Ecological restoration across the Mediterranean Basin as viewed by practitioners

Restoration efforts in the Mediterranean Basin have been changing from a silvicultural to an ecological restoration approach. Yet, to what extent the projects are guided by ecological restoration principles remains largely unknown. To analyse this issue, we built an on-line survey addressed to restoration practitioners. We analysed 36 restoration projects, mostly from drylands (86%). The projects used mainly soil from local sources. The need to comply with legislation was more important as a restoration motive for European Union (EU) than for non-EU countries, while public opinion and health had a greater importance in the latter. Non-EU countries relied more on non-native plant species than EU countries, thus deviating from ecological restoration guidelines. Nursery-grown plants used were mostly of local or regional provenance, whilst seeds were mostly of national provenance. Unexpected restoration results (e.g. inadequate biodiversity) were reported for 50% of the projects and restoration success was never evaluated in 22%. Long term evaluation (> 6 years) was only performed in 31% of cases, and based primarily on plant diversity and cover. The use of non-native species and species of exogenous provenances may: i) entail the loss of local genetic and functional trait diversity, critical to cope with drought, particularly under the predicted climate change scenarios, and ii) lead to unexpected competition with native species and/or negatively impact local biotic interactions. Absent or inappropriate monitoring may prevent the understanding of restoration trajectories, precluding adaptive management strategies, often crucial to create functional ecosystems able to provide ecosystem services. The overview of ecological restoration projects in the Mediterranean Basin revealed high variability among practices and highlighted the need for improved scientific assistance and information exchange, greater use of native species of local provenance, and more long-term monitoring and evaluation, including functional and ecosystem services' indicators, to improve and spread the practice of ecological restoration.

Challenges, Strengths and Opportunities Related to Implementing Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines on Breast Cancer Survivorship Care by Primary Care Physicians and Nurse Practitioners in Southeastern Ontario

Background Many breast cancer survivors continue to have a broad range of physical and psychosocial problems after breast cancer treatment. As cancer centres move forward with earlier discharge of stable breast cancer survivors to primary care follow-up it is important that comprehensive evidence-based breast cancer survivorship care is implemented to effectively address these needs. Research suggests primary care providers are willing to provide breast cancer survivorship care but many lack the knowledge and confidence to provide evidence-based care. Purpose The overall purpose of this thesis was to determine the challenges, strengths and opportunities related to implementing comprehensive evidence-based breast cancer survivorship guidelines by primary care physicians and nurse practitioners in southeastern Ontario. Methods This mixed-methods research was conducted in three phases: (1) synthesis and appraisal of clinical practice guidelines relevant to provision of breast cancer survivorship care within the primary care practice setting; (2) a brief quantitative survey of primary care providers to determine actual practices related to provision of evidence-based breast cancer survivorship care; and (3) individual interviews with primary care providers about the challenges, strengths and opportunities related to provision of comprehensive evidence-based breast cancer survivorship care. Results and Conclusions In the first phase, a comprehensive clinical practice framework was created to guide provision of breast cancer survivorship care and consisted of a one-page checklist outlining breast cancer survivorship issues relevant to primary care, a three-page summary of key recommendations, and a one-page list of guideline sources. The second phase identified several knowledge and practice gaps, and it was determined that guideline implementation rates were higher for recommendations related to prevention and surveillance aspects of survivorship care and lowest related to screening for and management of long-term effects. The third phase identified three major challenges to providing breast cancer survivorship care: inconsistent educational preparation, provider anxieties, and primary care burden; and three major strengths or opportunities to facilitate implementation of survivorship care guidelines: tools and technology, empowering survivors, and optimizing nursing roles. A better understanding of these challenges, strengths and opportunities will inform development of targeted knowledge translation interventions to provide support and education to primary care providers.