11 results
Contributors
-
- By Mitchell Aboulafia, Frederick Adams, Marilyn McCord Adams, Robert M. Adams, Laird Addis, James W. Allard, David Allison, William P. Alston, Karl Ameriks, C. Anthony Anderson, David Leech Anderson, Lanier Anderson, Roger Ariew, David Armstrong, Denis G. Arnold, E. J. Ashworth, Margaret Atherton, Robin Attfield, Bruce Aune, Edward Wilson Averill, Jody Azzouni, Kent Bach, Andrew Bailey, Lynne Rudder Baker, Thomas R. Baldwin, Jon Barwise, George Bealer, William Bechtel, Lawrence C. Becker, Mark A. Bedau, Ernst Behler, José A. Benardete, Ermanno Bencivenga, Jan Berg, Michael Bergmann, Robert L. Bernasconi, Sven Bernecker, Bernard Berofsky, Rod Bertolet, Charles J. Beyer, Christian Beyer, Joseph Bien, Joseph Bien, Peg Birmingham, Ivan Boh, James Bohman, Daniel Bonevac, Laurence BonJour, William J. Bouwsma, Raymond D. Bradley, Myles Brand, Richard B. Brandt, Michael E. Bratman, Stephen E. Braude, Daniel Breazeale, Angela Breitenbach, Jason Bridges, David O. Brink, Gordon G. Brittan, Justin Broackes, Dan W. Brock, Aaron Bronfman, Jeffrey E. Brower, Bartosz Brozek, Anthony Brueckner, Jeffrey Bub, Lara Buchak, Otavio Bueno, Ann E. Bumpus, Robert W. Burch, John Burgess, Arthur W. Burks, Panayot Butchvarov, Robert E. Butts, Marina Bykova, Patrick Byrne, David Carr, Noël Carroll, Edward S. Casey, Victor Caston, Victor Caston, Albert Casullo, Robert L. Causey, Alan K. L. Chan, Ruth Chang, Deen K. Chatterjee, Andrew Chignell, Roderick M. Chisholm, Kelly J. Clark, E. J. Coffman, Robin Collins, Brian P. Copenhaver, John Corcoran, John Cottingham, Roger Crisp, Frederick J. Crosson, Antonio S. Cua, Phillip D. Cummins, Martin Curd, Adam Cureton, Andrew Cutrofello, Stephen Darwall, Paul Sheldon Davies, Wayne A. Davis, Timothy Joseph Day, Claudio de Almeida, Mario De Caro, Mario De Caro, John Deigh, C. F. Delaney, Daniel C. Dennett, Michael R. DePaul, Michael Detlefsen, Daniel Trent Devereux, Philip E. Devine, John M. Dillon, Martin C. Dillon, Robert DiSalle, Mary Domski, Alan Donagan, Paul Draper, Fred Dretske, Mircea Dumitru, Wilhelm Dupré, Gerald Dworkin, John Earman, Ellery Eells, Catherine Z. Elgin, Berent Enç, Ronald P. Endicott, Edward Erwin, John Etchemendy, C. Stephen Evans, Susan L. Feagin, Solomon Feferman, Richard Feldman, Arthur Fine, Maurice A. Finocchiaro, William FitzPatrick, Richard E. Flathman, Gvozden Flego, Richard Foley, Graeme Forbes, Rainer Forst, Malcolm R. Forster, Daniel Fouke, Patrick Francken, Samuel Freeman, Elizabeth Fricker, Miranda Fricker, Michael Friedman, Michael Fuerstein, Richard A. Fumerton, Alan Gabbey, Pieranna Garavaso, Daniel Garber, Jorge L. A. Garcia, Robert K. Garcia, Don Garrett, Philip Gasper, Gerald Gaus, Berys Gaut, Bernard Gert, Roger F. Gibson, Cody Gilmore, Carl Ginet, Alan H. Goldman, Alvin I. Goldman, Alfonso Gömez-Lobo, Lenn E. Goodman, Robert M. Gordon, Stefan Gosepath, Jorge J. E. Gracia, Daniel W. Graham, George A. Graham, Peter J. Graham, Richard E. Grandy, I. Grattan-Guinness, John Greco, Philip T. Grier, Nicholas Griffin, Nicholas Griffin, David A. Griffiths, Paul J. Griffiths, Stephen R. Grimm, Charles L. Griswold, Charles B. Guignon, Pete A. Y. Gunter, Dimitri Gutas, Gary Gutting, Paul Guyer, Kwame Gyekye, Oscar A. Haac, Raul Hakli, Raul Hakli, Michael Hallett, Edward C. Halper, Jean Hampton, R. James Hankinson, K. R. Hanley, Russell