Reframing wildlife disease management problems with decision analysis.

Contemporary wildlife disease management is complex because managers need to respond to a wide range of stakeholders, multiple uncertainties, and difficult trade-offs that characterize the interconnected challenges of today. Despite general acknowledgment of these complexities, managing wildlife disease tends to be framed as a scientific problem, in which the major challenge is lack of knowledge. The complex and multifactorial process of decision-making is collapsed into a scientific endeavor to reduce uncertainty. As a result, contemporary decision-making may be oversimplified, rely on simple heuristics, and fail to account for the broader legal, social, and economic context in which the decisions are made. Concurrently, scientific research on wildlife disease may be distant from this decision context, resulting in information that may not be directly relevant to the pertinent management questions. We propose reframing wildlife disease management challenges as decision problems and addressing them with decision analytical tools to divide the complex problems into more cognitively manageable elements. In particular, structured decision-making has the potential to improve the quality, rigor, and transparency of decisions about wildlife disease in a variety of systems. Examples of management of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, white-nose syndrome, avian influenza, and chytridiomycosis illustrate the most common impediments to decision-making, including competing objectives, risks, prediction uncertainty, and limited resources.

Replanteamiento del manejo de problemas por enfermedades de fauna mediante el análisis de decisiones Resumen El manejo actual de las enfermedades de la fauna es complejo debido a que los gestores necesitan responder a una amplia gama de actores, varias incertidumbres y compensaciones difíciles que caracterizan los retos interconectados del día de hoy. A pesar de que en general se reconocen estas complejidades, el manejo de las enfermedades tiende a plantearse como un problema científico en el que el principal obstáculo es la falta de conocimiento. El proceso complejo y multifactorial de la toma decisiones está colapsado dentro de un esfuerzo científico para reducir la incertidumbre. Como resultado de esto, las decisiones contemporáneas pueden estar simplificadas en exceso, depender de métodos heurísticos simples y no considerar el contexto legal, social y económico más amplio en el que se toman las decisiones. De manera paralela, las investigaciones científicas sobre las enfermedades de la fauna pueden estar lejos de este contexto de decisiones, lo que deriva en información que puede no ser directamente relevante para las preguntas pertinentes de manejo. Proponemos replantear los obstáculos para el manejo de enfermedades de fauna como problemas de decisión y abordarlos con herramientas analíticas de decisión para dividir los problemas complejos en elementos más manejables de manera cognitiva. En particular, las decisiones estructuradas tienen el potencial de mejorar la calidad, el rigor y la transparencia de las decisiones sobre las enfermedades de la fauna en una variedad de sistemas. Ejemplos como el manejo del coronavirus del síndrome de respiración agudo tipo 2, el síndrome de nariz blanca, la influenza aviar y la quitridiomicosis ilustran los impedimentos más comunes para la toma de decisiones, incluyendo los objetivos en competencia, riesgos, incertidumbre en las predicciones y recursos limitados.

Bridging the gap between research evidence and its implementation in public health practice: case studies of embedded research model.

AIM: To investigate the potential of embedded research in bridging the gap between research evidence and its implementation in public health practice. METHODS: Using a case study methodology, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 4 embedded researchers, 9 public health practitioners, and 4 other stakeholders (2 teachers and 2 students) across four case study sites. Sites and individuals were purposively selected. Sites included two local authorities, one secondary school, and one sports organisation. Thematic data analysis was adopted to analyse the qualitative data. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: (1) building and maintaining relationships, (2) working with stakeholders, (3) informing practice, and (4) critical reflection. CONCLUSIONS: Embedded researchers build and maintain relationships with practitioners and other stakeholders to produce research. Evidence from the co-produced research informs future practice and research to improve service and delivery rendered to the public. Thus, embedded researchers use their role to bridge the research evidence - implementation gap in public health practice.

Does the low-carbon city pilot policy work in China? A company-level analysis based on the PSM-DID model.

