Search

School nursing associations are the professional organizations that help members collaborate with each other, keep up-to-date with trends and advances within the profession, advocate the positions of the profession, and provide a place of connection with stakeholders and government entities. Participation by members in professional associations is waning across the country affecting the work they can do. The Illinois Association of School Nurses took a proactive approach to reorganize and revitalize their organization and membership.

Objective: To examine the status of trauma system development and key structural and operational characteristics of these systems., Design and Setting: National survey of trauma systems with enabling state statute, regulation, or executive orders and for which designated trauma centers were present., Participants: Trauma system administrators and directors of 37 state and regional organizations that had legal authority to administer trauma systems, which represented a response rate of 90.2%., Main Outcome Measures: Trauma system components that had been implemented or were under development., Results: From 1988 to 1993, the number of states meeting one set of criteria for a complete trauma system criteria increased from two to five. The most common deficiency in establishing trauma systems was failure to limit the number of designated trauma centers based on community need. Although most existing trauma systems have developed formal processes for designating trauma centers, prehospital triage protocols to allow hospital bypass, and centralized trauma registries, several systems lack standardized policies for interhospital transfer and systemwide evaluation., Conclusion: State and regional organizations have accomplished a great deal but still have substantial work ahead in developing comprehensive trauma systems. Research is needed to better understand the relationship between trauma volume and outcomes of care as well as the impact of trauma system structure and operational characteristics on care delivery. Improved measures of patient outcome are also needed so that effective system evaluation can take place.

Purpose. This study assesses buddy support in a community-based, minimal-contact smoking cessation program. Design. Telephone interviews with participants (n=641, response=74%) before and after (end-of-program, n=1,023, response=83%; three months n=757, response=74%; six months, n=859, response=84%; and 12 months, n=713, response=70%) intervention provided the data to be analyzed. Setting. The Chicago metropolitan area was the setting. Subjects. Subjects were a random sample of registrants for the intervention program. Intervention. A self-help smoking cessation program was used, which included a manual and complementary televised segments. Engaging a buddy was optional. Measures. Background and psychosocial characteristics of participants, characteristics of buddies, program compliance, and smoking behavior were the measures used. Results. Almost one third (30.3%) engaged a buddy. Those most likely to engage a buddy were female (33.4%), younger than 30 (37.2%), educated beyond high school (33.4%), highly determined to quit (41.8%), and more likely to need help from others (39.8%). More than half of the buddies were from outside the participant's household (55.1%), and more than half were nonsmokers (60.9%). Having a buddy was associated positively with manual use (gamma=.38), viewing televised segments (gamma=.23), recalling manual segments (gamma=.33), and recalling televised segments (gamma=.26). Among those who read the manual least, having a buddy was associated with viewing televised segments (gamma=.26, p less than .05) and with end-of-program quitting (16.8% vs. 9.8%, p less than .05). Having a buddy also was associated with higher abstinence through 12 months (5.8% vs. 2.7%, p=.013). Among those with lower determination, the end-of-program quit rate was more than three times greater (p=.013) for those with a buddy (16.1%) than without a buddy (5.2%). Participants whose buddy was their spouse or partner were more likely to quit at end-of-program (29.1% vs. 18.4%, p=.031). Conclusions. Buddy support should be promoted as an adjunct to minimal-contact smoking cessation programs. Impact of buddy support might be improved by guiding participants in choosing a buddy.