Hardin, Robert M. Harnish, William Harper, David Harrah, Kevin Hart, Ali Hasan, William Hasker, John Haugeland, Roger Hausheer, William Heald, Peter Heath, Richard Heck, John F. Heil, Vincent F. Hendricks, Stephen Hetherington, Francis Heylighen, Kathleen Marie Higgins, Risto Hilpinen, Harold T. Hodes, Joshua Hoffman, Alan Holland, Robert L. Holmes, Richard Holton, Brad W. Hooker, Terence E. Horgan, Tamara Horowitz, Paul Horwich, Vittorio Hösle, Paul Hoβfeld, Daniel Howard-Snyder, Frances Howard-Snyder, Anne Hudson, Deal W. Hudson, Carl A. Huffman, David L. Hull, Patricia Huntington, Thomas Hurka, Paul Hurley, Rosalind Hursthouse, Guillermo Hurtado, Ronald E. Hustwit, Sarah Hutton, Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa, Harry A. Ide, David Ingram, Philip J. Ivanhoe, Alfred L. Ivry, Frank Jackson, Dale Jacquette, Joseph Jedwab, Richard Jeffrey, David Alan Johnson, Edward Johnson, Mark D. Jordan, Richard Joyce, Hwa Yol Jung, Robert Hillary Kane, Tomis Kapitan, Jacquelyn Ann K. Kegley, James A. Keller, Ralph Kennedy, Sergei Khoruzhii, Jaegwon Kim, Yersu Kim, Nathan L. King, Patricia Kitcher, Peter D. Klein, E. D. Klemke, Virginia Klenk, George L. Kline, Christian Klotz, Simo Knuuttila, Joseph J. Kockelmans, Konstantin Kolenda, Sebastian Tomasz Kołodziejczyk, Isaac Kramnick, Richard Kraut, Fred Kroon, Manfred Kuehn, Steven T. Kuhn, Henry E. Kyburg, John Lachs, Jennifer Lackey, Stephen E. Lahey, Andrea Lavazza, Thomas H. Leahey, Joo Heung Lee, Keith Lehrer, Dorothy Leland, Noah M. Lemos, Ernest LePore, Sarah-Jane Leslie, Isaac Levi, Andrew Levine, Alan E. Lewis, Daniel E. Little, Shu-hsien Liu, Shu-hsien Liu, Alan K. L. Chan, Brian Loar, Lawrence B. Lombard, John Longeway, Dominic McIver Lopes, Michael J. Loux, E. J. Lowe, Steven Luper, Eugene C. Luschei, William G. Lycan, David Lyons, David Macarthur, Danielle Macbeth, Scott MacDonald, Jacob L. Mackey, Louis H. Mackey, Penelope Mackie, Edward H. Madden, Penelope Maddy, G. B. Madison, Bernd Magnus, Pekka Mäkelä, Rudolf A. Makkreel, David Manley, William E. Mann (W.E.M.), Vladimir Marchenkov, Peter Markie, Jean-Pierre Marquis, Ausonio Marras, Mike W. Martin, A. P. Martinich, William L. McBride, David McCabe, Storrs McCall, Hugh J. McCann, Robert N. McCauley, John J. McDermott, Sarah McGrath, Ralph McInerny, Daniel J. McKaughan, Thomas McKay, Michael McKinsey, Brian P. McLaughlin, Ernan McMullin, Anthonie Meijers, Jack W. Meiland, William Jason Melanson, Alfred R. Mele, Joseph R. Mendola, Christopher Menzel, Michael J. Meyer, Christian B. Miller, David W. Miller, Peter Millican, Robert N. Minor, Phillip Mitsis, James A. Montmarquet, Michael S. Moore, Tim Moore, Benjamin Morison, Donald R. Morrison, Stephen J. Morse, Paul K. Moser, Alexander P. D. Mourelatos, Ian Mueller, James Bernard Murphy, Mark C. Murphy, Steven Nadler, Jan Narveson, Alan Nelson, Jerome Neu, Samuel Newlands, Kai Nielsen, Ilkka Niiniluoto, Carlos G. Noreña, Calvin G. Normore, David Fate Norton, Nikolaj Nottelmann, Donald Nute, David S. Oderberg, Steve Odin, Michael O’Rourke, Willard G. Oxtoby, Heinz Paetzold, George S. Pappas, Anthony J. Parel, Lydia Patton, R. P. Peerenboom, Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Adriaan T. Peperzak, Derk Pereboom, Jaroslav Peregrin, Glen Pettigrove, Philip Pettit, Edmund L. Pincoffs, Andrew Pinsent, Robert B. Pippin, Alvin Plantinga, Louis