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 understand caregivers’ perceptions about their children’s mealtime social experiences at school and how they believe these social experiences impact their children’s consumption of meals at school (both meals brought from home and school meals).
Design:
Qualitative data were originally collected as part of a larger mixed methods study using an embedded-QUAN dominant research design.
Setting:
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with United States (U.S.) caregivers over ZoomTM in English and Spanish during the 2021–2022 school year. The interview guide contained 14 questions on caregivers’ perceptions about their children’s experiences with school meals.
Participants:
Caregivers of students in elementary, middle and high schools in rural, suburban and urban communities in California (n 46) and Maine (n 20) were interviewed. Most (60·6 %) were caregivers of children who were eligible for free or reduced-price meals.
Results:
Caregivers reported that an important benefit of eating meals at school is their child’s opportunity to socialise with their peers. Caregivers also stated that their child’s favourite aspect of school lunch is socialising with friends. However, some caregivers reported the cafeteria environment caused their children to feel anxious and not eat. Other caregivers reported that their children sometimes skipped lunch and chose to socialise with friends rather than wait in long lunch lines.
Conclusions:
Socialising during school meals is important to both caregivers and students. Policies such as increasing lunch period lengths and holding recess before lunch have been found to promote school meal consumption and could reinforce the positive social aspects of mealtime for students.
As countries transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, impacts on wildlife, particularly avian species, have become a concern. In Kenya, the effects of human-made infrastructure such as power lines and wind turbines on birds have been overlooked. To prevent further loss of biodiversity, it is necessary for infrastructure development policies to consider these impacts on birds. We aim to identify gaps in current policies by analysing the intersection of wildlife conservation and power-line infrastructure development in Kenya. Through content analysis, we evaluate the effectiveness of existing wildlife protection and energy-related policies and identify strengths and weaknesses to highlight areas for improvement. Our analysis reveals that current policies neglect threats posed by power lines and other infrastructure to birds. This oversight points to challenges such as a lack of awareness among policymakers and stakeholders and a lack of legal obligation for energy institutions to implement mitigation measures; conservationists may also face conflicts with those responsible for electricity distribution. Addressing these policy gaps is essential for effective wildlife conservation and sustainable development. This paper underscores the need to integrate wildlife conservation considerations into energy infrastructure planning to mitigate adverse impacts on avian species.
Children hospitalised with severe malnutrition have high mortality and readmission rates post-discharge. Current milk-based formulations target restoring ponderal growth but not the modification of gut barrier integrity or microbiome which increases the risk of gram-negative sepsis and poor outcomes. We propose that legume-based feeds rich in fermentable carbohydrates will promote better gut health and improve overall outcomes. We conducted an open-label phase II trial at Mbale and Soroti Regional Referral Hospitals, Uganda, involving 160 children aged 6 months to 5 years with severe malnutrition (mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) < 11·5 cm and/or nutritional oedema). Children were randomised to a lactose-free, chickpea-enriched legume paste feed (LF) (n 80) v. WHO standard F75/F100 feeds (n 80). Co-primary outcomes were change in MUAC and mortality to day 90. Secondary outcomes included weight gain (> 5 g/kg/d), de novo development of diarrhoea, time to diarrhoea and oedema resolution. Day 90 MUAC increase was marginally lower in LF v. WHO arm (1·1 cm (interquartile range (IQR) 1·1) v. 1·4 cm (IQR 1·40), P = 0·09); day 90 mortality was similar (11/80 (13·8 %) v. 12/80 (15 %), respectively, OR 0·91 (95 % CI 0·40, 2·07), P = 0·83). There were no differences in any of the other secondary outcomes. Owing to initial poor palatability of the LF, ten children switched to WHO feeds. Per-protocol analysis indicated a trend to lower day 90 mortality and readmission rates in the LF (6/60 (10 %) and 2/60(3 %)) v. WHO feeds (12/71(17·5 %) and 4/71(6 %)). Further refinement of LF and clinical trials are warranted, given the poor outcomes in children with severe malnutrition.
To evaluate the clinical impact and features associated with repeat tracheal aspirate (TA) cultures in children admitted to the intensive care unit.
Design:
Retrospective cohort study.
Setting:
A 338-bed freestanding, tertiary pediatric academic medical center with pediatric medical intensive care unit (PICU) and cardiac intensive care units (CICU).
