RESUMO
Decades of techno-economic energy policymaking and research have meant evidence from the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH)-including critical reflections on what changing a society's relation to energy (efficiency) even means-have been underutilised. In particular, (i) the SSH have too often been sidelined and/or narrowly pigeonholed by policymakers, funders, and other decision-makers when driving research agendas, and (ii) the setting of SSH-focused research agendas has not historically embedded inclusive and deliberative processes. The aim of this paper is to address these gaps through the production of a research agenda outlining future SSH research priorities for energy efficiency. A Horizon Scanning exercise was run, which sought to identify 100 priority SSH questions for energy efficiency research. This exercise included 152 researchers with prior SSH expertise on energy efficiency, who together spanned 62 (sub-)disciplines of SSH, 23 countries, and a full range of career stages. The resultant questions were inductively clustered into seven themes as follows: (1) Citizenship, engagement and knowledge exchange in relation to energy efficiency; (2) Energy efficiency in relation to equity, justice, poverty and vulnerability; (3) Energy efficiency in relation to everyday life and practices of energy consumption and production; (4) Framing, defining and measuring energy efficiency; (5) Governance, policy and political issues around energy efficiency; (6) Roles of economic systems, supply chains and financial mechanisms in improving energy efficiency; and (7) The interactions, unintended consequences and rebound effects of energy efficiency interventions. Given the consistent centrality of energy efficiency in policy programmes, this paper highlights that well-developed SSH approaches are ready to be mobilised to contribute to the development, and/or to understand the implications, of energy efficiency measures and governance solutions. Implicitly, it also emphasises the heterogeneity of SSH policy evidence that can be produced. The agenda will be of use for both (1) those new to the energy-SSH field (including policyworkers), for learnings on the capabilities and capacities of energy-SSH, and (2) established energy-SSH researchers, for insights on the collectively held futures of energy-SSH research.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: International guidelines have not reached a complete agreement about the optimal amount of dietary proteins in chronic kidney disease(CKD). The aim of this study was to compare, with a randomized-controlled design, the metabolic effects of two diets with different protein content (0.55 vs 0.80 g/kg/day) in patients with CKD stages 4-5. METHODS: Study design and sample size calculations were based on previously published experience of our group with low protein diet. The primary outcome of the study was the modification of serum urea nitrogen concentration. From 423 patients randomly assigned to the two diets 392 were analysed: 200 for the 0.55-Group and 192 for the 0.8-Group. The follow-up ranged 6-18 months. RESULTS: Mean age was 61+/-18 years, 44% were women, mean eGFR was 18+/-7 ml/min/month. Three months after the dietary assignment and throughout the study period the two groups had a significantly different protein intake (0.72 vs 0.92 g/kg/day). The intention-to-treat analysis did not show any difference between the two groups. Compliance to the two test diets was significantly different (P < 0.05): 27% in the 0.55-Group and 53% in the 0.8-Group, with male gender and protein content (0.8 g/kg/day) predicting adherence to the assigned diet. The per protocol analysis, conversely, showed that serum urea nitrogen, similar at the time of randomization, significantly increased in the 0.8-Group vs 0.55-Group by 15% (P < 0.05). Serum phosphate, PTH and bicarbonate resulted similar in the two groups throughout the study. The 24 h urinary urea nitrogen significantly decreased after the first 3 months in 0.55-Group (P < 0.05), as well as the excretion of creatinine, sodium and phosphate (P < 0.05 vs baseline) and were significantly lower than the 0.8-Group. The prescription of phosphate binders, allopurinol, bicarbonate supplements and diuretics resulted significantly less frequent in the 0.55-Group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first evidence that in CKD patients a protein intake of 0.55 g/kg/day, compared with a 0.8 g/kg/day, guarantees a better metabolic control and a reduced need of drugs, without a substantial risk of malnutrition.