P. Pojman, Richard H. Popkin, John F. Post, Carl J. Posy, William J. Prior, Richard Purtill, Michael Quante, Philip L. Quinn, Philip L. Quinn, Elizabeth S. Radcliffe, Diana Raffman, Gerard Raulet, Stephen L. Read, Andrews Reath, Andrew Reisner, Nicholas Rescher, Henry S. Richardson, Robert C. Richardson, Thomas Ricketts, Wayne D. Riggs, Mark Roberts, Robert C. Roberts, Luke Robinson, Alexander Rosenberg, Gary Rosenkranz, Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal, Adina L. Roskies, William L. Rowe, T. M. Rudavsky, Michael Ruse, Bruce Russell, Lilly-Marlene Russow, Dan Ryder, R. M. Sainsbury, Joseph Salerno, Nathan Salmon, Wesley C. Salmon, Constantine Sandis, David H. Sanford, Marco Santambrogio, David Sapire, Ruth A. Saunders, Geoffrey Sayre-McCord, Charles Sayward, James P. Scanlan, Richard Schacht, Tamar Schapiro, Frederick F. Schmitt, Jerome B. Schneewind, Calvin O. Schrag, Alan D. Schrift, George F. Schumm, Jean-Loup Seban, David N. Sedley, Kenneth Seeskin, Krister Segerberg, Charlene Haddock Seigfried, Dennis M. Senchuk, James F. Sennett, William Lad Sessions, Stewart Shapiro, Tommie Shelby, Donald W. Sherburne, Christopher Shields, Roger A. Shiner, Sydney Shoemaker, Robert K. Shope, Kwong-loi Shun, Wilfried Sieg, A. John Simmons, Robert L. Simon, Marcus G. Singer, Georgette Sinkler, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Matti T. Sintonen, Lawrence Sklar, Brian Skyrms, Robert C. Sleigh, Michael Anthony Slote, Hans Sluga, Barry Smith, Michael Smith, Robin Smith, Robert Sokolowski, Robert C. Solomon, Marta Soniewicka, Philip Soper, Ernest Sosa, Nicholas Southwood, Paul Vincent Spade, T. L. S. Sprigge, Eric O. Springsted, George J. Stack, Rebecca Stangl, Jason Stanley, Florian Steinberger, Sören Stenlund, Christopher Stephens, James P. Sterba, Josef Stern, Matthias Steup, M. A. Stewart, Leopold Stubenberg, Edith Dudley Sulla, Frederick Suppe, Jere Paul Surber, David George Sussman, Sigrún Svavarsdóttir, Zeno G. Swijtink, Richard Swinburne, Charles C. Taliaferro, Robert B. Talisse, John Tasioulas, Paul Teller, Larry S. Temkin, Mark Textor, H. S. Thayer, Peter Thielke, Alan Thomas, Amie L. Thomasson, Katherine Thomson-Jones, Joshua C. Thurow, Vzalerie Tiberius, Terrence N. Tice, Paul Tidman, Mark C. Timmons, William Tolhurst, James E. Tomberlin, Rosemarie Tong, Lawrence Torcello, Kelly Trogdon, J. D. Trout, Robert E. Tully, Raimo Tuomela, John Turri, Martin M. Tweedale, Thomas Uebel, Jennifer Uleman, James Van Cleve, Harry van der Linden, Peter van Inwagen, Bryan W. Van Norden, René van Woudenberg, Donald Phillip Verene, Samantha Vice, Thomas Vinci, Donald Wayne Viney, Barbara Von Eckardt, Peter B. M. Vranas, Steven J. Wagner, William J. Wainwright, Paul E. Walker, Robert E. Wall, Craig Walton, Douglas Walton, Eric Watkins, Richard A. Watson, Michael V. Wedin, Rudolph H. Weingartner, Paul Weirich, Paul J. Weithman, Carl Wellman, Howard Wettstein, Samuel C. Wheeler, Stephen A. White, Jennifer Whiting, Edward R. Wierenga, Michael Williams, Fred Wilson, W. Kent Wilson, Kenneth P. Winkler, John F. Wippel, Jan Woleński, Allan B. Wolter, Nicholas P. Wolterstorff, Rega Wood, W. Jay Wood, Paul Woodruff, Alison Wylie, Gideon Yaffe, Takashi Yagisawa, Yutaka Yamamoto, Keith E. Yandell, Xiaomei Yang, Dean Zimmerman, Günter Zoller, Catherine Zuckert, Michael Zuckert, Jack A. Zupko (J.A.Z.)
