The decline of the European flat oyster Ostrea edulis represents a loss to European coastal economies both in terms of food security and by affecting the Good Environmental Status of the marine environment as set out by the European Council\'s Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC). Restoration of O. edulis habitat is being widely discussed across Europe, addressing key challenges such as the devastating impact of the haplosporidian parasite Bonamia ostreae. The use of resistant, tolerant, or resilient oysters as restoration broodstock has been proposed by restoration practitioners, but the definitions and implications of these superficially familiar terms have yet to be defined and agreed by all stakeholders. This opinion piece considers the challenges of differentiating Bonamia resistance, tolerance, and resilience; challenges which impede the adoption of robust definitions. We argue that, disease-resistance is reduced susceptibility to infection by the parasite, or active suppression of the parasites ability to multiply and proliferate. Disease-tolerance is the retention of fitness and an ability to neutralise the virulence of the parasite. Disease-resilience is the ability to recover from illness and, at population level, tolerance could be interpreted as resilience. We concede that further work is required to resolve practical uncertainty in applying these definitions, and argue for a collaboration of experts to achieve consensus. Failure to act now might result in the future dispersal of this disease into new locations and populations, because robust definitions are important components of regulatory mechanisms that underpin marine management.

To keep clinicians up-to-date with the latest evidence, clinical practice and patient preferences, more and more knowledge tools - aiming to synthesise knowledge and support (shared) decision-making - are being developed. Unfortunately, it seems that in the Netherlands, and possibly elsewhere, the amount of different knowledge tool types makes it difficult to see the forest through the trees.
A scoping review, exploring types of knowledge tools available to Dutch clinicians (and patients) and how these tools are described. The search terms were collected from thesauri and textbooks, and used to search the websites and documents of selected national tool developing organisations.
The review yielded 126 tool types. We included 67 different tool types, such as guidelines, protocols, standards and clinical pathways. Half of those tool types were aimed at clinicians, 14 at patients and 18 at both. In general, descriptions of the tool types were hard to find or incomplete.
There exists a myriad of knowledge tool types and their descriptions are mostly unclear. The information overload experienced by clinicians is not addressed effectively by developing numerous unclearly defined knowledge tools. We recommend limiting the number of tool types and making a greater effort in clearly defining them. This abundance of poorly defined tools does not seem to be restricted to the Netherlands.

暂无摘要。