To reduce carbon emissions and pursue sustainable economic development, China's central government formulated the low-carbon city pilot (LCCP) policy. Current studies focus primarily on the impact of the policy at the macro level (provinces and cities). So far, no study has looked at the impact of the LCCP policy on companies' environmental expenditures. Besides, as the LCCP policy is a weak-constraining central policy, it is interesting to see how it works at the company level. We employ company-level empirical data and the Propensity Score Matching - Difference in Differences (PSM-DID) method, which outperforms the traditional DID model in avoiding sample selection bias, to address the above issues. We concentrate on the second phase of the LCCP policy from 2010 to 2016, encompassing 197 listed companies in China's secondary and transportation industries. Our statistical results show that if the listed company's host city has piloted the LCCP policy, the company's environmental expenditures are reduced by 0.91 points at the 1% significance level. The above finding calls attention to the policy-implementation gap between the central and the local governments in China, which may make those weak-constraining central policies like the LCCP policy have purpose-defeating outcomes at the company level.

Bridging research and practice in conservation.

Calls for biodiversity conservation practice to be more evidence based are growing, and we agree evidence use in conservation practice needs improvement. However, evidence-based conservation will not be realized without improved access to evidence. In medicine, unlike in conservation, a well-established and well-funded layer of intermediary individuals and organizations engage with medical practitioners, synthesize primary research relevant to decision making, and make evidence easily accessible. These intermediaries prepare targeted evidence summaries and distribute them to practitioners faced with time-sensitive and value-laden decisions. To be effective, these intermediaries, who we refer to as evidence bridges, should identify research topics based on the priorities of practitioners; synthesize evidence; prepare and distribute easy-to-find and easy-to-use evidence summaries; and develop and maintain networks of connections with researchers and practitioners. Based on a review of the literature regarding evidence intermediaries in conservation and environmental management, as well as an anonymous questionnaire searching for such organizations, we found few intermediaries that met all these criteria. Few evidence bridges that do exist are unable to reach most conservation practitioners, which include resource managers in government and industry, conservation organizations, and farmers and other private landowners. We argue that the lack of evidence bridges from research to practitioners contributes to evidence complacency and limits the use of evidence in conservation action. Nevertheless, several existing organizations help reduce the gap between evidence and practice and could serve as a foundation for building additional components of evidence bridges in conservation. Although evidence bridges need expertise in research and evidence synthesis, they also require expertise in identifying and communicating with the community of practitioners most in need of clear and concise syntheses of evidence. Article Impact Statement: Evidence-based conservation will not be realized without improved access to evidence. We call for intermediary evidence bridges.

Vinculación entre la Investigación y la Práctica en la Conservación Resumen Cada vez existen más peticiones para que las prácticas de conservación de la biodiversidad estén más basadas en evidencias, además de que apoyamos la idea de que el uso de evidencias en la práctica de la conservación necesita mejorar. Sin embargo, la conservación basada en la evidencia no se logrará sin un acceso mejorado a las evidencias. En la medicina, no como en la conservación, un estrato bien establecido y financiado de individuos y organizaciones intermediarias interactúan con los médicos, sintetizan las investigaciones primarias relevantes para la toma de decisiones y hacen que las evidencias sean de fácil acceso. Estos intermediarios preparan resúmenes de evidencias específicas y los distribuyen a los médicos que enfrentan decisiones urgentes y muy valiosas. Para que sean efectivos, estos intermediarios, a quienes nos referimos como puentes de evidencias, deben poder identificar los temas de estudio con base en las prioridades de los practicantes, sintetizar evidencias, preparar y distribuir resúmenes fáciles de encontrar y fáciles de usar, y desarrollar y mantener redes de conexiones con los investigadores y los practicantes. Con base en una revisión de la literatura correspondiente a los intermediarios de evidencias en la conservación y el manejo ambiental, así como en un cuestionario anónimo que busca a dichas organizaciones, encontramos a pocos intermediarios que cumplieran con estos criterios. Los pocos puentes de evidencias que existen no son capaces de llegar a la mayoría de los practicantes de la conservación, los cuales incluyen a los gestores de recursos en el gobierno y en la industria, a las organizaciones de conservación y a los agricultores y otros terratenientes privados. Argumentamos que la falta de puentes de evidencia entre los investigadores y los practicantes contribuye a la indulgencia de evidencias y limita el uso de evidencias en las acciones de conservación. Sin embargo, varias organizaciones existentes ayudan a reducir la brecha entre la evidencia y la práctica y podrían funcionar como base para la construcción de componentes adicionales para los puentes de evidencia en la conservación. Aunque los puentes de evidencias necesitan experiencia con la investigación y con la síntesis de evidencias, también requieren experiencia con la identificación de y comunicación con la comunidad de practicantes que más necesitan una síntesis clara y concisa de la evidencia.

