Search

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-cat-10.1177_10760296231171081 for Standard-Intensity Versus Low-Intensity Anticoagulation with Warfarin in Asian Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Multi-Center, Randomized Controlled Trial by Jeong Gwan Cho, Ki Hong Lee, Yoo Ri Kim, Sunah Kim, Jisoo Gwak, Eunbit Cho, Yourim Sin, Seung Yong Shin, Hyung Wook Park, Jum Suk Ko, Nam Ho Kim, Yae Min Park, Jung Myung Lee, Nam Sik Yoon, Sung Soo Kim, Jun Hyung Kim and Dong Min Kim in Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jht-10.1177_10963480231152571 for A Systematic Analysis of Diaspora Tourism: Geographical Perspectives and Superdiversity by Adrienne Tingyao Liu, Allan M. Williams, Anyu Liu, Yoo Ri Kim and Pearl M.C. Lin in Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research

Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) are receiving considerable attention in the travel and tourism workplace and the overall sector. At a global level, a wide range of agreements and pledges exist to ensure the advancement towards EDI in the sector (Ferguson, 2018) (i.e., 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development). Despite global commitments, there is a substantive disconnection between global policy and practices of equality, and its absence across the tourism sector (Ferguson, 2018). Consequently, progress is primarily gradual and inconsistent across the travel and tourism industry. There are several societal, cultural and industry barriers that contribute to the continued inequality and inequity across the industry. An overarching barrier or challenge is the variation across the travel and tourism sector about how to define the terms and address EDI issues. While there are examples of good industry practices, there has been a general lack of successful and sustainable implementation of EDI initiatives, agendas and programmes. The aim of the ESRC IAA Project was to identify key challenges and barriers inhibiting our understanding of EDI in travel and tourism to foster inclusive organisational cultures, achieve representation and progression of diverse groups (i.e., ethnicity, gender, age, sexuality etc.) across all areas of management in the industry. The EDI impact workshops (co-moderated by the School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, University of Surrey, & the Travel Foundation) in London held on October 14th and 21st 2022 explored the issues through three tasks (See Fig. 1). Collectively, the tasks contributed to building a greater understanding of different dimensions of EDI and create a flexible and usable toolkit that meets the different contexts and needs of stakeholders. The findings of the workshops contributed to the design of the EDI toolkit of strategies and interventions may be used to support and guide organisations and policy makers toward achieving the EDI agenda across the sector.

Medtronic CapSureFix MRI 5086 pacing lead (5086; Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) has been reported to be associated with increased cardiac perforation and lead dislodgement. This study aimed to compare the incidence of cardiac perforation and lead dislodgement within 30 days after pacemaker implantation between 5086 MRI lead and previous Medtronic CapSureFix Novus 5076 non-MRI pacing lead. This was a nationwide, multicenter retrospective study in which we compared the incidence of adverse events between 277 patients implanted with 5086 lead and 205 patients implanted with 5076 lead between March 2009 and September 2014. Cardiac perforation within 30 days of pacemaker implantation occurred in 4 patients (1.4%) with the 5086 lead and in no patient with the 5076 lead (P = 0.084). Lead dislodgement occurred in 8 patients (2.9%) with the 5086 lead and in 5 patients (2.4%) with the 5076 lead (P = 0.764). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, age was significantly associated with cardiac perforation. Congestive heart failure and implantation of right atrial (RA) lead at RA free wall or septum were significant factors for the incidence of lead dislodgement and lead revision. The incidence of cardiac perforation and lead dislodgement were not statistically different between the patients with 5086 lead and the patients with 5076 lead. However, careful attention for cardiac perforation may be needed when using the 5086 MRI lead, especially in elderly patients., Graphical Abstract