Publications by authors named "Brian Manns"

3 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

"Lest we forget": An overview of Australia's response to the recovery and identification of unrecovered historic military remains.

Forensic Sci Int 2021 Oct 4;328:111042. Epub 2021 Oct 4.

School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia; School of Geosciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.

The Australian Defence Force (ADF) is responsible for the recovery and identification of its historic casualties. With over 30,000 still unrecovered from past conflicts including World War One (WW1) and World War Two (WWII), the Australian Army and Royal Australian Air Force have teams that research, recover, identify and oversee the burial (or reburial) of the remains of soldiers and airmen who continue to be found each year. The Royal Australian Navy is also responsible for its unrecovered casualties. Collectively the priorities of the various services within the ADF are the respectful recovery and treatment of the dead, thorough forensic identification efforts, resolution for families and honouring the ADF's proud history of service and sacrifice. What is unique about the approach of the ADF is that the respective services retain responsibility for their historic losses, while a joint approach is taken on policies and in the utilisation of the pool of forensic specialists. Section One describes the process undertaken by the Australian Army in the recovery, identification and burial or repatriation of soldiers through its specialised unit Unrecovered War Casualties - Army (UWC-A). Section Two describes the role of the Royal Australian Air Force in the recovery of aircraft and service personnel through their specialised unit Historic Unrecovered War Casualties - Air Force (HUWC-AF). An overview of the operations of each service and case studies is presented for each section.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source Listing
October 2021

Technical Packages in Injury and Violence Prevention to Move Evidence Into Practice: Systematic Reviews and Beyond.

Eval Rev 2017 Feb 20;41(1):78-108. Epub 2016 Sep 20.

1 Division of Unintentional Injury Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Injury and violence prevention strategies have greater potential for impact when they are based on scientific evidence. Systematic reviews of the scientific evidence can contribute key information about which policies and programs might have the greatest impact when implemented. However, systematic reviews have limitations, such as lack of implementation guidance and contextual information, that can limit the application of knowledge. "Technical packages," developed by knowledge brokers such as the federal government, nonprofit agencies, and academic institutions, have the potential to be an efficient mechanism for making information from systematic reviews actionable. Technical packages provide information about specific evidence-based prevention strategies, along with the estimated costs and impacts, and include accompanying implementation and evaluation guidance to facilitate adoption, implementation, and performance measurement. We describe how systematic reviews can inform the development of technical packages for practitioners, provide examples of technical packages in injury and violence prevention, and explain how enhancing review methods and reporting could facilitate the use and applicability of scientific evidence.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source Listing
February 2017

What we know, and don't know, about the impact of state policy and systems-level interventions on prescription drug overdose.

Drug Alcohol Depend 2014 Dec 14;145:34-47. Epub 2014 Oct 14.

CDR, US Public Health Service, Senior Advisor, Office of Public Health Strategy and Analysis, Office of the Commissioner U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire, Silver Spring, MD 20993, USA. Electronic address:

Background: Drug overdose deaths have been rising since the early 1990s and is the leading cause of injury death in the United States. Overdose from prescription opioids constitutes a large proportion of this burden. State policy and systems-level interventions have the potential to impact prescription drug misuse and overdose.

Methods: We searched the literature to identify evaluations of state policy or systems-level interventions using non-comparative, cross-sectional, before-after, time series, cohort, or comparison group designs or randomized/non-randomized trials. Eligible studies examined intervention effects on provider behavior, patient behavior, and health outcomes.

Results: Overall study quality is low, with a limited number of time-series or experimental designs. Knowledge and prescribing practices were measured more often than health outcomes (e.g., overdoses). Limitations include lack of baseline data and comparison groups, inadequate statistical testing, small sample sizes, self-reported outcomes, and short-term follow-up. Strategies that reduce inappropriate prescribing and use of multiple providers and focus on overdose response, such as prescription drug monitoring programs, insurer strategies, pain clinic legislation, clinical guidelines, and naloxone distribution programs, are promising. Evidence of improved health outcomes, particularly from safe storage and disposal strategies and patient education, is weak.

Conclusions: While important efforts are underway to affect prescriber and patient behavior, data on state policy and systems-level interventions are limited and inconsistent. Improving the evidence base is a critical need so states, regulatory agencies, and organizations can make informed choices about policies and practices that will improve prescribing and use, while protecting patient health.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source Listing
December 2014