Anticipating human resilience and vulnerability on the path to 2030: What can we learn from COVID-19?

The socio-ecological resilience and sustainability implications of seafood supply chain disruption

Remaining resilient under disruption, while also being sustainable, is essential for continued and equitable seafood supply in a changing world. However, despite the wide application of resilience thinking to sustainability research and the multiple dimensions of social-ecological sustainability, it can be difficult to ascertain how to make a supply chain both resilient and sustainable. In this review, we draw upon the socio-ecological resilience and sustainability literature to identify links and highlight concepts for managing and monitoring adaptive and equitable seafood supply chains. We then review documented responses of seafood supply networks to disruption and detail a case study to describe the attributes of a resilient seafood supply system. Finally, we outline the implications of these responses for social (including wellbeing and equity), economic and environmental sustainability. Disruptions to supply chains were categorised based on their frequency of occurrence (episodic, chronic, cumulative) and underlying themes were derived from supply chain responses for each type of disruption. We found that seafood supply chains were resilient when they were diverse (in either products, markets, consumers or processing), connected, supported by governments at all scales, and where supply chain actors were able to learn and collaborate through trust-based relationships. With planning, infrastructure and systematic mapping, these attributes also can help to build socio-ecological sustainability and move towards more adaptive and equitable seafood supply.

Differences in Stakeholders' Perception of the Impact of COVID-19 on Clinical Care and Decision-Making

Background: Pandemics are related to changes in clinical management. Factors that are associated with individual perceptions of related risks and decision-making processes focused on prevention and vaccination, but perceptions of other healthcare consequences are less investigated. Different perceptions of patients, nurses, and physicians on consequences regarding clinical management, decisional criteria, and burden were compared. Study Design: Cross-sectional OnCoVID questionnaire studies. Methods: Data that involved 1231 patients, physicians, and nurses from 11 German institutions that were actively involved in clinical treatment or decision-making in oncology or psychiatry were collected. Multivariate statistical approaches were used to analyze the stakeholder comparisons. Results: A total of 29.2% of professionals reported extensive changes in workload. Professionals in psychiatry returned severe impact of pandemic on all major aspects of their clinical care, but less changes were reported in oncology (p < 0.001). Both patient groups reported much lower recognition of treatment modifications and consequences for their own care. Decisional and pandemic burden was intensively attributed from professionals towards patients, but less in the opposite direction. Conclusions: All of the groups share concerns about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare management and clinical processes, but to very different extent. The perception of changes is dissociated in projection towards other stakeholders. Specific awareness should avoid the dissociated impact perception between patients and professionals potentially resulting in impaired shared decision-making.