3 results
Improving social function with real-world social-cognitive remediation in schizophrenia: Results from the RemedRugby quasi-experimental trial
- Julien Dubreucq, Franck Gabayet, Bernard Ycart, Megane Faraldo, Fanny Melis, Thierry Lucas, Benjamin Arnaud, Mickael Bacconnier, Motassem Bakri, Gentiane Cambier, Florian Carmona, Isabelle Chereau, Titaua Challe, Sophie Morel, Sylvie Pires, Celine Roussel, Philippe Lamy, Guillaume Legrand, Emmanuelle Pages, Romain Pommier, Romain Rey, Yohan Souchet, Pierre-Michel Llorca, Catherine Massoubre, the RemedRugby Group
-
- Journal:
- European Psychiatry / Volume 63 / Issue 1 / 2020
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 30 April 2020, e41
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Background.
Functional capacity (FC) has been identified as a key outcome to improve real-world functioning in schizophrenia. FC is influenced by cognitive impairments, negative symptoms, self-stigma and reduced physical activity (PA). Psychosocial interventions targeting FC are still under-developed.
Methods.we conducted a quasi-experimental study evaluating the effects of an exercise-enriched integrated social cognitive remediation (SCR) intervention (RemedRugby [RR]) compared with an active control group practicing Touch Rugby (TR). To our knowledge, this is the first trial to date evaluating the effectiveness of such a program provided in a real-life environment.
Results.Eighty-seven people with schizophrenia were included and allocated to either the RR group (n = 57) or the TR group (n = 30) according to the routine clinical practice of the recruiting center. Outcomes were evaluated at baseline and post-treatment in both groups and after 6 months of follow-up in the RR group using standardized scales for symptom severity, social functioning, self-stigma, and a large cognitive battery. After treatment we observed moderate to large improvements in social function (Personal and Social Performance Scale [PSP], p < 0.001, d = 1.255), symptom severity (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [PANSS] negative, p < 0.001, d = 0.827; PANSS GP, p < 0.001, d = 0.991; PANSS positive, p = 0.009, d = 0.594), verbal abstraction (p = 0.008, d = 0.554), aggression bias (p = 0.008, d = 0.627), and self-stigma (stereotype endorsement, p = 0.019, d = 0.495; discrimination experiences, p = 0.047; d = 0.389) that were specific to the RR group and were not observed in participants playing only TR. Effects were persistent over time and even larger between post-treatment and follow-up.
Conclusions.Exercise-enriched integrated SCR appears promising to improve real-life functioning in schizophrenia. Future research should investigate the potential effects of this intervention on neuroplasticity and physical fitness.
9 - Variant 4: coexistence of voluntary and mandatory frameworks at the company level - Carbon Disclosure Project, EU ETS and French legal requirements
- from Part II - MRV of industrial sites and entities
-
- By Romain Morel, CDC Climat, Ian Cochran, CDC Climat
- Edited by Valentin Bellassen, Nicolas Stephan
-
- Book:
- Accounting for Carbon
- Published online:
- 05 March 2015
- Print publication:
- 19 March 2015, pp 283-312
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Some of the earliest greenhouse gas monitoring and reporting has been done by companies and corporations – whether public or private. These companies voluntarily piloted initial quantification and reporting at the corporate level to assess the contribution of their activities to climate change. In the 2000s, with the implementation of emission trading schemes and carbon taxes, the focus shifted to site-level, without necessarily an aggregation at corporate level. To date, little to no full, mandatory, MRV systems have been put into place for corporate reporting – particularly in terms of verification. However, the coexistence of multiple mandatory and voluntary frameworks that companies participate in has implications for the efficiency of the quantification conducted as well as the use of the information in the entities’ internal “climate governance.”
This chapter first briefly presents three of the main reporting frameworks to which multiple French companies participate in or are subject to. France is a particularly interesting example as it is among the few countries – with the United Kingdom – to have made GHG monitoring and reporting mandatory at the corporate level. The second half of this chapter analyzes the impacts of this coexistence of frameworks on efficiencies and internal governance as well as the implications for a growing type of users of emissions performance data: investors.
French entities may be subject to up to four major mandatory or voluntary GHG emissions monitoring and reporting frameworks
In addition to the EU ETS (described in Chapter 5) which covers more than 1,300 French installations, French companies today participate in multiple GHG emission reporting systems. One of the earliest systems is the voluntary CDP Sustainability, formerly known as the Carbon Disclosure Project. In addition, GHG measurement and reporting has been included in statutory sustainable-development reporting requirements (including the Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility and the mandatory development of Climate Action Plans).
15 - Synthesis
- from Part III - MRV at offset project scale
-
- By Valentin Bellassen, Institut National pour la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Nicolas Stephan, CDC Climat, Marion Afriat, CDC Climat, Emilie Alberola, CDC Climat, Alexandra Barker, NPL, Jean-Pierre Chang, UNFCCC, Caspar Chiquet, MRV practice of South Pole Carbon, Ian Cochran, CDC Climat, Mariana Deheza, CDC Climat, Chris Dimopoulos, NPL, Claudine Foucherot, CDC Climat, Guillaume Jacquier, CITEPA, Romain Morel, CDC Climat, Roderick Robinson, NPL, Igor Shishlov, CDC Climat
- Edited by Valentin Bellassen, Nicolas Stephan
-
- Book:
- Accounting for Carbon
- Published online:
- 05 March 2015
- Print publication:
- 19 March 2015, pp 510-537
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
This chapter brings together all the previous ones. Based on the detailed presentation and analysis of the MRV requirements of so many different carbon pricing and management mechanisms – hereafter “carbon pricing mechanisms,” it synthesizes and compares how they answered to the five cross-cutting questions identified in the general introduction to the book:
• What are the MRV requirements?
• What are the costs for entities to meet these requirements?
• Is a flexible trade-off between requirements and costs allowed?
• Is requirements stringency adapted to the amount of emissions at stake (materiality)?
• What is the balance between comparability and information relevance?
MRV requirements across schemes
The first cross-cutting question – what are the MRV requirements? – is too large to be answered in a synthetic way. This section thus focuses on two components of this question that have a major impact on MRV costs: requirements pertaining to third-party verification and those pertaining to monitoring uncertainty.
Verification requirements are broadly similar across the board
Most carbon pricing mechanisms impose a verification of the reports by an independent third party. Verification requirements are broadly similar across carbon pricing mechanisms:
• the third party must be accredited by a regulator for GHG emissions audits and this accreditation tends to be sector-specific;
• the third party must assess whether the methods used and the reporting format comply with the relevant guidelines;
• the third party must assess the accuracy, i.e., the absence of bias, of the reported figures;
• the regulator is allowed to question the opinion of the auditor, but seldom does so;• the third party tends to be paid directly by the verified entity. Although this creates a potential conflict of interest, the risk of losing the accreditation is a much stronger incentive and keeps auditors from being complacent with their client (Cormier and Bellassen, 2013).