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.
To identify risk factors for methicillin-susceptible (MSSA) and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) nasal carriage and surgical site infection (SSI) among patients undergoing fracture fixation procedures who were included in a quality improvement protocol involving screening patients for S. aureus nasal carriage and treating carriers with intranasal mupirocin and chlorhexidine bathing.
Design:
Retrospective cohort study.
Setting:
Level 1 trauma center.
Participants:
1,254 adults who underwent operative fixation of 1,298 extremity or pelvis fractures between 8/1/2014 – 7/31/2017.
Methods:
We calculated rates of S. aureus nasal carriage and SSI. We used multivariable stepwise logistic regression and selected the final models based on Akaike information criterion.
Results:
Of the 1,040 screened first procedures, 262 (25.19%) were performed on S. aureus nasal carriers: 211 (20.29%) on MSSA carriers and 51 (4.90%) on MRSA carriers. Long-term care facility residence (odds ratio [OR] 3.38; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17–9.76) was associated with MRSA nasal carriage. After adjusting for statistically and clinically significant variables, MRSA carriage was significantly associated with any SSI (OR 4.58; 95% CI 1.63–12.88), S. aureus SSI (OR 10.11; 95% CI 3.25–31.42), and MRSA SSI (OR 27.25; 95% CI 5.33–139.24), whereas MSSA carriage was not. Among S. aureus carriers, any chlorhexidine use was documented for 232 (88.55%), and any intranasal mupirocin was documented for 85 (40.28%) MSSA carriers and 33 (64.71%) MRSA carriers.
Conclusions:
MRSA carriage was associated with a significant risk of SSI after operative fracture fixation. Many carriers did not undergo decolonization, suggesting that a simplified decolonization protocol is needed.
Sickle cell disease (SCD) is hallmarked by recurrent episodes of severe acute pain and the risk for chronic pain. Remote peer support programs have been shown to effectively improve health outcomes for many chronic conditions. The objective of this study was to examine the feasibility and acceptability of an online peer mentoring program (iPeer2Peer program) for adolescents with SCD.
Method:
A waitlist pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted. Adolescents randomized to the intervention group were matched with trained peer mentors (19–25 years; successfully managing their SCD), consisting of up to 10 sessions of approximately 30-min video calls over a 15-week period. The control group received standard care. The primary outcomes were rates of accrual, withdrawal, and adherence to iP2P program/protocol, with secondary outcomes identifying topics of mentorship–mentee conversations through qualitative analysis.
Results:
Twenty-eight participants (14 intervention; 14 control) were randomized to the study (mean age: 14.8 ± 1.7 years; 57% female). Accrual rate was 80% (28/35) and withdrawal rate was 18% (5/28), with 28% (4/14) adhering to the iP2P program; however, 71% (10/14) of adolescents in the intervention completed at least one call. Based on content analysis of 75 mentor–mentee calls, three distinct content categories emerged: impact of SCD, self-management, transitioning to adulthood with SCD, and general topics.
Conclusion:
The results from this pilot study suggest that the current iteration of the iP2P SCD program lacks feasibility. Future research with the iP2P program can focus improved engagement via personalized mentoring, variable communication avenues, and an emphasis on gender.
Electroencephalography (EEG) and its measures, such as event-related brain potentials (ERPs) and time-frequency analysis (TFA), are powerful tools for investigating cognitive and behavioral processes in humans and therefore are increasingly attracting attention in the social and behavioral sciences. This chapter has been written for readers who are interested in getting involved in EEG research or who may already have some experience and wish to expand their toolbox of EEG methods. It aims to address both needs by providing a brief overview of human electrophysiology, with new users in mind, followed by a discussion of common challenges and typical applications. We conclude by describing current trends and potential for future developments.
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) adds a simple but powerful feature to chatbots, the ability to upload files just-in-time. Chatbots are trained on large quantities of public data. The ability to upload files just-in-time makes it possible to reduce hallucinations by filling in gaps in the knowledge base that go beyond the public training data such as private data and recent events. For example, in a customer service scenario, with RAG, we can upload your private bill and then the bot can discuss questions about your bill as opposed to generic FAQ questions about bills in general. This tutorial will show how to upload files and generate responses to prompts; see https://github.com/kwchurch/RAG for multiple solutions based on tools from OpenAI, LangChain, HuggingFace transformers and VecML.