Shared ways of thinking in Brazil about the science-practice interface in ecology and conservation.

The debate in the literature on the science-practice interface suggests a diversity of opinions on how to link science and practice to improve conservation. Understanding this diversity is key to addressing unequal power relations, avoiding the consideration of only dominant views, and identifying strategies to link science and practice. In turn, linking science and practice should promote conservation decisions that are socially robust and scientifically informed. To identify and describe the viewpoints of scientists and decision makers on how the science-practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions, we interviewed Brazilian scientists (ecologists and conservation scientists, n = 11) and decision makers (n = 11). We used Q methodology and asked participants to rank their agreement with 48 statements on how the science-practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions. We used principal component analysis to identify shared viewpoints. The predominant viewpoint, shared by scientists and decision makers, was characterized by valuing the integration of scientific and strategic knowledge to address environmental problems. The second viewpoint, held mostly by decision makers, was distinguished by assigning great importance to science in the decision-making process and calling for problem-relevant research. The third viewpoint, shared only by scientists, was characterized by an unwillingness to collaborate and a perception of scientists as producers of knowledge that may help decision makers. Most participants agreed organizations should promote collaboration and that actors and knowledge from both science and practice are relevant. Disagreements concerned specific roles assigned to actors, willingness to collaborate, and organizational and institutional arrangements considered effective to link science and practice. Our results suggest there is ample room for collaborations and that impediments lie mainly in existing organizations and formal institutional arrangements rather than in negative attitudes between scientists and decision makers.

Formas de Pensar Compartidas en Brasil sobre la Interrelación Ciencia-Práctica en la Ecología y la Conservación Resumen El debate en la literatura sobre la interrelación ciencia-práctica sugiere una diversidad de opiniones sobre cómo conectar a la ciencia con la práctica para mejorar la conservación. La comprensión de esta diversidad es clave para tratar con las relaciones desiguales de poder, evitar la considerar únicamente de los puntos de vista dominantes, e identificar las estrategias para vincular a la ciencia con la práctica. En cambio, la vinculación entre la ciencia y la práctica debería promover las decisiones de conservación que son socialmente fuertes y científicamente informadas. Entrevistamos a científicos (ecólogos y conservadores, n = 11) y tomadores de decisiones (n = 11) en Brasil para identificar y describir los puntos de vista de los científicos y de quienes toman las decisiones sobre cómo la interrelación ciencia-práctica debería trabajar con tal de mejorar las decisiones de conservación. Usamos la metodología Q y les pedimos a los participantes que clasificaran su acuerdo con 48 declaraciones sobre cómo la interrelación ciencia-práctica debería trabajar para mejorar las decisiones de conservación. Utilizamos un análisis de componentes principales para identificar los puntos de vista compartidos. El punto de vista predominante, compartido entre los científicos y quienes toman las decisiones, se caracterizó por el valor que le dio a la integración del conocimiento científico y el estratégico para tratar los problemas ambientales. El segundo punto de vista, compartido por la mayoría de quienes toman las decisiones, se distinguió por asignarle una gran importancia a la ciencia en cuanto al proceso de toma de decisiones y a la petición de investigación relevante para los problemas. El tercer punto de vista, compartido sólo entre los científicos, se caracterizó por el rechazo a colaborar y por la percepción de los científicos como productores de conocimiento que puede ayudar a quienes toman las decisiones. La mayoría de los participantes estuvo de acuerdo en que las organizaciones deberían promover la colaboración y en que los actores y el conocimiento científico y práctico son relevantes. Los desacuerdos estuvieron relacionados con los roles específicos asignados a los actores, el deseo de colaborar, y los arreglos institucionales y de organización considerados como efectivos para vincular a la ciencia con la práctica. Nuestros resultados sugieren que existe suficiente espacio para las colaboraciones y que los impedimentos se deben principalmente a las organizaciones existentes y a los arreglos institucionales formales en lugar de a las actitudes negativas entre los científicos y quienes toman las decisiones.

