A standard lexicon of terms for area-based conservation version 1.0.

Target 3 in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) calls for protecting at least 30% of the world's lands and waters in area-based conservation approaches by 2030. This ambitious 30×30 target has spurred great interest among policy makers, practitioners, and researchers in defining and measuring the effectiveness of these types of approaches. But along with this broad interest, there has also been a proliferation of terms and their accompanying abbreviations used to describe different types of conservation areas and their governance, planning, management, and monitoring. The lack of standard terms is hindering the use and assessment of area-based approaches to conserve the world's biodiversity. It is difficult to track progress toward GBF Target 3 or to share learning with other practitioners if different groups of people are using different words to describe the same concept or similar words to talk about different concepts. To address this problem, the International Union for Conservation of Nature's World Commission on Protected Areas commissioned a task force to review existing terms and recommend a standard English-language lexicon for this field based on key criteria. The results were definitions of 37 terms across 6 categories, including types of protected and additional conservation areas (e.g., protected area, additional conservation area), sets of these areas (protected area network, protected area system), their governance and management (governance, rightsholders), assessment (effectiveness, equitability), spatial planning (key biodiversity area), and action planning (value, outcome, objective). Our standard lexicon can provide a common language for people who want to use it and a shared reference point that can be used to translate various terms used by different groups. The common understanding provided by the lexicon can serve as a foundation for collaborative efforts to improve the policies, implementation, assessments, research, and learning about this important set of conservation approaches.

Un léxico estandarizado de términos para la conservación basada en áreas versión 10 Resumen El objetivo 3 del Marco Global para la Biodiversidad de Kunming­Montreal (GBF) establece la protección de al menos el 30% de los suelos y aguas del planeta con estrategias de conservación basada en áreas para el 2030. Este objetivo ambicioso de 30x30 ha provocado un gran interés por definir y medir la eficiencia de este tipo de estrategias entre quienes hacen las políticas, los practicantes y los investigadores. Junto con este interés generalizado también ha habido una proliferación de términos y abreviaciones usados para describir los diferentes tipos de áreas de conservación y su gestión, planeación, manejo y monitoreo. La falta de términos estandarizados dificulta el uso y la evaluación de las estrategias basadas en áreas para conservar la biodiversidad mundial. Es difícil registrar los avances hacia el Objetivo 3 del GBF o compartir el aprendizaje con otros practicantes si diferentes grupos de personas usan diferentes palabras para describir el mismo concepto o palabras similares para hablar de conceptos distintos. Para abordar este problema, la Comisión Mundial de Áreas Protegidas de la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza comisionó un grupo de trabajo para que revise los términos existentes y recomiende un léxico estandarizado en inglés para este campo con base en criterios clave. Como resultado obtuvieron la definición para 37 términos de seis categorías, incluyendo los tipos de área protegida y las áreas adicionales de conservación (p. ej.: área protegida, área adicional de conservación), los conjuntos de estas áreas (p. ej.: red de áreas protegidas, sistema de áreas protegidas), su gestión y manejo (gobernanza, derechohabientes), evaluación (efectividad, equidad), planeación espacial (área clave de biodiversidad) y plan de acción (valor, resultado, objetivo). Nuestro léxico estandarizado puede proporcionar un lenguaje común para la gente que quiera usarlo y una referencia compartida que puede usarse para traducir varios términos que usan los diferentes grupos. El conocimiento común proporcionado por el léxico puede fungir como una base para que los esfuerzos colaborativos mejoren las políticas, implementación, evaluación, investigación y aprendizaje sobre este conjunto importante de estrategias de conservación.

Patients' preferences for fracture risk communication: the Risk Communication in Osteoporosis (RICO) study.

The RICO study indicated that most patients would like to receive information regarding their fracture risk but that only a small majority have actually received it. Patients globally preferred a visual presentation of fracture risk and were interested in an online tool showing the risk. PURPOSE: The aim of the Risk Communication in Osteoporosis (RICO) study was to assess patients' preferences regarding fracture risk communication. METHODS: To assess patients' preferences for fracture risk communication, structured interviews with women with osteoporosis or who were at risk for fracture were conducted in 11 sites around the world, namely in Argentina, Belgium, Canada at Hamilton and with participants from the Osteoporosis Canada Canadian Osteoporosis Patient Network (COPN), Japan, Mexico, Spain, the Netherlands, the UK, and the USA in California and Washington state. The interviews used to collect data were designed on the basis of a systematic review and a qualitative pilot study involving 26 participants at risk of fracture. RESULTS: A total of 332 women (mean age 67.5 ± 8.0 years, 48% with a history of fracture) were included in the study. Although the participants considered it important to receive information about their fracture risk (mean importance of 6.2 ± 1.4 on a 7-point Likert scale), only 56% (i.e. 185/332) had already received such information. Globally, participants preferred a visual presentation with a traffic-light type of coloured graph of their FRAX® fracture risk probability, compared to a verbal or written presentation. Almost all participants considered it important to discuss their fracture risk and the consequences of fractures with their healthcare professionals in addition to receiving information in a printed format or access to an online website showing their fracture risk. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant communication gap between healthcare professionals and patients when discussing osteoporosis fracture risk. The RICO study provides insight into preferred approaches to rectify this communication gap.

Speech and Speech-Related Quality of Life After Late Palate Repair: A Patient's Perspective.

Many patients with cleft palate deformities worldwide receive treatment at a later age than is recommended for normal speech to develop. The outcomes after late palate repairs in terms of speech and quality of life (QOL) still remain largely unstudied. In the current study, questionnaires were used to assess the patients' perception of speech and QOL before and after primary palate repair. All of the patients were operated at a cleft center in northeast India and had a cleft palate with a normal lip or with a cleft lip that had been previously repaired. A total of 134 patients (7-35 years) were interviewed preoperatively and 46 patients (7-32 years) were assessed in the postoperative survey. The survey showed that scores based on the speech handicap index, concerning speech and speech-related QOL, did not improve postoperatively. In fact, the questionnaires indicated that the speech became more unpredictable (P < 0.01) and that nasal regurgitation became worse (P < 0.01) for some patients after surgery. A total of 78% of the patients were still satisfied with the surgery and all of the patients reported that their self-confidence had improved after the operation. Thus, the majority of interviewed patients who underwent late primary palate repair were satisfied with the surgery. At the same time, speech and speech-related QOL did not improve according to the speech handicap index-based survey. Speech predictability may even become worse and nasal regurgitation may increase after late palate repair, according to these results.

Limited Chances of Speech Improvement After Late Cleft Palate Repair.

Late primary palatal repair is a common phenomenon, and many patients across the world will be operated on at a far later age than is suggested for normal speech development. Nevertheless, little is known about the speech outcomes after these procedures and conflicting results exist among the few studies performed. In this study, blinded preoperative and postoperative speech recordings from 31 patients operated on at Guwahati Comprehensive Cleft Care Center in Assam, India, older than 7 years were evaluated. Six non-Indian speech and language pathologists evaluated hypernasal resonance and articulation, and 4 local laymen evaluated the speech intelligibility/acceptability of the samples. In 25 of 31 cases, the evaluators could not detect any speech improvement in the postoperative recordings. A clear trend of postoperative improvement was only found in 6 of the 31 patients. Among these 6 patients, lesser clefts were overrepresented. Our findings together with previous studies suggest that late palate repairs have the potential to improve speech, but the probability for improvement and degree of improvement is low, especially in older adolescents and adults with complete clefts.