- Edited by Robert Audi, University of Notre Dame, Indiana
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
- Published online:
- 05 August 2015
- Print publication:
- 27 April 2015, pp ix-xxx
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
9 - Human and cat personalities: building the bond from both sides
-
- By Kurt Kotrschal, University of Vienna Department of Behavioural Biology, Jon Day, WALTHAM® Centre for Pet Nutrition, Sandra McCune, WALTHAM® Centre for Pet Nutrition, Manuela Wedl, University of Vienna Department of Behavioural Biology
- Edited by Dennis C. Turner, Patrick Bateson, University of Cambridge
-
- Book:
- The Domestic Cat
- Published online:
- 05 December 2013
- Print publication:
- 21 November 2013, pp 113-128
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
People and cats together
Domestic cats (Felis silvestris catus) are among the most common companion animals. This is particularly true in cultures with an Islamic background, where dogs are less acceptable as companion animals than in Western societies (Chapter 8). In Austria, for example, a human population of 8 million owns more than 2 million cats, in contrast to just about 700,000 dogs (Kotrschal et al., 2004). Consequently, the behaviour of cats and their interaction with people has attracted scientific interest (Leyhausen, 1960; Turner, 1991; Bradshaw, 1992; Turner & Bateson, 2000). Particularly in rural settings, the association between cats and people may still be loose; cats are mainly tolerated as pest controllers, but often people also sympathise with these cats and feed them. In urban areas most cats, nowadays, tend to be social companions of their owners. In parallel with the increase of one-person households, the keeping of companion cats seems on the rise. In order to ensure their safety, many of these urban cats are kept indoors. Such indoor cats tend to interact more with, and are more ‘attached’ to their owners than cats that have the option of going outdoors (Stammbach & Turner, 1999). People often engage in close and long-term relationships with their cats, and owners and cats may develop complex idiosyncratic and time-structured interactions (Wedl et al., 2011).
2 - Community engagement in safeguarding the world's largest reef: Great Barrier Reef, Australia
- Edited by Amareswar Galla
-
- Book:
- World Heritage
- Published online:
- 05 December 2012
- Print publication:
- 22 November 2012, pp 18-29
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Managing an icon
The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) along the north-east coast of Australia is the world's most extensive coral reef ecosystem and includes around 10 per cent of all the world's coral reefs. As one of the richest and most complex ecosystems on Earth, it is a significant global resource.
The GBR's outstanding universal value was recognized in 1981 when an area of 348,000 km was inscribed on the World Heritage List, meeting all four ‘natural’ criteria which at that time were:
(i) outstanding examples representing the major stages of the Earth's evolutionary history;
(ii) outstanding examples representing significant ongoing geological processes, biological evolution and man's interaction with his natural environment;
(iii) unique, rare or superlative natural phenomena, formations or features or areas of exceptional natural beauty, such as superlative examples of the most important ecosystems to man;
(iv) habitats where populations of rare or endangered species of plants and animals still survive.
Today the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA) still exhibits its remarkable biodiversity, including shallow inshore fringing reefs and mangroves, continental islands, coral cays, seagrass beds, mid-shelf reefs and exposed outer reefs, and extends out to deep oceanic waters more than 250 km offshore.