Constipation is overrepresented in people with intellectual disabilities. Around 40% of people with intellectual disabilities who died prematurely were prescribed laxatives. A quarter of people with intellectual disabilities are said to be on laxatives. There are concerns that prescribing is not always effective and appropriate. There are currently no prescribing guidelines specific to this population.
Aims
To develop guidelines to support clinicians with their decision-making when prescribing laxatives to people with intellectual disabilities.
Method
A modified Delphi methodology, the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, was used. Step 1 comprised development of a bespoke six-item, open-ended questionnaire from background literature and its external validation. Relevant stakeholders, including a range of clinical experts and experts by experience covering the full range of intellectual disability and constipation, were invited to participate in an expert panel. Panel members completed the questionnaire. Responses were divided into ‘negative consensus’ and ‘positive consensus’. Members were then invited to two panel meetings, 2 weeks apart, held virtually over Microsoft Teams, to build consensus. The expert-by-experience group were included in a separate face-to-face meeting.
Results
A total of 20 people (ten professional experts and ten experts by experience, of whom seven had intellectual disability) took part. There were five main areas of discussion to reach a consensus i.e. importance of diagnosis, the role of prescribing, practicalities of medication administration, importance of reviewing and monitoring, and communication.
Conclusions
Laxative prescribing guidelines were developed by synthesising the knowledge of an expert panel including people with intellectual disabilities with the existing evidence base, to improve patient care.
Large language models (LLMs) have achieved amazing successes. They have done well on standardized tests in medicine and the law. That said, the bar has been raised so high that it could take decades to make good on expectations. To buy time for this long-term research program, the field needs to identify some good short-term applications for smooth-talking machines that are more fluent than trustworthy.
Considered a part of neither Central America nor the Gran Colombian area, and too small to claim a loyal following among scholars, Panama remains virtually unstudied by contemporary historians. Consequently, sources for the study of Panamanian history have been neglected, a situation this research note seeks to correct in part by identifying the principal holdings in Panamanian archives and libraries.
Dementia, a global health priority, poses a disproportionately high risk to lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans plus (LGBT+)/gender and sexuality diverse people. Despite this, little research has explored the lived experience of LGBT+ people with dementia or their care partners. This scoping review aims to understand what the literature reveals about their experiences, the ways in which their lives have been investigated, to inform future research, policy and practice. Using an established scoping review methodology, we identified seven papers that reported empirical research on the lived experience of LGBT+ people with dementia and their care partners. Only a single study reported on in two of the papers included people who were trans. This in itself reveals how rarely LGBT+ people are asked to speak about how dementia has shaped their lives in academic research. Our reflexive thematic analysis indicates that LGBT+ people with dementia and their care partners endure overlapping forms of disadvantage. This results in heightened experiences of fear and discrimination, lack of services and compounded social isolation. Importantly, while dementia was embodied as interference and loss by LGBT+ people, it was their gender and sexuality differences that provided solace, even in the face of disadvantage. Importantly, people's relationships with LGBT+ identities were framed as fundamental for safety, resilience and wellbeing, rather than a complicating or confounding factor in living with dementia.
Giving voice to the lived experiences of people with dementia across the globe, this text highlights the challenges presented as dementia care shifts to a community setting. Contributors address the social aspects of environment and, using a unique 'neighbourhood-centred' perspective, provide an innovative guide for policy and practice.
Autism and autistic traits are risk factors for suicidal behaviour.
Aims
To explore the prevalence of autism (diagnosed and undiagnosed) in those who died by suicide, and identify risk factors for suicide in this group.
Method
Stage 1: 372 coroners’ inquest records, covering the period 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2017 from two regions of England, were analysed for evidence that the person who died had diagnosed autism or undiagnosed possible autism (elevated autistic traits), and identified risk markers. Stage 2: 29 follow-up interviews with the next of kin of those who died gathered further evidence of autism and autistic traits using validated autism screening and diagnostic tools.
