Explore the vast range of titles available.

Using military‐type strategies and equipment to conserve wildlife, also known as militarized conservation, is highly contested. In sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA), one acutely controversial aspect of militarized conservation is when armed rangers shoot at suspected criminals inside protected and conserved areas (PCAs). We quantified perceptions among members of eight international publics on the acceptability of this particularly contentious aspect of militarized conservation, testing whether acceptability depended on the specific crime rangers suspect people of committing. Overall, acceptability of rangers shooting at suspected criminals inside PCAs in SSA was low across all eight publics, but acceptability was generally higher among participants living further away from PCAs in SSA than those living closer to PCAs in SSA. Shooting in self‐defense and to prevent poaching were consistently most acceptable across all eight publics. Our findings contribute new comparative evidence about international public perceptions of a very sensitive aspect of PCA management in SSA. This evidence may be useful to decision‐makers balancing competing pressures to protect biodiversity, respect local values, and operate with legitimacy in an international context. Our findings are especially relevant in light of international aspirations to simultaneously increase PCAs while respecting the rights and interests of people living in high‐biodiversity areas.

Wild deer are iconic symbols of Scotland's natural and cultural heritage, but their burgeoning populations are increasingly contributing to ecological and socio‐economic harm. In response, the Scottish Government is considering new policy measures to increase the annual deer cull. However, deer management in Scotland is deeply rooted in cultural, economic, and ecological histories and increased culling could be morally contentious. Deer management is topical and frequently in the media. Understanding whether there is a social licence to increase the cull is valuable for anticipating public responses to and the success of suggested policy reforms. We used an online experiment to test whether members of the Scottish public perceived increasing the deer cull in Scotland to be more or less socially acceptable depending on how messages are framed in mock online news articles. Drawing from frames supported by previous literature and present in national news coverage, we tested the influence of text frames (i.e. justifications for deer culling), gain/loss frames (i.e. “increasing” a positive outcome vs. “reducing the loss of” the same positive outcome), and image frames (i.e. “healthy” vs. “unhealthy” deer and setting). Participants generally perceived increasing the cull to be more acceptable than unacceptable, indicating broad public support. We found little evidence that perceptions of acceptability are sensitive to message framing. Participants were slightly more likely to perceive increasing the deer cull as more acceptable if they were shown the healthy image frame compared to the unhealthy image frame. Instead, participants' gender identity, self‐reported social identities (deer stalker, i.e. hunter, or animal protectionist), general experiences and perceptions of deer, and trust in the Scottish Government explained differences in perceptions. Policy implications. Public beliefs, knowledge, social identities, and trust in institutions can help explain why people hold different perspectives on lethal control of deer in Scotland. Engaging with these aspects could help attenuate social conflict as Scotland moves towards a more sustainable system of deer management, which will involve higher levels of culling, a controversial aspect of wildlife conservation. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Ecological terms like mesopredator and mesocarnivore have distinct meanings, the former denoting trophic rank, the latter diet composition. Yet these terms are frequently conflated, leading to conceptual ambiguity. We argue for returning to original definitions and advocate for context‐sensitive, precise language to improve clarity and accuracy in scientific communication about fundamental ecological characteristics of species. Ecological terms like mesopredator and mesocarnivore have distinct meanings, the former denoting trophic rank, the latter diet composition, yet are frequently conflated, leading to conceptual ambiguity. We argue for returning to original definitions and advocate for context‐sensitive, precise language to improve clarity and accuracy in scientific communication about fundamental ecological characteristics of species.

Intense rainfall from tropical cyclones has the potential to induce coastal acidification, which will become more common and severe as climate change continues. We collected carbonate chemistry samples from Galveston Bay, Texas before and after Hurricane Harvey in 2017 and 2018. Here, we show ecosystem level acidification and calcium carbonate undersaturation in Galveston Bay following the storm. This acidification event, driven by extreme rainfall from Harvey, persisted for over 3 weeks because of prolonged flood mitigation reservoir releases that continued for over a month after the storm. In addition, the large volume of stormwater led to high oyster mortality rates in Galveston Bay and acidification may have impeded recovery of these vital reefs. It is also likely that undersaturation has occurred outside of our study, unrecorded, following other high-rainfall storms. The projected increase in tropical cyclone rainfall under climate change may thus represent a significant threat to coastal calcifying ecosystems.

