Urban bird communities have higher densities but lower diversity compared with wildlands. However, recent studies show that residential urban yards with native plantings have higher native bird diversity compared with yards with exotic vegetation. Here we tested whether landscape designs also affect bird foraging behavior. We estimated foraging decisions by measuring the giving-up densities (GUD; amount of food resources remaining when the final forager quits foraging on an artificial food patch, i.e seed trays) in residential yards in Phoenix, AZ, USA. We assessed how two yard designs (mesic: lush, exotic vegetation; xeric: drought-tolerant and native vegetation) differed in foraging costs. Further, we developed a statistical model to calculate GUDs for every species visiting the seed tray. Birds foraging in mesic yards depleted seed trays to a lower level (i.e. had lower GUDs) compared to birds foraging in xeric yards. After accounting for bird densities, the lower GUDs in mesic yards appeared largely driven by invasive and synanthropic species. Furthermore, behavioral responses of individual species were affected by yard design. Species visiting trays in both yard designs had lower GUDs in mesic yards. Differences in resource abundance (i.e., alternative resources more abundant and of higher quality in xeric yards) contributed to our results, while predation costs associated with foraging did not. By enhancing the GUD, a common method for assessing the costs associated with foraging, our statistical model provided insights into how individual species and bird densities influenced the GUD. These differences we found in foraging behavior were indicative of differences in habitat quality, and thus our study lends additional support for native landscapes to help reverse the loss of urban bird diversity.

PURPOSE: The nearly 90,000 adolescents and young adults (AYAs) diagnosed with cancer in the United States yearly have tended to occupy a no-man's land between medical and pediatric oncology, often reporting that existing models of care are misaligned with their needs and preferences. Although guidelines for optimal AYA cancer care are increasingly available, the implementation of such standards has been varied. This may be in part due to a lack of guidance for implementing specialized AYA care. In this study, we leveraged an implementation science framework to identify barriers and generate practical guidance to inform the implementation of specialized AYA cancer care. METHODS: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, with AYA care stakeholders (N = 32 from 14 cancer programs). Our multidisciplinary research team analyzed interview transcriptions using a template analysis approach and gleaned from interviews practical guidance for implementing specialized AYA care. RESULTS: Participants reported barriers to implementing specialized AYA care across all five Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains: (1) intervention characteristics (eg, costs), (2) inner setting (eg, difficulties in collaborating between pediatric and medical oncology), (3) outer setting (eg, patient-level barriers to participating in AYA services), (4) individual characteristics (eg, attitudes about AYA oncology), and (5) process (eg, lack of metrics for program evaluation). They also shared practical guidance for addressing these barriers. CONCLUSION: Emerging guidance on the core elements of AYA cancer care must be matched with guidance to support the implementation of specialized AYA care. This study contributes to the body of evidence available to inform future implementation efforts.

Purpose This study aims to investigate how healthcare providers (HCPs) promote physical activity (PA) to child and adolescent cancer survivors. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with HCPs ( n = 16; women n = 12; men n = 4) who provide care for cancer survivor youth (age 3 to 18). Participants represented 7 professions, including child life specialists, oncologists, nurse practitioners, physical therapists, and social workers. A reflexive thematic analysis was conducted to explore the techniques that HCPs use to promote PA for this patient population and ways PA promotion can improve. Results HCPs use five strategies to promote PA to cancer survivor youth: (1) broadening the definition of PA, (2) tailoring PA recommendations, (3) including families, (4) connecting patients to programming, and (5) promoting patient motivation. Conclusions This research highlights techniques that HCPs use to promote PA to young cancer survivors and reveals the need for additional ways to support HCPs to improve PA promotion for child and adolescent cancer survivors. While HCPs emphasized the importance of PA for this patient population, they navigate barriers that limit the quality of PA discussions. Implications for cancer survivors Further research should explore interventions to improve PA promotion and PA participation among child and adolescent cancer survivors. By understanding the perspectives of HCPs, patients, and their families, PA promotion strategies can be improved, and more programs that support both patients and practitioners may be developed. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11764-022-01218-8.

No abstract

No abstract