Exploration of Concerns about the Evidence-Based Guideline Approach in Conservation Management: Hints from Medical Practice.

The importance of using evidence in decision-making is frequently highlighted in policy reports and scientific papers. However, subjective judgments of the reliability of environmental evidence vary widely, and large-scale systematic searches for evidence are only common for climate-related topics. In the medical field, evidence-based guidelines are routinely used to guide treatments. In the management of multiple-use landscapes similar guidelines could substantially narrow the science-practice gap but are largely absent. The challenges potential guidelines face are therefore unknown. For the case of forest conservation, we conducted 14 semistructured interviews with mainly forest practitioners and presented them an example medical guideline together with evidence-based statements on forest conservation (hereinafter: statement paper). We identified 28 concerns related to potential evidence-based guidelines in forest conservation. The interviews yielded approximately three major findings. First, recommendations on forest conservation are better accepted if they include clear instructions and are formulated for a specific context. Fragmentary conservation evidence complicates the formulation of specific recommendations. Second, the level of evidence framework, which indicates the strength of the available evidence, is perceived as too complex. Third, neglecting forest multifunctionality in a potential guideline hampers its application but, if addressed, potentially weakens its ecological relevance. We show that major concerns about potential evidence-based conservation guidelines are similar to the challenges experienced by medical guidelines. We also identify concerns unique to forestry.

Monitoring, imperfect detection, and risk optimization of a Tasmanian devil insurance population.

Most species are imperfectly detected during biological surveys, which creates uncertainty around their abundance or presence at a given location. Decision makers managing threatened or pest species are regularly faced with this uncertainty. Wildlife diseases can drive species to extinction; thus, managing species with disease is an important part of conservation. Devil facial tumor disease (DFTD) is one such disease that led to the listing of the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) as endangered. Managers aim to maintain devils in the wild by establishing disease-free insurance populations at isolated sites. Often a resident DFTD-affected population must first be removed. In a successful collaboration between decision scientists and wildlife managers, we used an accessible population model to inform monitoring decisions and facilitate the establishment of an insurance population of devils on Forestier Peninsula. We used a Bayesian catch-effort model to estimate population size of a diseased population from removal and camera trap data. We also analyzed the costs and benefits of declaring the area disease-free prior to reintroduction and establishment of a healthy insurance population. After the monitoring session in May-June 2015, the probability that all devils had been successfully removed was close to 1, even when we accounted for a possible introduction of a devil to the site. Given this high probability and the baseline cost of declaring population absence prematurely, we found it was not cost-effective to carry out any additional monitoring before introducing the insurance population. Considering these results within the broader context of Tasmanian devil management, managers ultimately decided to implement an additional monitoring session before the introduction. This was a conservative decision that accounted for uncertainty in model estimates and for the broader nonmonetary costs of mistakenly declaring the area disease-free.

Making habitat connectivity a reality.