Patients:
Children ≤18 years of age who were admitted to either the PICU or CICU who had ≥2 TA cultures in a single intensive care admission.
Methods:
Patients with ≥2 TA cultures between 2018 and 2019 were included in this study. The following information was collected: patient demographics, clinical data summarizing patient condition at the time of culture collection, number of TA cultures per patient, antibiotic usage, and microbiologic data. Descriptive statistics established the frequency of TA collection, time between culturing, clinical reasoning for collection, antibiotic exposure, and development of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO).
Results:
Sixty-three patients had repeat TA cultures and accounted for 252 TA cultures during the study period. Most patients with repeat TA cultures were admitted to the PICU (71%) and were male (65%). A median of 3 TA cultures per patient were obtained with 50% of repeat cultures occurring within 7 days from the previous culture. Sixty-six percent of patients had the same organism cultured on ≥2 TA cultures. Most antibiotics were not modified or continued to treat the results of the TA culture.
Conclusions:
Repeat TA cultures frequently show the same pathogens, and results do not often influence antibiotic selection or usage. Repeat TA cultures did demonstrate the development of MDROs.
Child care environments offer an ideal setting for feeding interventions. CELEBRATE Feeding is an approach implemented in child care environments in two Maritime Provinces in Canada to support responsive feeding (RF) to foster children’s self-efficacy, self-regulation, and healthy relationships with food. This study aimed to describe RF in child care using established and enhanced scoring frameworks.
The Environment and Policy Assessment and Observation (EPAO) was modified to reflect RF environments and practices, resulting in our modified EPAO and a CELEBRATE scale. Observations were conducted in 18 child care rooms. Behaviours and environments were scored on both scales, creating 21 RF scores, with a score of ‘3’ indicating the most responsiveness. Descriptive analyses of the scores were conducted. The overall room averages were Mean (M) = 41.00, Standard Deviation (SD) = 7.07 (EPAO), and M = 37.92 SD = 6.50 (CELEBRATE). Most responsive scores among rooms within our EPAO and CELEBRATE scales, respectively, were ‘educators not using food to calm or encourage behaviour’ (M = 2.94, SD = 0.24; M = 2.98, SD = 0.06) and ‘not requiring children to sit at the table until finished’ (M = 2.89, SD = 0.47; M = 2.97, SD = 0.12). The least responsive scores within the EPAO were ‘educator prompts for children to drink water’ (M = 0.78, SD = 0.94) and ‘children self-serving’ (M = 0.83, SD = 0.38). The least responsive in the CELEBRATE scale were ‘enthusiastic role modelling during mealtime’ (M = 0.70, SD = 0.68) and ‘praise of mealtime behaviour unrelated to food intake’ (M = 0.74, SD = 0.55). The CELEBRATE scale captured unique observation information about RF to allow documenting change over time with detailed measurement to inform and support nutrition interventions within child care environments.
Background:Burkholderia multivorans are gram-negative bacteria typically found in water and soil. B. multivorans outbreaks among patients without cystic fibrosis have been associated with exposure to contaminated medical devices or nonsterile aqueous products. Acquisition can also occur from exposure to environmental reservoirs like sinks or other hospital water sources. We describe an outbreak of B. multivorans among hospitalized patients without cystic fibrosis at 2 hospitals within the same healthcare system in California (hospitals A and B) between August 2021 and July 2022. Methods: We defined confirmed case patients as patients without cystic fibrosis hospitalized at hospital A or hospital B between January 2020 to July 2022 with B. multivorans isolated from any body site matching the outbreak strain. We reviewed medical records to describe case patients and to identify common exposures. We evaluated infection control practices and interviewed staff to detect exposures to nonsterile water. Select samples from water, ice, drains, and sink splash zone surfaces were collected and cultured for B. multivorans in March 2022 and July 2022 from both hospitals. Common aqueous products used among case patients were tested for B. multivorans. Genetic relatedness between clinical and environmental samples was determined using random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) and repetitive extragenic palindromic polymerase chain reaction (Rep-PCR). Results: We identified 23 confirmed case patients; 20 (87%) of these were identified at an intensive care unit (ICU) in hospital A. B. multivorans was isolated from respiratory sources in 18 cases (78%). We observed medication preparation items, gloves, and patient care items stored within sink splash zones in ICU medication preparation rooms and patient rooms. Nonsterile water and ice were used for bed baths, swallow evaluations, and ice packs. B. multivorans was cultured from ice and water dispensed from an 11-year-old ice machine in the ICU at hospital A in March 2022 but no other water sources. Additional testing in July 2022 yielded B. multivorans from ice and a drain pan from a new ice machine in the same ICU location at hospital A. All products were negative. Clinical and environmental isolates were the same strain by RAPD and Rep-PCR. Conclusions: The use of nonsterile water and ice from a contaminated ice machine contributed to this outbreak. Water-related fixtures can serve as reservoirs for Burkholderia, posing infection risk to hospitalized and immunocompromised patients. During outbreaks of water-related organisms, such as B. multivorans , nonsterile water and ice use should be investigated as potential sources of transmission and other options should be considered, especially for critically ill patients.