Background Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) is an accepted treatment option for early breast cancer. Treatment delivered on the Magnetic Resonance integrated Linear Accelerator (MRL) provides the added assurance of improved soft tissue visibility, important in the delivery of APBI. This technique can be delivered in both the supine and prone positions, however current literature suggests that prone treatment on the MRL is infeasible due to physical limitations with bore size. This study aims to investigate the feasibility of positioning patients on a custom designed prone breast board compared with supine positioning on a personalised vacuum bag. Geometric distortion, the relative position of Organs at Risk (OAR) to the tumour bed and breathing motion (intrafraction motion) will be compared between the supine and prone positions. The study will also investigate the positional impact on dosimetry, patient experience, and position preference. Methods Up to 30 patients will be recruited over a 12-month period for participation in this Human Research Ethics Committee approved exploratory cohort study. Patients will be scanned on the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Simulator in both the supine and prone positions as per current standard of care for APBI simulation. Supine and prone positioning comparisons will all be assessed on de-identified MRI image pairs, acquired using appropriate software. Patient experience will be explored through completion of a short, anonymous electronic survey. Descriptive statistics will be used for reporting of results with categorical, parametric/non-parametric tests applied (data format dependent). Survey results will be interpreted by comparison of percentage frequencies across the Likert scales. Thematic content analysis will be used to interpret qualitative data from the open-ended survey questions. Discussion The results of this study will be used to assess the feasibility of treating patients with APBI in the prone position on a custom designed board on the MRL. It may also be used to assist with identification of patients who would benefit from this position over supine without the need to perform both scans. Patient experience and technical considerations will be utilised to develop a tool to assist in this process. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN1262400067583. Registered 28th of May 2024. https://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12624000679583.aspx

Systematic and random errors in radiation dose delivery necessitate the use of planning target volume (PTV) margins to ensure adequate clinical target volume (CTV) treatment. Advances in magnetic resonance-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) have enabled improved imaging with possible margin reduction; however, the optimal PTV margins remain uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the adaptive radiotherapy component of intra-fractional prostate movement in MRgRT for prostate cancer (PCa) patients and determine appropriate PTV margins. This study retrospectively analyzed 18 PCa patients treated using a 1.5 T MR-Linac. The initial fusion MR and verification MR scans were registered offline to assess prostate displacement between the two scans in the anterior-posterior (AP), left-right (LR) and superior-inferior (SI) directions. Random and systematic errors were calculated, and the PTV margins were determined using the Van Herk formula. The average time between MR scans was 22 min (range 9-54 min) compared to an average beam-on time of 6 min (range 2-11 min). Mean and standard deviation of translational displacement was 1.2 ± 0.9 mm in the AP, 0.6 ± 0.5 mm in the LR, and 1.1 ± 0.8 mm in the SI directions. The calculated PTV margin was 3.2 mm in AP, 1.7 mm in LR, and 3.2 mm in SI directions. There was an observed trend of increased prostate motion with increased treatment duration. MRgRT facilitates PTV margin reduction for PCa; however, our findings suggest that increased on-couch time may be associated with greater prostate motion. Future studies with larger patient cohorts and real-time motion monitoring are recommended to optimise margin strategies.

The demand for orthopedic specialist consultations for patients with osteoarthritis in public hospitals is high and continues to grow. Lengthy waiting times are increasingly affecting patients from low socioeconomic and culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds who are more likely to rely on public health care. This study aimed to co-design a digital health intervention for patients with OA who are waiting for an orthopedic specialist consultation at a public health service, which is located in local government areas (LGAs) of identified social and economic disadvantage. The stakeholders involved in the co-design process included the research team; end users (patients); clinicians; academic experts; senior hospital staff; and a research, design, and development agency. The iterative co-design process comprised several key phases, including the collation and refinement of evidence-based information by the research team, with assistance from academic experts. Structured interviews with 16 clinicians (female: n=10, 63%; male: n=6, 38%) and 11 end users (age: mean 64.3, SD 7.2 y; female: n=7, 64%; male: n=4, 36%) of 1-hour duration were completed to understand the requirements for the intervention. Weekly workshops were held with key stakeholders throughout development. A different cohort of 15 end users (age: mean 61.5, SD 9.7 y; female: n=12, 80%; male: n=3, 20%) examined the feasibility of the study during a 2-week testing period. The System Usability Scale was used as the primary measure of intervention feasibility. Overall, 7 content modules were developed and refined over several iterations. Key themes highlighted in the clinician and end user interviews were the diverse characteristics of patients, the hierarchical structure with which patients view health practitioners, the importance of delivering information in multiple formats (written, audio, and visual), and access to patient-centered information as early as possible in the health care journey. All content was translated into Vietnamese, the most widely spoken language following English in the local government areas included in this study. Patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds tested the feasibility of the intervention. A mean System Usability Scale score of 82.7 (SD 16) was recorded for the intervention, placing its usability in the excellent category. Through the co-design process, we developed an evidence-based, holistic, and patient-centered digital health intervention. The intervention was specifically designed to be used by patients from diverse backgrounds, including those with low health, digital, and written literacy levels. The effectiveness of the intervention in improving the physical and mental health of patients will be determined by a high-quality randomized controlled trial.