Within the boundary of the GBRWHA are:
the GBR Marine Park – the Federal Marine Park comprises just under 99 per cent of the World Heritage Area. The GBR Marine Park's jurisdiction ends at low water mark along the mainland coast (with the exception of port areas) and around islands (with the exception of seventy Commonwealth-owned islands which are part of the Marine Park);
[…]
11 - NETWORKS – The assessment of marine reserve networks: guidelines for ecological evaluation
- from Part IV - Scale-up of marine protected area systems
- Edited by Joachim Claudet, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Paris
-
- Book:
- Marine Protected Areas
- Published online:
- 05 August 2012
- Print publication:
- 29 September 2011, pp 293-321
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
As marine ecosystems are plagued by an ever-increasing suite of threats including climate change, pollution, habitat degradation, and fisheries impacts (Roessig et al., 2004; Lotze et al., 2006; Jackson, 2008), there are now no ocean areas that are exempt from anthropogenic impacts (Halpern et al., 2008). In order to preserve marine biodiversity, ecosystem function, and the goods and services provided by resistant and/or resilient systems, marine reserves have been increasingly recommended as part of an ecosystem-based approach to management (Browman and Stergiou, 2004; Levin et al., 2009). Marine reserves are defined as “areas of the ocean completely protected from all extractive and destructive activities” (Lubchenco et al., 2003) and can be experimental controls for evaluating the impact of these activities on marine ecosystems. Growing scientific information has shown consistent increases in species density, biomass, size, and diversity in response to full protection inside reserves of varying sizes and ages located in diverse regions (Claudet et al., 2008; Lester et al., 2009; Molloy et al., 2009). However, most of these data are from individual marine reserves and therefore have inherently limited transferability to networks of marine reserves, which when properly designed can outperform single marine reserves for a variety of ecological, economic, and social management goals (Roberts et al., 2003; Almany et al., 2009; Gaines et al., 2010).
The concept of marine reserve networks grew out of a desire to achieve both conservation and fishery management goals by minimizing the potential negative economic, social, and cultural impacts of a single large reserve while still producing similar or even greater ecological and economic returns (Murray et al., 1999; Gaines et al., 2010). In addition, reserves networks can provide insurance by protecting areas across a region and spreading the risk that these sites may be impacted by localized catastrophes such as hurricanes or oil spills (Allison et al., 2003). The World Conservation Union's Marine Programme defines a network as “a collection of individual marine protected areas (MPAs) or reserves operating co-operatively and synergistically, at various spatial scales and with a range of protection levels that are designed to meet objectives that a single reserve cannot achieve” (IUCN–WCPA, 2008). However, general terms such as “co-operatively” and “synergistically” can have myriad meanings. Without a clear definition of a network, it becomes difficult to identify attainable management goals and design a process for evaluating whether the network achieves those goals. Besides, different management goals may in turn result in the need for different types of networks. The use of MPAs with varying protection levels together with no-take zones in multiple-zoning schemes adds another layer of complexity to network design and evaluation; however, partially protected areas are generally used to manage coastal uses and avoid conflicts (rather than for strict ecological purposes) and are therefore a function of the local social, economic, and cultural context. As we are here interested in the ecological effects of networks, for the purposes of this chapter, we focus on marine reserves because these areas are no-take and therefore offer greater ecological benefits than other types of MPAs that allow some forms of extraction (Lester and Halpern, 2008).
Improving Efficiency in Active Surveillance for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus or Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus at Hospital Admission
- Daniel J. Morgan, Hannah R. Day, Jon P Furuno, Atlisa Young, J. Kristie Johnson, Douglas D. Bradham, Eli N. Perencevich
-
- Journal:
- Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology / Volume 31 / Issue 12 / December 2010
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 January 2015, pp. 1230-1235
- Print publication:
- December 2010
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Objective.
Mandatory active surveillance culturing of all patients admitted to Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals carries substantial economic costs. Clinical prediction rules have been used elsewhere to identify patients at high risk of colonization with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE). We aimed to derive and evaluate the clinical efficacy of prediction rules for MRSA and VRE colonization in a VA hospital.
Design and Setting.Prospective cohort of adult inpatients admitted to the medical and surgical wards of a 119-bed tertiary care VA hospital.
Methods.Within 48 hours after admission, patients gave consent, completed a 44-item risk factor questionnaire, and provided nasal culture samples for MRSA testing. A subset provided perirectal culture samples for VRE testing.
