Suchergebnisse

AbstractAim: To produce an online resource for dental professionals, advising them on ways to manage patients with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD).Method and Results: Literature search into the management of patients with DCD, and how to produce a high‐quality leaflet using specific keywords. Using online databases, such as PubMed, the Cochrane Database and an internet search engine, an online resource in printable leaflet form was produced following a pilot readability assessment and review by those who work with individuals with DCD and a Special Care Dentistry special interest group. From the assessment tools used, the resource scored well in terms of readability and comprehension. The resource also received positive and constructive feedback from colleagues and those who work with individuals with DCD.Conclusion: An online resource was produced for dental professionals, although further evaluation is required on whether it will be useful to the profession. The literature review suggests the need for more research to be carried out on the association between DCD and oral health, and how dental professionals can manage those with DCD within a general dental practice.

As many countries are increasing commitments to address climate change, national governments are exploring how they could best reduce the impact of their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Agriculture is a major contributor to GHG emissions, especially in developing countries, where this sector accounts for an average of 35% of all GHG emissions. Yet many agricultural interventions can also help to reduce GHG impacts. This paper presents the methodology to estimate impacts of agricultural interventions on GHG emissions and carbon sequestration. This methodology is used in an analysis of several development projects supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and presented as a series of case studies. The methodology allows users to estimate (1) GHG impacts at project scale, (2) GHG emissions by agricultural practice, and (3) GHG emissions per unit of output (i.e., GHG emission intensity). The presented approach is a rapid assessment technique that is well suited to provide an indication of the magnitude of GHG impacts and to compare GHG impact strength of different field activities or cropping systems. It is well adapted to a context of data scarcity, as is common in agricultural investment planning where aggregate data on agricultural land use and management practices are available but where field measurements of GHG and carbon stock changes are missing. This approach is instrumental to inform agricultural investment, project, and policy planners about challenges and opportunities associated with achieving and accounting for GHG emission reductions in agricultural development projects.

Food loss and waste (FLW) reduces the amount of food available for distribution and consumption, decreases food security, and increases the environmental burden of food production. Combating FLW addresses the key pillars of climate-smart agriculture for farmers by increasing productivity, promoting adaption to climate change, and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. Although studies of interventions to reduce FLW exist, almost no research systematically investigates FLW interventions across value chains or in multiple countries, most likely due to challenges in collecting and synthesizing multi-country estimates. Our research team investigated changes in FLW in projects supported by the United States Government's global hunger and food security initiative: Feed the Future. This provided a unique opportunity to conduct ex-ante estimates of the impacts of interventions across 20 value chains in 12 countries based on interviews with United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and project staff. We provide specific examples of interventions used in each value chain and country context. The results provide an evidence base of interventions that successfully decreased FLW at multiple points along the food value chain, from upstream producer-dominated stages to downstream consumer-dominated stages. Results also show that no single FLW solution or intervention works across agriculture sub-sectors, value chain stages, and countries. Amongst the sub-sectors studied, results showed that FLW interventions directed at extensive dairy systems could provide meaningful greenhouse mitigation. In the dairy supply chain, FLW estimates ranged from 5-50% in the business-as- usual approach and declined 4-10% as a result of intervention.