Although a plethora of habitat-connectivity plans exists, protecting and restoring connectivity through on-the-ground action has been slow. We identified challenges to and opportunities for connectivity conservation through a literature review of project implementation, a workshop with scientists and conservation practitioners, 3 case studies of connectivity projects, and interviews with conservation professionals. Connectivity challenges and solutions tended to be context specific, dependent on land-ownership patterns, socioeconomic factors, and the policy framework. Successful connectivity implementation tended to be associated with development and promotion of a common vision among diverse sets of stakeholders, including nontraditional conservation actors, such as water districts and recreation departments, and with communication with partners and the public. Other factors that lead to successful implementation included undertaking empirical studies to prioritize and validate corridors and the identification of related co-benefits of corridor projects. Engaging partners involved in land management and planning, such as nongovernmental conservation organizations, public agencies, and private landowners, is critical to effective strategy implementation. A clear regulatory framework, including unambiguous connectivity conservation mandates, would increase public resource allocation, and incentive programs are needed to promote private sector engagement. Connectivity conservation must move more rapidly from planning to implementation. We provide an evidence-based solution composed of key elements for successful on-the-ground connectivity implementation. We identified the social processes necessary to advance habitat connectivity for biodiversity conservation and resilient landscapes under climate change.

Street-level workers' inadequate knowledge and application of exemption policies in Burkina Faso jeopardize the achievement of universal health coverage: evidence from a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Street-level workers play a key role in public health policies in Africa, as they are often the ones to ensure their implementation. In Burkina Faso, the State formulated two different user-fee exemption policies for indigents, one for deliveries (2007), and one for primary healthcare (2009). The objective of this study was to measure and understand the determinants of street-level workers' knowledge and application of these exemption measures. METHODS: We used cross-sectional data collected between October 2013 and March 2014. The survey targeted 1521 health workers distributed in 498 first-line centres, 18 district hospitals, 5 regional hospitals, and 11 private or other facilities across 24 districts. We used four different random effects models to identify factors associated with knowledge and application of each of the above-mentioned exemption policies. RESULTS: Only 9.2% of workers surveyed knew of the directive exempting the worst-off, and only 5% implemented it. Knowledge and application of the delivery exemption were higher, with 27% of all health workers being aware of the delivery exemption directive and 24.2% applying it. Mobile health workers were found to be consistently more likely to apply both exemptions. Health workers who were facility heads were significantly more likely to know about the indigent exemption for primary health care and to apply it. Health workers in districts with higher proportions of very poor people were significantly more likely to know about and apply the delivery exemption. Nearly 60% of respondents indicated either 5% or 10% as the percentage of people they would deem adequate to target for exemption. CONCLUSION: This quantitative study confirmed earlier qualitative results on the importance of training and informing health workers and monitoring the measures targeting equity, to ensure compliance with government directives. The local context (e.g., hierarchy, health system, interventions) and the ideas that street-level workers have about the policy instruments can influence their effective implementation. Methods for remunerating health workers and health centres also need to be adapted to ensure equity measures are applied to achieve universal healthcare.

Knowledge that Acts: Evaluating the Outcomes of a Knowledge Brokering Intervention in Western Australia's Ningaloo Region.

Knowledge exchange involves a suite of strategies used to bridge the divides between research, policy and practice. The literature is increasingly focused on the notion that knowledge generated by research is more useful when there is significant interaction and knowledge sharing between researchers and research recipients (i.e., stakeholders). This is exemplified by increasing calls for the use of knowledge brokers to facilitate interaction and flow of information between scientists and stakeholder groups, and the integration of scientific and local knowledge. However, most of the environmental management literature focuses on explicit forms of knowledge, leaving unmeasured the tacit relational and reflective forms of knowledge that lead people to change their behaviour. In addition, despite the high transaction costs of knowledge brokering and related stakeholder engagement, there is little research on its effectiveness. We apply Park's Manag Learn 30(2), 141-157 (1999); Knowledge and Participatory Research, London: SAGE Publications (2006) tri-partite knowledge typology as a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of knowledge brokering in the context of a large multi-agency research programme in Australia's Ningaloo coastal region, and for testing the assumption that higher levels of interaction between scientists and stakeholders lead to improved knowledge exchange. While the knowledge brokering intervention substantively increased relational networks between scientists and stakeholders, it did not generate anticipated increases in stakeholder knowledge or research application, indicating that more prolonged stakeholder engagement was required, and/or that there was a flaw in the assumptions underpinning our conceptual framework.

