Dataset Information

Inference in road ecology research: what we know versus what we think we know.

ABSTRACT: Roads and traffic impacts on wildlife populations are well documented. Three major mechanisms can cause them: reduced connectivity, increased mortality and reduced habitat quality. Researchers commonly recommend mitigation based on the mechanism they deem responsible. We reviewed the 2012-2016 literature to evaluate authors' inferences, to determine whether they explicitly acknowledge all possible mechanisms that are consistent with their results. We found 327 negative responses of wildlife to roads, from 307 studies. While most (84%) of these responses were consistent with multiple mechanisms, 60% of authors invoked a single mechanism. This indicates that many authors are over-confident in their inferences, and that the literature does not allow estimation of the relative importance of the mechanisms. We found preferences in authors' discussion of mechanisms. When all three mechanisms were consistent with the response measured, authors were 2.4 and 2.9 times as likely to infer reduced habitat quality compared to reduced connectivity or increased mortality, respectively. When both reduced connectivity and increased mortality were consistent with the response measured, authors were 5.2 times as likely to infer reduced connectivity compared to increased mortality. Given these results, road ecologists and managers are likely over-recommending mitigation for improving habitat quality and connectivity, and under-recommending measures to reduce road-kill.

SUBMITTER: Teixeira FZ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7423051 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHypertension is one of the most important risk factors for cardiovascular disease and has a high prevalence in South Africa and other low- and middle-income countries. However, awareness of hypertension has been reported to be low. Health programmes can increase awareness of hypertension and its causes, but hinge on the knowledge and perception of the targeted community. Therefore, this study investigated knowledge on and perceptions about hypertension of community members in a rural area in Limpopo, South Africa with the aim to increase awareness of hypertension and cardiovascular disease in the local population.MethodsUsing a mixed methods study approach, 451 participants of the Ndlovu Cohort Study, attending a follow-up visit between August 2017 and January 2018, completed a questionnaire on cardiovascular risk perception. A knowledge score was calculated for all participants. Sixty participants were invited to participate in six focus group discussions, of which 56 participated. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim, transcripts coded, and thematic analysis of the data undertaken to obtain an understanding of knowledge and perception of hypertension in the community.ResultsMost members of the community seemed to have intermediate (74.3%) or good (14.0%) knowledge of hypertension based on the knowledge score, and only 11.8% of the population had poor knowledge. The risk factors of hypertension seemed to be well known in the community. Poverty was identified as a major vulnerability in this community limiting choices for healthy lifestyles such as nutritious foods, recreational physical activity and accessing health care timely. Participants proposed community-based activities as an effective way to reach out to community members for prevention and management of hypertension.ConclusionThis study highlights the need for improved health promotion efforts to increase knowledge of hypertension in rural communities, and to address poverty as a major obstacle to healthy life-style choices.

Project description:ObjectiveTo establish the empirical evidence base for the information that participants want to know about medical research and to assess how this relates to current guidance from the National Research Ethics Service (NRES).Data sourcesMedline, Web of Science, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological abstracts, Health Management Information Consortium, Cochrane Library, thesis index's, grey literature databases, reference and cited article lists, key journals, Google Scholar and correspondence with expert authors.Study selectionOriginal research studies published between 1950 and October 2010 that asked potential participants to indicate how much or what types of information they wanted to be told about a research study or asked them to rate the importance of a specific piece of information were included.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsStudies were appraised based on the generalisability of results to the UK potential research participant population. A metadata analysis using basic thematic analysis was used to split results from papers into themes based on the sections of information that NRES recommends should be included in a participant information sheet.Results14 studies were included. Of the 20 pieces of information that NRES recommend should be included in patient information sheets for research pooled proportions could be calculated for seven themes. Results showed that potential participants wanted to be offered information about result dissemination (91% (95% CI 85% to 95%)), investigator conflicts of interest (48% (95% CI 27% to 69%)), the purpose of the study (76% (95% CI 27% to 100%)), voluntariness (39% (95% CI 2% to 100%)), how long the research would last (61% (95% CI 16% to 97%)), potential benefits (57% (95% CI 7% to 98%)) and confidentiality (44% (95% CI 10% to 82%)). The level of detail participants wanted to know was not explored comprehensively in the studies. There was no empirical evidence to support the level of information provision required by participants on the remaining seven items.ConclusionsThere is limited empirical evidence on what potential participants want to know about research. The existing empirical evidence suggests that individuals may have very different needs and a more tailored evidence-based approach may be necessary.

Dataset Information

Inference in road ecology research: what we know versus what we think we know.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure