Search

The internationalization of universities and the aging of the global population are two current issues that converge and challenge undergraduate gerontology curriculum development in Canada. One response to this challenge is to envision an intercultural gerontology curriculum. What might this curriculum encompass? How might it be taught? An exploratory study was undertaken to address these two questions. This paper presents findings from this study based primarily on interviews with university-based stakeholders from Canada, the United States, and Europe. Thematic analysis of the interviews resulted in five themes: multiple perspectives on cultural diversity; the dynamic nature of cultural diversity and aging; flow of an intercultural curriculum; institutional culture and intercultural curricula; and principles and practice for intercultural gerontology. Framed by principles of gerontology theory and educational approaches, this paper focuses on the principles and practice suggested by study participants. Scaffolding learning, active learning strategies, experiential learning opportunities, teacher modelling, and internet-based learning are discussed as key to intercultural learning. An appendix includes a list of resources that may be useful to developing an intercultural gerontology curriculum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tier 1 exposure tools recommended for use under REACH are designed to easily identify situations that may pose a risk to health through conservative exposure predictions. However, no comprehensive evaluation of the performance of the lower tier tools has previously been carried out. The ETEAM project aimed to evaluate several lower tier exposure tools (ECETOC TRA, MEASE, and EMKG-EXPO-TOOL) as well as one higher tier tool (STOFFENMANAGER®). This paper describes the results of the external validation of tool estimates using measurement data. Methods: Measurement data were collected from a range of providers, both in Europe and United States, together with contextual information. Individual measurement and aggregated measurement data were obtained. The contextual information was coded into the tools to obtain exposure estimates. Results were expressed as percentage of measurements exceeding the tool estimates and presented by exposure category (non-volatile liquid, volatile liquid, metal abrasion, metal processing, and powder handling). We also explored tool performance for different process activities as well as different scenario conditions and exposure levels. Results: In total, results from nearly 4000 measurements were obtained, with the majority for the use of volatile liquids and powder handling. The comparisons of measurement results with tool estimates suggest that the tools are generally conservative. However, the tools were more conservative when estimating exposure from powder handling compared to volatile liquids and other exposure categories. In addition, results suggested that tool performance varies between process activities and scenario conditions. For example, tools were less conservative when estimating exposure during activities involving tabletting, compression, extrusion, pelletisation, granulation (common process activity PROC14) and transfer of substance or mixture (charging and discharging) at nondedicated facilities (PROC8a; powder handling only). With the exception of STOFFENMANAGER® (for estimating exposure during powder handling), the tools were less conservative for scenarios with lower estimated exposure levels. Conclusions: This is the most comprehensive evaluation of the performance of REACH exposure tools carried out to date. The results show that, although generally conservative, the tools may not always achieve the performance specified in the REACH guidance, i.e. using the 75th or 90th percentile of the exposure distribution for the risk characterisation. Ongoing development, adjustment, and recalibration of the tools with new measurement data are essential to ensure adequate characterisation and control of worker exposure to hazardous substances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Although much has been written about the conventional cardiovascular risk factor correlates of the extent of coronary artery calcification (CAC), few studies have been carried out on symptomatic patients. This paper assesses the potential ability of risk factors to associate with an increasing CAC score.Methods: From the European Calcific Coronary Artery Disease (Euro-CCAD) cohort, we retrospectively investigated 6309 symptomatic patients, 62% male, from Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the USA. All had conventional cardiovascular risk factor assessment and CT scanning for CAC scoring.Results: Among all patients, male sex (OR = 4.85, p<0.001) and diabetes (OR = 2.36, p<0.001) were the most important risk factors of CAC extent, with age, hypertension, dyslipidemia and smoking also showing a relationship. Among patients with CAC, age, diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidemia were associated with an increasing CAC score in males and females, with diabetes being the strongest dichotomous risk factor (p<0.001 for both). These results were echoed in quantile regression, where diabetes was consistently the most important correlate with CAC extent in every quantile in both males and females. To a lesser extent, hypertension and dyslipidemia were also associated in the high CAC quantiles and the low CAC quantiles respectively.Conclusion: In addition to age and male sex in the total population, diabetes is the most important correlate of CAC extent in both sexes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Different health state utility (HSU) instruments produce different utilities for the same individuals, thereby compromising the intended comparability of economic evaluations of health care interventions. When developing crosswalks, previous studies have indicated nonlinear relationships. This paper inquires into the degree of nonlinearity across the four most widely used HSU-instruments and proposes exchange rates that differ depending on the severity levels of the health state utility scale.Methods: Overall, 7933 respondents from six countries, 1760 in a non-diagnosed healthy group and 6173 in seven disease groups, reported their health states using four different instruments: EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, HUI-3 and 15D. Quantile regressions investigate the degree of nonlinear relationships between these instruments. To compare the instruments across different disease severities, we split the health state utility scale into utility intervals with 0.2 successive decrements in utility starting from perfect health at 1.00. Exchange rates (ERs) are calculated as the mean utility difference between two utility intervals on one HSU-instrument divided by the difference in mean utility on another HSU-instrument.Results: Quantile regressions reveal significant nonlinear relationships across all four HSU-instruments. The degrees of nonlinearities differ, with a maximum degree of difference in the coefficients along the health state utility scale of 3.34 when SF-6D is regressed on EQ-5D. At the lower end of the health state utility scale, the exchange rate from SF-6D to EQ-5D is 2.11, whilst at the upper end it is 0.38.Conclusion: Comparisons at different utility levels illustrate the fallacy of using linear functions as crosswalks between HSU-instruments. The existence of nonlinear relationships between different HSU-instruments suggests that level-specific exchange rates should be used when converting a change in utility on the instrument used, onto a corresponding utility change had another instrument been used. Accounting for nonlinearities will increase the validity of the comparison for decision makers when faced with a choice between interventions whose calculations of QALY gains have been based on different HSU-instruments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports insufficient funding for ancient DNA research has caused a brain drain from U.S. to European research facilities. It states of the top 18 high-impact ancient DNA research published from 2011-2015, only one U.S. and one Australian lab had a paper in the top 18, while the rest were from Europe. It mentions only the National Science Foundation provides ancient DNA research funding in the U.S. with awards ranging from 100,000 to 350,000 dollars a year for three years.

Background: Health care organizations need to be responsive to the needs of increasingly diverse patient populations. We compared the contents of six publicly available approaches to organizational responsiveness to diversity. The central questions addressed in this paper are: what are the most consistently recommended issues for health care organizations to address in order to be responsive to the needs of diverse groups that differ from the majority population? How much consensus is there between various approaches?Methods: We purposively sampled six approaches from the US, Australia and Europe and used qualitative textual analysis to categorize the content of each approach into domains (conceptually distinct topic areas) and, within each domain, into dimensions (operationalizations). The resulting classification framework was used for comparative analysis of the content of the six approaches.Results: We identified seven domains that were represented in most or all approaches: organizational commitment, empirical evidence on inequalities and needs, a competent and diverse workforce, ensuring access for all users, ensuring responsiveness in care provision, fostering patient and community participation, and actively promoting responsiveness. Variations in the operationalization of these domains related to different scopes, contexts and types of diversity. For example, approaches that focus on ethnic diversity mostly provide recommendations to handle cultural and language differences; approaches that take an intersectional approach and broaden their target population to vulnerable groups in a more general sense also pay attention to factors such as socio-economic status and gender.Conclusions: Despite differences in labeling, there is a broad consensus about what health care organizations need to do in order to be responsive to patient diversity. This opens the way to full scale implementation of organizational responsiveness in healthcare and structured evaluation of its effectiveness in improving patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]