Beyond protection: Expanding "conservation opportunity" to redefine conservation planning in the 21st century.

The protected lands estate increased dramatically during the 20th century and forms the backbone of current fisheries and wildlife conservation in North America. However, there is increasing evidence that modern conservation goals cannot be achieved by only focusing on adding new acreage, particularly with opportunistic protection. In the 21st century, flexibility and adaptability of conservation options can be accomplished by expanding the vocabulary of conservation planning beyond protection. We suggest a conceptual framework that considers suites of objectives to translate the broad goal of "conservation" into multiple implementation-specific objectives. These objectives form the "PCRM-PI" approach: protect, connect, restore, manage, partner, and inform. We use a case study to illustrate the limitations of protection-centric planning and how expanding the definition of conservation opportunity can help planners do more on the landscape. We suggest that the PCRM-PI approach with implementation-specific objectives is an effective way to bridge planning-implementation gaps and translate broad, landscape-level conservation goals into implementable actions.

The effect of scientific evidence on conservation practitioners' management decisions.

A major justification of environmental management research is that it helps practitioners, yet previous studies show it is rarely used to inform their decisions. We tested whether conservation practitioners focusing on bird management were willing to use a synopsis of relevant scientific literature to inform their management decisions. This allowed us to examine whether the limited use of scientific information in management is due to a lack of access to the scientific literature or whether it is because practitioners are either not interested or unable to incorporate the research into their decisions. In on-line surveys, we asked 92 conservation managers, predominantly from Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, to provide opinions on 28 management techniques that could be applied to reduce predation on birds. We asked their opinions before and after giving them a summary of the literature about the interventions' effectiveness. We scored the overall effectiveness and certainty of evidence for each intervention through an expert elicitation process-the Delphi method. We used the effectiveness scores to assess the practitioners' level of understanding and awareness of the literature. On average, each survey participant changed their likelihood of using 45.7% of the interventions after reading the synopsis of the evidence. They were more likely to implement effective interventions and avoid ineffective actions, suggesting that their intended future management strategies may be more successful than current practice. More experienced practitioners were less likely to change their management practices than those with less experience, even though they were not more aware of the existing scientific information than less experienced practitioners. The practitioners' willingness to change their management choices when provided with summarized scientific evidence suggests that improved accessibility to scientific information would benefit conservation management outcomes.

Evaluating well-being and psychosocial risks in academia: Is management the "forgotten phase"?

In recent years, there has been a noticeable increase in attention towards promoting well-being within academic settings. In the specific context of academia, a critical issue is understanding whether the current practices for assessing and managing well-being can bridge the implementation gap and increase opportunities for creating healthy academic conditions. The paper explores the practices adopted for assessing and managing work-related stress (WRS) risks in Italian academia by referring to data from a group of Italian universities of the QoL@Work network (Quality of Life at Work in academia). The aim is to improve understanding of the factors that influence the realization of a WRS risk assessment-management pathway and how they may facilitate or hinder the transition from assessment to the implementation of interventions in the academic context. The results suggest that the assessment-management pathway should prioritize the creation of organizational scaffolding to support participatory processes in order to prevent the data collected from failing to stimulate organizational change in working conditions.

Practical recommendations to help students bridge the research-implementation gap and promote conservation.

Seasoned conservation researchers often struggle to bridge the research-implementation gap and promote the translation of their work into meaningful conservation actions. Graduate students face the same problems and must contend with obstacles such as limited opportunities for relevant interdisciplinary training and a lack of institutional support for application of research results. However, students also have a crucial set of opportunities (e.g., access to academic resources outside their degree programs and opportunities to design research projects promoting collaboration with stakeholders) at their disposal to address these problems. On the basis of results of breakout discussions at a symposium on the human dimensions of the ocean, a review of the literature, and our own experiences, we devised recommendations on how graduate students can create resources within their academic institutions, institutionalize resources, and engage with stakeholders to promote real-world conservation outcomes. Within their academic institutions, graduate students should foster links to practitioners and promote knowledge and skill sharing among students. To institutionalize resources, students should cultivate student leaders and faculty sponsors, systematically document their program activities, and engage in strategic planning to promote the sustainability of their efforts. While conducting research, students should create connections to and engage actively with stakeholders in their relevant study areas and disseminate research results both to stakeholders and the broader public. Our recommendations can serve as a template for graduate students wishing to bridge the research-implementation gap, both during their current studies and in their future careers as conservation researchers and practitioners.

