Migration patterns and navigation cues of Atlantic salmon post-smolts migrating from 12 rivers through the coastal zones around the Irish Sea.

The freshwater phase of the first seaward migration of juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) is relatively well understood when compared with our understanding of the marine phase of their migration. In 2021, 1008 wild and 60 ranched Atlantic salmon smolts were tagged with acoustic transmitters in 12 rivers in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland. Large marine receiver arrays were deployed in the Irish Sea at two locations: at the transition of the Irish Sea into the North Atlantic between Ireland and Scotland, and between southern Scotland and Northern Ireland, to examine the early phase of the marine migration of Atlantic salmon smolts. After leaving their natal rivers' post-smolt migration through the Irish Sea was rapid with minimum speeds ranging from 14.03 to 38.56 km.day-1 for Atlantic salmon smolts that entered the Irish Sea directly from their natal river, to 9.69-39.94 km.day-1 for Atlantic salmon smolts that entered the Irish Sea directly from their natal estuary. Population minimum migration success through the study area was strongly correlated with the distance of travel, populations further away from the point of entry to the open North Atlantic exhibited lower migration success. Post-smolts from different populations experienced different water temperatures on entering the North Atlantic. This was largely driven by the timing of their migration and may have significant consequences for feeding and ultimately survivorship. The influence of water currents on post-smolt movement was investigated using data from previously constructed numerical hydrodynamic models. Modeled water current data in the northern Irish Sea showed that post-smolts had a strong preference for migrating when the current direction was at around 283° (west-north-west) but did not migrate when exposed to strong currents in other directions. This is the most favorable direction for onward passage from the Irish Sea to the continental shelf edge current, a known accumulation point for migrating post-smolts. These results strongly indicate that post-smolts migrating through the coastal marine environment are: (1) not simply migrating by current following (2) engage in active directional swimming (3) have an intrinsic sense of their migration direction and (4) can use cues other than water current direction to orientate during this part of their migration.

Inshore and offshore marine migration pathways of Atlantic salmon post-smolts from multiple rivers in Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, and Ireland.

The migratory behavior of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) post-smolts in coastal waters is poorly understood. In this collaborative study, 1914 smolts, from 25 rivers, in four countries were tagged with acoustic transmitters during a single seasonal migration. In total, 1105 post-smolts entered the marine study areas and 438 (39.6%) were detected on a network of 414 marine acoustic receivers and an autonomous underwater vehicle. Migration pathways (defined as the shortest distance between two detections) of up to 575 km and over 100 days at sea were described for all 25 populations. Post-smolts from different rivers, as well as individuals from the same river, used different pathways in coastal waters. Although difficult to generalize to all rivers, at least during the year of this study, no tagged post-smolts from rivers draining into the Irish Sea were detected entering the areas of sea between the Hebrides and mainland Scotland, which is associated with a high density of finfish aquaculture. An important outcome of this study is that a high proportion of post-smolts crossed through multiple legislative jurisdictions and boundaries during their migration. This study provides the basis for spatially explicit assessment of the impact risk of coastal pressures on salmon during their first migration to sea.

Experiences of residents, family members and staff in residential care settings for older people during COVID-19: A mixed methods study.

AIM: The aim of this study was to explore the COVID-19 pandemic as it was experienced by people on the front line in residential care settings for older people in the Republic of Ireland (ROI). BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic had a disproportionate effect in residential care settings for older people in Ireland. METHODS: A two-phased mixed methods study was conducted, consisting of an online survey administered shortly after the first wave of the virus to staff, residents and family members and one-to-one interviews with family members shortly after wave 2 of the virus. RESULTS: Isolation, loss of connectedness as well as a reduction in the level/quality of care provision led to significant adverse impacts for both residents and their families. Staff reported high levels of stress, trauma and burnout. Family input to care was suspended, with adverse consequences. CONCLUSION: The pandemic had an extremely adverse impact on residents, family members and staff in care settings for older people. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Strategies to ensure that residents' physical, emotional and social needs and staffs' professional and personal needs are appropriately supported during future waves of the pandemic should now be implemented.

Virtual reality distraction for acute pain in children.

