Advancing the contributions of European stakeholders in farming systems to transitions to agroecology. (Special Issue: Insights into transitions to agroecological farming.)

The concept of a 'just transition' is gaining traction in international policy discourses. It has particular significance in relation to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions and the need for ensuring rights and responsibilities of all actors in transitions to agroecological farming systems. Research plays an important role in accompanying this transformation. It explores pathways for more sustainable and fair food systems, barriers to them being achieved, and where and what risks arise for communities of interest and of place. Researchers and practitioners across levels and sectors were brought together in H2020 projects LIFT and UNISECO using processes of stakeholder engagement. Both projects analysed the perceptions of actors towards agroecological farming, and their active involvement in the transitions required. This article summarises lessons learnt regarding multi-actor engagement in different participatory settings in both projects, including a Multi-Actor Platform approach, Q method, DELPHI and Hybrid forum workshops. The interactions involved several hundred actors from 18 countries across Europe. The article reflects on implications of the Covid-19 pandemic on the processes and effectiveness of multi-actor engagement, and assessments of the impacts on the empowerment of the actors. The findings are contextualised by contemporary European Union and national policy objectives of tackling climate change, the loss of biodiversity, and inequalities.

Advancing the Contributions of European Stakeholders in Farming Systems to Transitions to Agroecology

The concept of a ‘just transition' is gaining traction in international policy discourses. It has particular significance in relation to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions and the need for ensuring rights and responsibilities of all actors in transitions to agroecological farming systems. Research plays an important role in accompanying this transformation. It explores pathways for more sustainable and fair food systems, barriers to them being achieved, and where and what risks arise for communities of interest and of place. Researchers and practitioners across levels and sectors were brought together in H2020 projects LIFT and UNISECO using processes of stakeholder engagement. Both projects analysed the perceptions of actors towards agroecological farming, and their active involvement in the transitions required. This article summarises lessons learnt regarding multi-actor engagement in different participatory settings in both projects, including a Multi-Actor Platform approach, Q method, DELPHI and Hybrid forum workshops. The interactions involved several hundred actors from 18 countries across Europe. The article reflects on implications of the Covid-19 pandemic on the processes and effectiveness of multi-actor engagement, and assessments of the impacts on the empowerment of the actors. The findings are contextualised by contemporary European Union and national policy objectives of tackling climate change, the loss of biodiversity, and inequalities. © 2022 The Authors. EuroChoices published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Agricultural Economics Society and European Association of Agricultural Economists.

Advancing the Contributions of European Stakeholders in Farming Systems to Transitions to AgroecologyForderung der Beitrage von europaischen Beteiligten der landwirtschaftlichen Systeme zum ubergang zur Agrarokologie

The concept of a 'just transition' is gaining traction in international policy discourses. It has particular significance in relation to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions and the need for ensuring rights and responsibilities of all actors in transitions to agroecological farming systems. Research plays an important role in accompanying this transformation. It explores pathways for more sustainable and fair food systems, barriers to them being achieved, and where and what risks arise for communities of interest and of place. Researchers and practitioners across levels and sectors were brought together in H2020 projects LIFT and UNISECO using processes of stakeholder engagement. Both projects analysed the perceptions of actors towards agroecological farming, and their active involvement in the transitions required. This article summarises lessons learnt regarding multi-actor engagement in different participatory settings in both projects, including a Multi-Actor Platform approach, Q method, DELPHI and Hybrid forum workshops. The interactions involved several hundred actors from 18 countries across Europe. The article reflects on implications of the Covid-19 pandemic on the processes and effectiveness of multi-actor engagement, and assessments of the impacts on the empowerment of the actors. The findings are contextualised by contemporary European Union and national policy objectives of tackling climate change, the loss of biodiversity, and inequalities.

Severe Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemia in a Young Child with Active Covid-19 Infection

INTRODUCTION: Autoimmune hematological complications related to COVID-19 are rare. There are only 5 pediatric case reports of autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) among 14 million pediatric COVID-19 cases in USA. Four were older (13-17 years), two had underlying autoimmune/hematologic conditions. Immunologic analysis varied, with cold, warm & mixed hemolytic anemias described. We present a previously healthy child with COVID-19 associated severe AIHA with peripheral reticulocytopenia. DESCRIPTION: A 3-year-old male presented with lethargy, fever, tachycardia and jaundice 10 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. Pertinent labs include hemoglobin (Hgb) 3.8 g/dL, Hct 9.9%, bilirubin 3.6 mg/dL, platelets 321,000/muL, RBC count 1.2 M/muL, WBC 35,600/muL, MCV 82.5fL. Reticulocyte count (RC) was only 2.8%. Peripheral blood smear showed anisocytosis, poikilocytosis, nucleated RBCs and left shifted granulocytosis. Bone marrow biopsy revealed erythroid hyperplasia without underlying malignancy;myeloid:erythroid ratio of 0.3:1. The outside hospital reported cold C3 agglutination following 4degreeC incubation, while our laboratory identified spontaneous agglutination at room temperature (warm agglutination). IV fluids, O2, and methylprednisolone (4 mg/kg/day) were started and two packed RBC transfusions (total 30 ml/kg) given for symptomatic anemia with Hgb < 4 g/dL. LDH peaked at 2255 U/L on Day 3. Reticulocyte count was low (2.8%-3.8%) Days 1-3, increased to 6.5% on Day 4 and peaked at >30.0% on Day 7. He was changed to oral prednisone 2 mg/kg/day on Day 12 and discharged on Day 13 with Hgb 7.0 g/dL and RC 29.9%. Most recent Hgb is 13.0 g/dL and RC 2.6%. DISCUSSION: COVID-19 associated AIHA is rare, and previously reported mostly in older children. Our patient was previously healthy, and demonstrated a strong bone marrow response with erythroid hyperplasia. Peripheral reticulocytosis was delayed, and correlated with initiation of systemic steroid therapy. Our patient had both cold and warm agglutination supporting extensive autoimmune destruction of early red cell lineage. These findings support immune activation during acute COVID-19 infection and COVID-19 as a trigger for AIHA. Patients developing AIHA may need to be tested for COVID-19 and carefully monitored for complications.