Contribution of systematic reviews to management decisions.

Systematic reviews comprehensively summarize evidence about the effectiveness of conservation interventions. We investigated the contribution to management decisions made by this growing body of literature. We identified 43 systematic reviews of conservation evidence, 23 of which drew some concrete conclusions relevant to management. Most reviews addressed conservation interventions relevant to policy decisions; only 35% considered practical on-the-ground management interventions. The majority of reviews covered only a small fraction of the geographic and taxonomic breadth they aimed to address (median = 13% of relevant countries and 16% of relevant taxa). The likelihood that reviews contained at least some implications for management tended to increase as geographic coverage increased and to decline as taxonomic breadth increased. These results suggest the breadth of a systematic review requires careful consideration. Reviews identified a mean of 312 relevant primary studies but excluded 88% of these because of deficiencies in design or a failure to meet other inclusion criteria. Reviews summarized on average 284 data sets and 112 years of research activity, yet the likelihood that their results had at least some implications for management did not increase as the amount of primary research summarized increased. In some cases, conclusions were elusive despite the inclusion of hundreds of data sets and years of cumulative research activity. Systematic reviews are an important part of the conservation decision making tool kit, although we believe the benefits of systematic reviews could be significantly enhanced by increasing the number of reviews focused on questions of direct relevance to on-the-ground managers; defining a more focused geographic and taxonomic breadth that better reflects available data; including a broader range of evidence types; and appraising the cost-effectiveness of interventions.

Achieving conservation science that bridges the knowledge-action boundary.

There are many barriers to using science to inform conservation policy and practice. Conservation scientists wishing to produce management-relevant science must balance this goal with the imperative of demonstrating novelty and rigor in their science. Decision makers seeking to make evidence-based decisions must balance a desire for knowledge with the need to act despite uncertainty. Generating science that will effectively inform management decisions requires that the production of information (the components of knowledge) be salient (relevant and timely), credible (authoritative, believable, and trusted), and legitimate (developed via a process that considers the values and perspectives of all relevant actors) in the eyes of both researchers and decision makers. We perceive 3 key challenges for those hoping to generate conservation science that achieves all 3 of these information characteristics. First, scientific and management audiences can have contrasting perceptions about the salience of research. Second, the pursuit of scientific credibility can come at the cost of salience and legitimacy in the eyes of decision makers, and, third, different actors can have conflicting views about what constitutes legitimate information. We highlight 4 institutional frameworks that can facilitate science that will inform management: boundary organizations (environmental organizations that span the boundary between science and management), research scientists embedded in resource management agencies, formal links between decision makers and scientists at research-focused institutions, and training programs for conservation professionals. Although these are not the only approaches to generating boundary-spanning science, nor are they mutually exclusive, they provide mechanisms for promoting communication, translation, and mediation across the knowledge-action boundary. We believe that despite the challenges, conservation science should strive to be a boundary science, which both advances scientific understanding and contributes to decision making.

Access to Health Care for Migrants Along the Mexico-United States Border: Applying a Framework to Assess Barriers to Care in Mexico.