BACKGROUND: Virtual reality (VR) computer technology creates a simulated environment, perceived as comparable to the real world, with which users can actively interact. The effectiveness of VR distraction on acute pain intensity in children is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of virtual reality (VR) distraction interventions for children (0 to 18 years) with acute pain in any healthcare setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and four trial registries to October 2019. We also searched reference lists of eligible studies, handsearched relevant journals and contacted study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cross-over and cluster-RCTs, comparing VR distraction to no distraction, non-VR distraction or other VR distraction. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological processes. Two reviewers assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently. The primary outcome was acute pain intensity (during procedure, and up to one hour post-procedure). Secondary outcomes were adverse effects, child satisfaction with VR, pain-related distress, parent anxiety, rescue analgesia and cost. We used GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 RCTs (1008 participants aged four to 18 years) undergoing various procedures in healthcare settings. We did not pool data because the heterogeneity in population (i.e. diverse ages and developmental stages of children and their different perceptions and reactions to pain) and variations in procedural conditions (e.g. phlebotomy, burn wound dressings, physical therapy sessions), and consequent level of pain experienced, made statistical pooling of data impossible. We narratively describe results. We judged most studies to be at unclear risk of selection bias, high risk of performance and detection bias, and high risk of bias for small sample sizes. Across all comparisons and outcomes, we downgraded the certainty of evidence to low or very low due to serious study limitations and serious or very serious indirectness. We also downgraded some of the evidence for very serious imprecision. 1: VR distraction versus no distraction Acute pain intensity: during procedure Self-report: one study (42 participants) found no beneficial effect of non-immersive VR (very low-certainty evidence). Observer-report: no data. Behavioural measurements (observer-report): two studies, 62 participants; low-certainty evidence. One study (n = 42) found no beneficial effect of non-immersive VR. One study (n = 20) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR. Acute pain intensity: post-procedure Self-report: 10 studies, 461 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Four studies (n = 95) found no beneficial effect of immersive and semi-immersive or non-immersive VR. Five studies (n = 357) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR. Another study (n = 9) reported less pain in the VR group. Observer-report: two studies (216 participants; low-certainty evidence) found a beneficial effect of immersive VR, as reported by primary caregiver/parents or nurses. One study (n = 80) found a beneficial effect of immersive VR, as reported by researchers. Behavioural measurements (observer-report): one study (42 participants) found no beneficial effect of non-immersive VR (very low-certainty evidence). Adverse effects: five studies, 154 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Three studies (n = 53) reported no adverse effects. Two studies (n = 101) reported mild adverse effects (e.g. nausea) in the VR group. 2: VR distraction versus other non-VR distraction Acute pain intensity: during procedure Self-report, observer-report and behavioural measurements (observer-report): two studies, 106 participants: Self-report: one study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR and one (n = 41) found no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores (very low-certainty evidence). Observer-report: one study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR and one (n = 41) found no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores (low-certainty evidence). Behavioural measurements (observer-report): one study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR and one (n = 41) reported a difference in mean pain change scores with fewer pain behaviours in VR group (low-certainty evidence). Acute pain intensity: post-procedure Self-report: eight studies, 575 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Two studies (n = 146) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR. Two studies (n = 252) reported a between-group difference favouring immersive VR. One study (n = 59) found no beneficial effect of immersive VR versus television and Child Life non-VR distraction. One study (n = 18) found no beneficial effect of semi-immersive VR. Two studies (n = 100) reported no between-group difference. Observer-report: three studies, 187 participants; low-certainty evidence. One study (n = 81) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR for parent, nurse and researcher reports. One study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR for caregiver reports. Another study (n = 41) reported no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores. Behavioural measurements (observer-report): two studies, 106 participants; low-certainty evidence. One study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR. Another study (n = 41) reported no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores. Adverse effects: six studies, 429 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Three studies (n = 229) found no evidence of a difference between groups. Two studies (n = 141) reported no adverse effects in VR group. One study (n = 59) reported no beneficial effect in reducing estimated cyber-sickness before and after VR immersion. 3: VR distraction versus other VR distraction We did not identify any studies for this comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-certainty and very low-certainty evidence of the effectiveness of VR distraction compared to no distraction or other non-VR distraction in reducing acute pain intensity in children in any healthcare setting. This level of uncertainty makes it difficult to interpret the benefits or lack of benefits of VR distraction for acute pain in children. Most of the review primary outcomes were assessed by only two or three small studies. We found limited data for adverse effects and other secondary outcomes. Future well-designed, large, high-quality trials may have an important impact on our confidence in the results.

Complex pattern of genetic structuring in the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) of the River Foyle system in northwest Ireland: disentangling the evolutionary signal from population stochasticity.

Little is known about the microevolutionary processes shaping within river population genetic structure of aquatic organisms characterized by high levels of homing and spawning site fidelity. Using a microsatellite panel, we observed complex and highly significant levels of intrariver population genetic substructure and Isolation-by-Distance, in the Atlantic salmon stock of a large river system. Two evolutionary models have been considered explaining mechanisms promoting genetic substructuring in Atlantic salmon, the member-vagrant and metapopulation models. We show that both models can be simultaneously used to explain patterns and levels of population structuring within the Foyle system. We show that anthropogenic factors have had a large influence on contemporary population structure observed. In an analytical development, we found that the frequently used estimator of genetic differentiation, F(ST), routinely underestimated genetic differentiation by a factor three to four compared to the equivalent statistic Jost's D(est) (Jost 2008). These statistics also showed a near-perfect correlation. Despite ongoing discussions regarding the usefulness of "adjusted"F(ST) statistics, we argue that these could be useful to identify and quantify qualitative differences between populations, which are important from management and conservation perspectives as an indicator of existence of biologically significant variation among tributary populations or a warning of critical environmental damage.