Search

An increasing number of genome-wide association (GWA) studies are now using the higher resolution 1000 Genomes Project reference panel (1000G) for imputation, with the expectation that 1000G imputation will lead to the discovery of additional associated loci when compared to HapMap imputation. In order to assess the improvement of 1000G over HapMap imputation in identifying associated loci, we compared the results of GWA studies of circulating fibrinogen based on the two reference panels. Using both HapMap and 1000G imputation we performed a meta-analysis of 22 studies comprising the same 91,953 individuals. We identified six additional signals using 1000G imputation, while 29 loci were associated using both HapMap and 1000G imputation. One locus identified using HapMap imputation was not significant using 1000G imputation. The genome-wide significance threshold of 5×10-8 is based on the number of independent statistical tests using HapMap imputation, and 1000G imputation may lead to further independent tests that should be corrected for. When using a stricter Bonferroni correction for the 1000G GWA study (P-value < 2.5×10-8), the number of loci significant only using HapMap imputation increased to 4 while the number of loci significant only using 1000G decreased to 5. In conclusion, 1000G imputation enabled the identification of 20% more loci than HapMap imputation, although the advantage of 1000G imputation became less clear when a stricter Bonferroni correction was used. More generally, our results provide insights that are applicable to the implementation of other dense reference panels that are under development.

Background: Intimacy and sexuality are essential aspects of quality of life for older adults in longterm care. Numerous tools and interventions are available to support healthcare professionals in their conversations about intimacy and sexuality but they are often unfamiliar with these, or do not know when or how to use them. Aim: To develop a tool to help healthcare professionals choose from existing interventions to facilitate conversations with older adults on the subject of intimacy and sexuality. Methods: A design study, comprising five substudies and 16 workshops, was carried out in inpatient and outpatient settings for older adults. Participants were healthcare and design professionals, older adults and their relatives, undergraduate students and researchers. Data collection and analysis took place in several iterations, with insights from one phase guiding the design of the next. Findings: A paper brochure and a digital knowledge programme (IntiME) was developed to inform the selection of interventions and tools to initiate conversations about intimacy and sexuality with older adults. Initial experiences with IntiME suggest it can support healthcare professionals in this area. Conclusions: The IntiME tool has the potential to improve person-centred care around intimacy and sexuality by matching the personal characteristics of healthcare professionals and older adults with available interventions and tools. Further research into experiences with the use of IntiME is warranted. Implications for practice: * IntiME has the potential to improve person-centred care by matching the personal characteristics of staff and older adults with available interventions and tools * Co-creation with older adults and staff plays an important part in designing tools for personcentred care * Using IntiME may help staff become more aware of their own needs and thereby enhance competence in conversations about intimacy and sexuality [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two Dutch undergraduate programs in applied gerontology have teamed up with older volunteers to educate students in collaborating with older adults in the field of age-friendly service development. The research question of this study was: What are the motives and meanings of the older volunteers concerning their participation in an undergraduate program? An explorative descriptive qualitative design was used to study the motives and meanings of the older volunteers through semi-structured interviews (n = 11) and a focus group interview (n = 4). Two themes and nine categories emerged: (1) Personal norms and values (categories: responsible life attitude, contribution, self-determination), (2) Personal gain (categories: intergenerational education, personal development, staying healthy, pleasure, feeling appreciated, feeling connected). Personal norms and values and personal gains are meaningful to older volunteers in applied gerontology education. Universities should respect these when designing measures for improving participation methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a growing amount of research in which older adults contribute as co-researchers. The quality of this research depends, among other factors, on the nature of relationships between professional researchers and co-researchers. Reflections on these relationships can offer structured insight into this form of research. Aim: Our reflection on the co-operation between two older adults and a nurse researcher aims to share the lessons learned based on a critical understanding of our journey. Our main questions are: 1. How has the relationship developed over time, including in terms of mutuality and equality? 2. Which moments have been decisive in this development?. Conclusion: We regard our co-operative relationship as a 'dynamic search'. The meaning of mutuality and equality may change over time and so enrich the relationships. There is a need for further understanding into how these values can be nurtured in different configurations of researchers and co-researchers. Implications for practice: • Evolving relations can be nurtured through deliberative sharing of the perceptions, expectations and experiences of the researchers and co-researchers • Combining a formal working atmosphere with informal moments helps the research team respond to the individual needs of its members • To enhance equality and mutuality, it is important to appreciate and value everyone's contribution rather than concentrating on 'what' or 'how' individuals contribute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]