Results.Of 598 patients enrolled from August 30, 2007, through October 30, 2009, 585 provided nares samples and 239 provided perirectal samples. The prevalence of MRSA was 10.4% (61 of 585) (15.0% in patients with and 5.6% in patients without electronic medical record (EMR)-documented antibiotic use during the past year; P < .01). The prevalence of VRE was 6.3% (15 of 239) (11.3% in patients with and 0.9% in patients without EMR-documented antibiotic use; P < .01 ). The use of EMR-documented antibiotic use during the past year as the predictive rule for screening identified 242.8 (84%) of 290.6 subsequent days of exposure to MRSA and 60.0 (98%) of 61.0 subsequent days of exposure to VRE, respectively. EMR documentation of antibiotic use during the past year identified 301 (51%) of 585 patients as high-risk patients for whom additional testing with active surveillance culturing would be appropriate.
Conclusions.EMR documentation of antibiotic use during the year prior to admission identifies most MRSA and nearly all VRE transmission risk with surveillance culture sampling of only 51% of patients. This approach has substantial cost savings compared with the practice of universal active surveillance.
Frequent Multidrug-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii Contamination of Gloves, Gowns, and Hands of Healthcare Workers
- Daniel J. Morgan, Stephen Y. Liang, Catherine L. Smith, J. Kristie Johnson, Anthony D. Harris, Jon P. Furuno, Kerri A. Thorn, Graham M. Snyder, Hannah R. Day, Eli N. Perencevich
-
- Journal:
- Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology / Volume 31 / Issue 7 / July 2010
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 January 2015, pp. 716-721
- Print publication:
- July 2010
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Background.
Multidrug-resistant (MDR) gram-negative bacilli are important nosocomial pathogens.
Objective.To determine the incidence of transmission of MDR Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa from patients to healthcare workers (HCWs) during routine patient care.
Design.Prospective cohort study.
Setting.Medical and surgical intensive care units.
Methods.We observed HCWs who entered the rooms of patients colonized with MDR A. baumannii or colonized with both MDR A. baumannii and MDR P. aeruginosa. We examined their hands before room entry, their disposable gloves and/or gowns upon completion of patient care, and their hands after removal of gloves and/or gowns and before hand hygiene.
Results.Sixty-five interactions occurred with patients colonized with MDR A. baumannii and 134 with patients colonized with both MDR A. baumannii and MDR P. aeruginosa. Of 199 interactions between HCWs and patients colonized with MDR A. baumannii, 77 (38.7% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 31.9%–45.5%]) resulted in HCW contamination of gloves and/or gowns, and 9 (4.5% [95% CI, 1.6%–7.4%]) resulted in contamination of HCW hands after glove removal before hand hygiene. Of 134 interactions with patients colonized with MDR P. aeruginosa, 11 (8.2% [95% CI, 3.6%–12.9%]) resulted in HCW contamination of gloves and/or gowns, and 1 resulted in HCW contamination of hands. Independent risk factors for contamination with MDR A. baumannii were manipulation of wound dressing (adjusted odds ratio [aQR], 25.9 [95% CI, 3.1–208.8]), manipulation of artificial airway (aOR, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.1–4.0]), time in room longer than 5 minutes (aOR, 4.3 [95% CI, 2.0–9.1]), being a physician or nurse practitioner (aOR, 7.4 [95% CI, 1.6–35.2]), and being a nurse (aOR, 2.3 [95% CI, 1.1–4.8]).
Conclusions.Gowns, gloves, and unwashed hands of HCWs were frequently contaminated with MDR A. baumannii. MDR A. baumannii appears to be more easily transmitted than MDR P. aeruginosa and perhaps more easily transmitted than previously studied methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus. This ease of transmission may help explain the emergence of MDR A. baumannii.
Does the study of feeding behaviour benefit from a teleonomic framework?
- Ilias Kyriazakis, Jon E. L. Day
-
- Journal:
- Nutrition Research Reviews / Volume 11 / Issue 2 / December 1998
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 14 December 2007, pp. 223-229
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
In this paper we respond to the criticisms of Provenza et al. (1998) that our framework of learning and feeding motivation (Day et al. 1998) resorts to higher order goals, which cannot be falsified by experimentation. We assert that in order to be able to predict the feeding behaviour of animals we first need to understand what they are trying to achieve (i.e. invoke teleonomy). We then detail our framework in such terms that one could envisage experiments that could quantitatively test its predictions. We contend that the framework of ‘the self-organization of behaviour’ proposed by Provenza et al. (1998) cannot lead to such quantitative predictions, since it is invoked to describe feeding behaviour of animals a posteriori. It is our own desire, by contrast, to assess feeding behaviour a priori, which leads us to propose and defend our framework of learning and feeding motivation.
