income countries as a comparator: Zidovudine, Lamivudine, Efavirenz. This combination has extensive experience in durability, safety and toxicity and seems to be an optimal choice for a first-line regimen according to the clinical trial group 384 team. Furthermore, Zidovudine, one of the compounds of this combination is now recommended as one of the preferred NNRTI [Non Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors] options to be considered by countries instead of Stavudine (the most used NNRTI in limited-income countries). As this combination has been included in the WHO guidelines as a first-line therapy since 2003 when WHO launched the "3 by 5" scaling-up initiative, this combination of drugs is referred in this report as the "old" therapy. Objectives: The primary objective of this economic evaluation is to compare the two first-line HAARTs introduced above, in a low-income setting context. Both of these combinations are recommended by the 2006 WHO guidelines as potential first-line regimens. The secondary objective is to provide a simplified and comprehensible cost-effectiveness modeling tool in order to help policy makers, in resource-limited settings, make decisions about which first-line HAART to fund using the scarce resources available. [P. 6-7]