Results
Stage 1: evidence of autism (10.8%) was significantly higher in those who died by suicide than the 1.1% prevalence expected in the UK general alive population (odds ratio (OR) = 11.08, 95% CI 3.92–31.31). Stage 2: 5 (17.2%) of the follow-up sample had evidence of autism identified from the coroners’ records in stage 1. We identified evidence of undiagnosed possible autism in an additional 7 (24.1%) individuals, giving a total of 12 (41.4%); significantly higher than expected in the general alive population (1.1%) (OR = 19.76, 95% CI 2.36–165.84). Characteristics of those who died were largely similar regardless of evidence of autism, with groups experiencing a comparably high number of multiple risk markers before they died.
Conclusions
Elevated autistic traits are significantly over-represented in those who die by suicide.
This chapter draws on qualitative research using participatory methods to explore the experience of people with dementia who live alone. Drawing on data gathered in Sweden and the UK, the chapter highlights the distinct challenges of living alone with dementia and explores the different ways that people remain connected to neighbourhood places. We argue that the invisibility of such experiences to dementia policy and strategies (which typically assume the presence of a cohabiting carer or household member to provide support) needs to be addressed if dementia-friendly initiatives are to be truly inclusive.
Demographic projections show that the number of people living in single households will continue to increase steadily in many western and northern European countries and that older women are the fastest-growing section of the single householder population (Sundström et al, 2016; United Nations, 2017). The ageing population living alone in Europe also includes an increasing proportion of people with dementia (Prescop et al, 1999; Gaymu and Springer, 2010; Prince et al, 2015). In Canada, France, Germany, the UK and Sweden, between one third and one half of the population of people with dementia residing in a neighbourhood context live in single households (Ebly et al, 1999; Nourhashemi et al, 2005; Alzheimer's Society, 2013; Eichler et al, 2016; Odzakovic et al, 2019). Despite this increase in single householders with dementia, there is currently limited awareness of the particular challenges associated with living alone with dementia, even within emerging discourses and practices associated with dementia-friendly communities (Alzheimer's Society, 2013; Age UK, 2018; Odzakovic et al, 2018). As such, there is a danger that the creation of ‘dementia-friendly’ communities, and especially those based on communities of place, may rest upon a series of normative assumptions about dementia and about the relational context of people living with the condition.
Evidence from service-oriented research shows that people with dementia who live alone are more prone to (unplanned) hospitalisation (Ennis et al, 2014); are at greater risk of malnutrition (Nourhashemi et al, 2005); are likely to be admitted to long-term care at an earlier point in their journey with dementia (Yaffe et al, 2002); are often less well connected to formal services (Webber et al, 1994); and lack the advocacy of a co-resident carer (Eichler et al, 2016).
Is there somewhere that dementia belongs? If we had asked this question 20 years ago doubtless the weight of responses would have emphasised institutionalised settings: hospitals, clinics and care homes. Such places would likely be secured, perhaps bounded by fences – places of containment and segregation (Steele et al, 2019), of care, but also control (Ward et al, 2008; Kelly and Innes, 2013). They may even be places where the occupants desired to be elsewhere, congregating at the doors or at the edges of the building (Chalfont, 2008), perhaps even making a bid to escape (Chatterji, 1998; Bartlett, 2007). It is far less likely those responses would have foregrounded outdoor or public spaces. Indeed, commentators writing at the turn of the new century were keen to highlight that public spaces were rarely considered appropriate for people with dementia (Blackman et al, 2003). On the whole, biomedically informed research on dementia considered independent movement beyond the home to be fraught with risk, often focusing on the prevalence and frequency of people with dementia becoming lost, but without considering what role the environment itself might have played in these situations (for example, McShane et al, 1998). Silverstein and colleagues (2002) captured the caring but paternalistic and risk-averse mood of the time: ‘If someone with dementia can walk, that person can wander and become lost. If someone with dementia is missing, that person is lost. And if someone with a dementia is lost, that person is at risk of harm’ (p 7).
Fast-forward to the end of the first quarter of the 21st century and much has changed. Arguably, if we posed our question now a more diverse set of responses would ensue. Hopefully a more diverse range of people would feel entitled and enabled to offer their perspective, revealing that ways of engaging and eliciting the direct views of people living with dementia have in themselves evolved a great deal (for example Keady et al, 2017). Yet, arguably the legacy of efforts to ‘place dementia’ still inhabit approaches to the condition. Consider, for example, the everyday language of dementia care practice, talk of ‘admission and discharge’, of being ‘allocated a bed’, ‘awarded a place in day care’ or deemed ‘eligible for respite’.