Food choice and intake: towards a unifying framework of learning and feeding motivation
- Jon E. L. Day, Ilias Kyriazakis, Peter J. Rogers
-
- Journal:
- Nutrition Research Reviews / Volume 11 / Issue 1 / June 1998
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 14 December 2007, pp. 25-43
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
The food choice and intake of animals (including humans) has typically been studied using frameworks of learning and feeding motivation. When used in isolation such frameworks could be criticized because learning paradigms give little consideration to how new food items are included or excluded from an individual's diet, and motivational paradigms do not explain how individuals decide which food to eat when given a choice. Consequently we are posed with the question of whether individuals actively interact with the food items present in their environment to learn about their nutritional properties? The thesis of this review is that individuals are motivated to actively sample food items in order to assess whether they are nutritionally beneficial or harmful. We offer a unifying framework, centred upon the concept of exploratory motivation, which is a synthesis of learning and paradigms of feeding motivation. In this framework information gathering occurs on two levels through exploratory behaviour: (i) the discrimination of food from nonfood items, and (ii) the continued monitoring and storage of information concerning the nutritional properties of these food items. We expect that this framework will advance our understanding of the behavioural control of nutrient intake by explaining how new food items are identified in the environment, and how individuals are able to monitor changes in the nutritional content of their food resource.
Nutrition and Behaviour Group Symposium on ‘Measuring nutrient intake’ Measuring food intake in farm and laboratory animals
- Bert J. Tolkamp, Jon E. L. Day, Ilias Kyriazakis
-
- Journal:
- Proceedings of the Nutrition Society / Volume 57 / Issue 2 / May 1998
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 05 March 2007, pp. 313-319
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
Cyclin B1 levels in the porcine 4-cell stage embryo
- Aaron J. Bonk, Jon E. Anderson, Lalantha R. Abeydeera, Billy N. Day, Randall S. Prather
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
The relative quantity of cyclin B1 was determined during the development of in vitro and in vivo derived porcine 4-cell embryos by western blotting and immunolocalised during the 4-cell stage. After cleavage to the 4-cell stage cyclin B1 localised to the cytoplasm at the 5, 10, 18 and 25 time points and localised to the nucleus 33 h post 4-cell cleavage (P4CC). The relative abundance of cyclin B1 was not significantly different in in vivo or in vitro derived 4-cell stage embryos cultured in the absence of the RNA polymerase inhibitor α-amanitin. Cyclin B1 protein was not detectable in embryos cultured in medium without α-amanitin for 5, 10, 18 or 25 h P4CC followed by culture in medium with α-amanitin to 33 P4CC. These results suggest that the maternal to zygotic transition of mRNA production that occurs at the 4-cell stage of the pig embryo does not result in an increase in cyclin B1 production. In addition, cyclin B1 protein levels remained constant in the absence of embryonic genome activation at the 4-cell stage.
Perceived role of psychiatrists in the management of substance misuse a questionnaire survey
- Edward Day, Jon Arcelus, Ashraf Kahn
-
- Journal:
- Psychiatric Bulletin / Volume 23 / Issue 11 / November 1999
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 January 2018, pp. 667-670
- Print publication:
- November 1999
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
Aims and methods
A postal questionnaire sent to all psychiatrists working in four NHS trusts in and around Birmingham was used to survey the number of new cases of drug and alcohol misuse identified in the previous month and the degree of postgraduate training in the management of such cases. Attitudes and beliefs about substance misuse problems were also elicited.
ResultsA response rate of 70% was achieved across six sub-specialities in psychiatry and four levels of training. Of the 143 respondents, over half had identified at least one new case of alcohol (61%) or drug misuse (55%) in the previous month. Approximately half of the sample admitted to having received no training in management of substance misuse cases in the previous five years (45% alcohol 50% drugs). There was general agreement about the potential management role of the doctor in the field, but less consensus on whether the clinician had a responsibility to intervene in such cases. A clear discrepancy was demonstrated between psychiatrists' perceptions of the evidence supporting various treatments and the actual evidence base.
Clinical implicationsThe study highlights the pressing need for training psychiatrists at all levels and in all sub-specialities in the management of substance misuse.