ORCID Profile
0000-0002-1178-4969
Current Organisations
University of East Anglia
,
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: American Psychiatric Association Publishing
Date: 05-2018
DOI: 10.1176/APPI.PS.201700258
Abstract: This study tested the effectiveness of a nurse-delivered health check with the Health Improvement Profile (HIP), which takes approximately 1.5 hours to complete and code, for persons with severe mental illness. A single-blind, cluster-randomized controlled trial was conducted in England to test whether health checks improved the general medical well-being of persons with severe mental illness at 12-month follow-up. Sixty nurses were randomly assigned to the HIP group or the treatment-as-usual group. From their case lists, 173 patients agreed to participate. HIP group nurses completed health checks for 38 of their 90 patients (42%) at baseline and 22 (24%) at follow-up. No significant between-group differences were noted in patients' general medical well-being at follow-up. Nurses who had volunteered for a clinical trial administered health checks only to a minority of participating patients, suggesting that it may not be feasible to undertake such lengthy structured health checks in routine practice.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 08-2022
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2020
Publisher: MDPI AG
Date: 31-01-2021
DOI: 10.3390/W13030371
Abstract: The biological assessment of rivers i.e., their assessment through use of aquatic assemblages, integrates the effects of multiple-stressors on these systems over time and is essential to evaluate ecosystem condition and establish recovery measures. It has been undertaken in many countries since the 1990s, but not globally. And where national or multi-national monitoring networks have gathered large amounts of data, the poor water body classifications have not necessarily resulted in the rehabilitation of rivers. Thus, here we aimed to identify major gaps in the biological assessment and rehabilitation of rivers worldwide by focusing on the best ex les in Asia, Europe, Oceania, and North, Central, and South America. Our study showed that it is not possible so far to draw a world map of the ecological quality of rivers. Biological assessment of rivers and streams is only implemented officially nation-wide and regularly in the European Union, Japan, Republic of Korea, South Africa, and the USA. In Australia, Canada, China, New Zealand, and Singapore it has been implemented officially at the state rovince level (in some cases using common protocols) or in major catchments or even only once at the national level to define reference conditions (Australia). In other cases, biological monitoring is driven by a specific problem, impact assessments, water licenses, or the need to rehabilitate a river or a river section (as in Brazil, South Korea, China, Canada, Japan, Australia). In some countries monitoring programs have only been explored by research teams mostly at the catchment or local level (e.g., Brazil, Mexico, Chile, China, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam) or implemented by citizen science groups (e.g., Southern Africa, Gambia, East Africa, Australia, Brazil, Canada). The existing large-extent assessments show a striking loss of bio ersity in the last 2–3 decades in Japanese and New Zealand rivers (e.g., 42% and 70% of fish species threatened or endangered, respectively). A poor condition (below Good condition) exists in 25% of South Korean rivers, half of the European water bodies, and 44% of USA rivers, while in Australia 30% of the reaches s led were significantly impaired in 2006. Regarding river rehabilitation, the greatest implementation has occurred in North America, Australia, Northern Europe, Japan, Singapore, and the Republic of Korea. Most rehabilitation measures have been related to improving water quality and river connectivity for fish or the improvement of riparian vegetation. The limited extent of most rehabilitation measures (i.e., not considering the entire catchment) often constrains the improvement of biological condition. Yet, many rehabilitation projects also lack pre-and/or post-monitoring of ecological condition, which prevents assessing the success and shortcomings of the recovery measures. Economic constraints are the most cited limitation for implementing monitoring programs and rehabilitation actions, followed by technical limitations, limited knowledge of the fauna and flora and their life-history traits (especially in Africa, South America and Mexico), and poor awareness by decision-makers. On the other hand, citizen involvement is recognized as key to the success and sustainability of rehabilitation projects. Thus, establishing rehabilitation needs, defining clear goals, tracking progress towards achieving them, and involving local populations and stakeholders are key recommendations for rehabilitation projects (Table 1). Large-extent and long-term monitoring programs are also essential to provide a realistic overview of the condition of rivers worldwide. Soon, the use of DNA biological s les and eDNA to investigate aquatic ersity could contribute to reducing costs and thus increase monitoring efforts and a more complete assessment of bio ersity. Finally, we propose developing transcontinental teams to elaborate and improve technical guidelines for implementing biological monitoring programs and river rehabilitation and establishing common financial and technical frameworks for managing international catchments. We also recommend providing such expert teams through the United Nations Environment Program to aid the extension of biomonitoring, bioassessment, and river rehabilitation knowledge globally.
Publisher: MDPI AG
Date: 08-05-2023
DOI: 10.3390/D15050636
Abstract: The types and intensification of land use in the watershed affect the living organisms in aquatic ecosystems differently this impact will also vary according to temporal and spatial scales. Understanding these interactions is crucial in the design of biomonitoring programs to detect the effect of different pollutants in freshwater ecosystems and improve watershed management and conservation strategies. Therefore, this paper qualitatively reviews biomonitoring studies in freshwater ecosystems to evaluate the impact of different land use types on multiple scales in watersheds. The paper is organized into four sections. The first section presents biomonitoring in different freshwater systems (streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs). In the second section, we describe the biomonitoring characteristics of the main land use types. In the third section, we explain how spatial and temporal scales affect biomonitoring. Finally, in the fourth section, we focus on biomonitoring planning and future prediction and discuss how to design biomonitoring programs and how to use models and eDNA in biomonitoring. Our review will assist in decision-making regarding biomonitoring programs in watersheds and will guide future studies on the different bioindicators for various land use types in erse ecosystems worldwide.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 17-10-2022
DOI: 10.1111/GCB.16439
Abstract: Rivers suffer from multiple stressors acting simultaneously on their biota, but the consequences are poorly quantified at the global scale. We evaluated the biological condition of rivers globally, including the largest proportion of countries from the Global South published to date. We gathered macroinvertebrate- and fish-based assessments from 72,275 and 37,676 sites, respectively, from 64 study regions across six continents and 45 nations. Because assessments were based on differing methods, different systems were consolidated into a 3-class system: Good, Impaired, or Severely Impaired, following common guidelines. The proportion of sites in each class by study area was calculated and each region was assigned a Köppen-Geiger climate type, Human Footprint score (addressing landscape alterations), Human Development Index (HDI) score (addressing social welfare), % rivers with good ambient water quality, % protected freshwater key bio ersity areas and % of forest area net change rate. We found that 50% of macroinvertebrate sites and 42% of fish sites were in Good condition, whereas 21% and 29% were Severely Impaired, respectively. The poorest biological conditions occurred in Arid and Equatorial climates and the best conditions occurred in Snow climates. Severely Impaired conditions were associated (Pearson correlation coefficient) with higher HDI scores, poorer physico-chemical water quality, and lower proportions of protected freshwater areas. Good biological conditions were associated with good water quality and increased forested areas. It is essential to implement statutory bioassessment programs in Asian, African, and South American countries, and continue them in Oceania, Europe, and North America. There is a need to invest in assessments based on fish, as there is less information globally and fish were strong indicators of degradation. Our study highlights a need to increase the extent and number of protected river catchments, preserve and restore natural forested areas in the catchments, treat wastewater discharges, and improve river connectivity.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Diego Macedo.