Student Preference: ONLINE or Face-To-Face Instruction in a Year of COVID-19

This full paper, in the research to practice category, focuses on student preferences for online versus face-to-face instruction. Spring Semester, 2020 started as usual but proved to be anything but usual. Instead, in a seven-day turnaround, the first-year engineering program at Michigan Technological University moved from a face-to-face, highly interactive studio environment to a remote/synchronous environment. At the end of the semester, our University and many others across the United States conducted a short survey of undergraduate students on their preference of face-to-face versus online instruction. Results showed a strong preference for face-to-face instruction. However, to adequately consider the extensive ranges of approach in both umbrella terms ("face-to-face instruction" and "online instruction"), we need to unpack the surface results. This paper reports on a short survey given to second-semester students in our College of Engineering, First-Year Engineering Program, and students in the first-year course in Systems Engineering. The survey sought to gather student preferences for two variations of our instructional models in current use in our first-year program: (a) remote/synchronous instruction versus (b) a hybrid environment that included faceto- face instruction with mandatory masking and social distancing. Results showed that students, at worst, held preferences that were generally not statistically different in terms of preferences. The several exceptions that did show significance showed numerical differences that were not of practical importance, with one exception. The core takeaway from our study is that determining student preferences for "face-to-face instruction" versus "distance learning" needs to be unpacked to enable students to register reasoned judgments and set the stage for meaningful results.

Mental health presentations to a UK tertiary children's emergency department during the covid-19 pandemic in 2020 compared to 2019

Introduction: Observational study exploring the differences between the number and severity of mental health presentations to a Children's Emergency Department over a 2-month period during the Covid-19 Pandemic (2020) compared to the same months in 2019. Additionally, exploration of the possible impact of the introduction of a hotline giving clinicians access to 24/7 Children's and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) advice. Methods: Identification of mental health presentations in children ≤ 16 years from coded admission data. Data collected included basic demographics, presenting complaint, final diagnosis, mental health Risk Assessment Matrix (RAM) outcome and timings of review, referral and discharge. Results: 141 cases were examined (2019-n=79, 2020-n=62). During the Covid-19 pandemic 18.9% (n=10) scored high on the RAM and 64.2% (n=34) scored moderate whilst in 2019, 17.2% (n=11) scored high on the RAM and 69.4% (n=38) scored moderate. 2019 data saw 25.3% (n=20) discharged directly compared to 37.1% (n=23) in 2020. In 2020, 26 (42.6%) of CAMHS reviews were via telephone compared to nine (12.3%) in 2019. Overnight (20:00-08:00), in 2019, there were 37 (46.8%) presentations, 86.5% (n=32) of which required admission and in 2020 there were 36 (58.1%) where 75.0% (n=27) required admission. Conclusion: A higher number of presentations was not seen in the CED despite the potentially adverse psychological effects caused by enforced isolation due to Covid-19. The provision of a 24/7 hotline may have contributed to clinician's decision to discharge, aiding a higher number of out of hours discharges.

Norwich COVID-19 testing initiative pilot: evaluating the feasibility of asymptomatic testing on a university campus.

BACKGROUND: There is a high prevalence of COVID-19 in university-age students, who are returning to campuses. There is little evidence regarding the feasibility of universal, asymptomatic testing to help control outbreaks in this population. This study aimed to pilot mass COVID-19 testing on a university research park, to assess the feasibility and acceptability of scaling up testing to all staff and students. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional feasibility study on a university research park in the East of England. All staff and students (5625) were eligible to participate. All participants were offered four PCR swabs, which they self-administered over two weeks. Outcome measures included uptake, drop-out rate, positivity rates, participant acceptability measures, laboratory processing measures, data collection and management measures. RESULTS: 798 (76%) of 1053 who registered provided at least one swab; 687 (86%) provided all four; 792 (99%) of 798 who submitted at least one swab had all negative results and 6 participants had one inconclusive result. There were no positive results. 458 (57%) of 798 participants responded to a post-testing survey, demonstrating a mean acceptability score of 4.51/5, with five being the most positive. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated self-testing for COVID-19 using PCR is feasible and acceptable to a university population.