Background: Migrants in Mexico are entitled to care at all levels, independently of their migration status. However, previous studies show that access to care is difficult for this population. As the movement of in-transit migrants and asylum seekers has been interrupted at the Mexico-United States border by migration policies such as the "Remain in Mexico" program, and by border closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Mexican health system has the challenge of providing them with health care. Levesque et al.'s framework, according to which access occurs at the interface of health system characteristics and potential users' abilities to interact with it, is a useful theoretical tool to analyze the barriers faced by migrants. Objective: The objective of this article is to analyze the barriers to access the public Mexican health system, encountered by migrants in cities in Mexican states at the Mexico-United States border during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Data came from a multiple case study of the response of migrant shelters to health care needs during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study consisted of a non-probability survey of migrants with a recent health need, and interviews with persons working in civil society organizations providing services to migrants, governmental actors involved in the response to migration, and academics with expertise in the subject. We analyzed the quantitative and qualitative results according to Levesque et al.'s framework. Results: 36/189 migrants surveyed had sought health care in a public service. The main limitations to access were in the availability and accommodation dimension (administrative barriers decreasing migrants' ability to reach the system), and the affordability dimension (out-of-pocket costs limiting migrants' ability to pay). Civil society organizations were a major source of social support, helping migrants overcome some of the barriers identified. Conclusions: While Mexico's health regulations are inclusive of migrants, in practice there are major barriers to access public health services, which might inhibit migrants from seeking those services. In order to comply with its commitment to guarantee the right to health of all persons, the Mexican health authorities should address the implementation gap between an inclusive policy, and the barriers to access that still remain.

Support for bigger government: The principle-implementation gap and COVID-19.

We study the COVID-19 pandemic's effect on government and market attitudes using within-subject comparisons of survey responses elicited before and after the onset of the pandemic. We find that participants develop significantly less favorable opinions toward government and markets; and that participants increase support for bigger government significantly and for redistribution, in general, marginally significantly. There is no evidence this leads to an increase in support for specific redistributive policies, nor for government to play a larger role in specific functions. Our results echo the stubbornness of American preferences for redistribution and suggest the presence of a principle-implementation gap.

Labor induction information leaflets-Do women receive evidence-based information about the benefits and harms of labor induction?

Objectives: To determine the extent to which a sample of NHS labor induction leaflets reflects evidence on labor induction. Setting: Audit of labor induction patient information leaflets-local from WILL trial (When to Induce Labor to Limit risk in pregnancy hypertension) internal pilot sites or national-level available online. Methods: Descriptive analysis [n = 21 leaflets, 19 (one shared) in 20 WILL internal pilot sites and 2 NHS online] according to NHS "Protocol on the Production of Patient Information" criteria: general information (including indications), why and how induction is offered (including success and alternatives), and potential benefits and harms. Results: All leaflets described an induction indication. Most leaflets (n = 18) mentioned induction location and 16 the potential for delays due to delivery suite workloads and competing clinical priorities. While 19 leaflets discussed membrane sweeping (17 as an induction alternative), only 4 leaflets mentioned balloon catheter as another mechanical method. Induction success (onset of active labor) was presented by a minority of leaflets (n = 7, 33%), as "frequent" or in the "majority", with "rare" or "occasional" failures. Benefits, harms and outcomes following induction were not compared with expectant care, but rather with spontaneous labor, such as for pain (n = 14, with nine stating more pain with induction). Potential benefits of induction were seldom described [n = 7; including avoiding stillbirth (n = 4)], but deemed to be likely. No leaflet stated vaginal birth was more likely following induction, but most stated Cesarean was not increased (n = 12); one leaflet stated that Cesarean risks were increased following induction. Women's satisfaction was rarely presented (n = 2). Conclusion: Information provided to pregnant women regarding labor induction could be improved to better reflect women's choice between induction and expectant care, and the evidence upon which treatment recommendations are based. A multiple stakeholder-involved and evidence-informed process to update guidance is required.

How to make better use of scientific knowledge for cancer prevention.

Cancer prevention research has produced profound scientific knowledge that has led to the development of several evidence-based prevention strategies. But do these research outcomes lead to preventive action in real life? Many factors contribute to the so-called 'implementation gap' between prevention recommendations and their application and adherence, including individual actions and behaviour, health service structures and political actions. This article discusses factors underlying the implementation gap in both clinical- and population-based prevention. Understanding how these factors contribute to the implementation gap is important for planning successful cancer prevention strategies, as well as generally achieving disease prevention.