We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
On January 6, 2021, the belief that voter fraud was to blame for Trump’s 2020 loss led thousands of people to storm the Capitol during election certification, aiming to occupy it by force to stop this process. While only thousands participated, millions more voiced their support for the insurrection, and this begs the question: What explains perceptions of voter fraud and support for the January 6 insurrection? Recent studies establish that White conservatives are more likely to believe that voter fraud is a rampant problem, linking these perceptions to state efforts to expand access to voting systems where racial minority groups stand to gain equality. Using a combination of pre-election, post-election, and post-insurrection survey data, we examine the link between White racial attitudes and perceptions of voter fraud and views toward the insurrection. We argue that White racial attitudes are pivotal in explaining the perceptions of voter fraud that led to the January 6 insurrection. We find that White Americans with a bias for their own racial in-group over racial out-groups are likelier to doubt the election results after Donald Trump was declared the loser, though not before. We find these same attitudes are statistically associated with sympathy for the insurrection and insurrectionists.
Racial and ethnic variations in antibiotic utilization are well-reported in outpatient settings but little is known about inpatient settings. Our objective was to describe national inpatient antibiotic utilization among children by race and ethnicity.
Methods:
This study included hospital visit data from the Pediatric Health Information System between 01/01/2022 and 12/31/2022 for patients <20 years. Primary outcomes were the percentage of hospitalization encounters that received an antibiotic and antibiotic days of therapy (DOT) per 1000 patient days. Mixed-effect regression models were used to determine the association of race-ethnicity with outcomes, adjusting for covariates.
Results:
There were 846,530 hospitalizations. 45.2% of children were Non-Hispanic (NH) White, 27.1% were Hispanic, 19.2% were NH Black, 4.5% were NH Other, 3.5% were NH Asian, 0.3% were NH Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (NHPI) and 0.2% were NH American Indian. Adjusting for covariates, NH Black children had lower odds of receiving antibiotics compared to NH White children (aOR 0.96, 95%CI 0.94–0.97), while NH NHPI had higher odds of receiving antibiotics (aOR 1.16, 95%CI 1.05–1.29). Children who were Hispanic, NH Asian, NH American Indian, and children who were NH Other received antibiotic DOT compared to NH White children, while NH NHPI children received more antibiotic DOT.
Conclusions:
Antibiotic utilization in children’s hospitals differs by race and ethnicity. Hospitals should assess policies and practices that may contribute to disparities in treatment; antibiotic stewardship programs may play an important role in promoting inpatient pharmacoequity. Additional research is needed to examine individual diagnoses, clinical outcomes, and drivers of variation.
Over recent decades it has consistently been shown that disabled adults in the UK fare worse in the labour market and have lower levels of wellbeing than non-disabled adults. However, this is in part due to the selection into dis-ability of those with existing socio-economic disadvantages. In this article, we use panel data from the combined British Household Panel Survey and Understanding Society, covering the 27 years from 1991 to 2018, to distinguish between the effect of selection, the effect of dis-ability onset and the effect of dis-ability duration on a range of labour market and wellbeing outcomes. We show that there is important selection both into dis-ability and into longer experience of dis-ability on the basis of observable characteristics. We also show the importance of controlling for time-invariant unobservable individual characteristics that similarly affect selection into dis-ability and duration of dis-ability. Even after controlling for both forms of selection, we find significant negative effects of dis-ability onset and duration, and offer policy solutions to address them.
This editorial summarises the clinical relevance of ‘chronopsychiatry’, defined as the interface between circadian science and mental health science. Chronopsychiatry represents a move towards time-variable perspectives on neurobiology and symptoms, with a greater emphasis on chronotherapeutic interventions.
Bowers et al. express skepticism about deep neural networks (DNNs) as models of human vision due to DNNs' failures to account for results from psychological research. We argue that to fairly assess DNNs, we must first train them on more human-like tasks which we hypothesize will induce more human-like behaviors and representations.
A volume that engages ‘The Pacific Ocean to 1800’, of course, is a claim in search of definition. What exactly is the point of 1800 as a distinctive marker, and what particularly establishes the other end – the originary point of the discussion? In this instance, those questions are addressed not by marshalling the studies to match a categorical statement about what properly fits within a ‘to 1800’ rubric, but by drawing on the boundaries and frequent overlayering of the essays themselves.