Three volumes of detailed description of Bedfordshire parish churches, presented with text from five important nineteenth-century sources; Appendices and Index complete the set.
This is to be a series of three volumes covering Bedfordshire churches in the nineteenth century. The volumes will contain descriptions of churches “on the eve of restoration” together with contemporary illustrations –most of which will be published for the first time.
For each church, there will be extracts from original records amplified by a commentary and explanatory footnotes. The main source material consists of:
1. Extracts from church inventories – mainly 1822
2. Antiquarian notes on churches by Archdeacon Bonney, c.1840
4. Articles on churches by W.A. – John Martin, the librarian at Woburn Abbey - 1845-1854
5. Church descriptions by Sir Stephen Glynne 1830-1870
There is considerable value in having these key sources, with illustrations and commentary, in one place. The descriptions by Bonney and Glynne are purely factual, but John Martin’s articles, highlighting abuses and neglect, make colourful and at times controversial reading. Bonney’s visitation notes - and the supporting evidence from contemporary records such as churchwardens’ accounts – give a clear indication that church buildings were far from neglected in the opening decades of the nineteenth century. Together these sources document features that can still be seen today, and provide information on others that have been lost.
The aim has been to present the text of contemporary sources in their original state, to convey a feeling for the times as well as to provide information. It is recognised that most of the sources could have been condensed by editing - for instance the lists of registers in the glebe terriers and the quotations in the articles by W.A. – but the Editorial Group felt that they should nevertheless be published in extenso.
The introductory commentary for each church includes a summary of the history of the building, focusing especially on eighteenth and nineteenth century restoration and alterations. These introductory notes are generally brief, but may be longer where differences between present and past external appearance merit detailed discussion. Detailed footnotes explain and amplify features mentioned in the text of the original sources and so lead the reader to additional research material.
Bedfordshire churches on the eve of restoration are well documented in a number of sources. First, there are a great many pictures of churches by artists such as Thomas Fisher and George Shepherd dating from the early Cl9th. Secondly, there are the manuscript sources which describe the condition of church buildings and ornaments in the years leading up to “the age of restoration”.
These sources are described and discussed in detail below. In outline, however, they include the glebe terriers for 1822 which describe the plan of each church and list the ornaments and furnishings. As Archdeacon of Bedford from 1821 to 1844, Dr. Henry Kaye Bonney compiled two notebooks on the churches in his care. In the one, he made detailed architectural notes on each church and its fittings, and in the other he kept a record of the orders made at his archidiaconal visitations between 1823 and 1839. Another commentator was John Martin, the Librarian at Woburn Abbey, who using the signature W.A. wrote a series of pithy articles on Bedfordshire churches for the Northampton Mercury and Bedfordshire Times between 1845 and 1854. Lastly, there are the notebooks of Sir Stephen Glynne who visited over a third of the churches in the County between 1830 and 1870.
Together these sources provide a colourful image of the appearance, condition and atmosphere of Bedfordshire churches at a time when on the one hand they were nearer their mediaeval state than they are today but when on the other they were arguably in their greatest need of attention.
Glebe Terriers (extracts) 1822
After the Reformation, the ecclesiastical authorities became increasingly aware of the need to keep proper records of church possessions. The documents known as glebe terriers fulfil this purpose, and include terriers (recording property and endowments) and inventories (listing goods and chattels). The existence of such records helped to prevent the loss and misappropriation of church property.
Terriers had been compiled for purely parochial purposes in mediaeval times, but in compliance with an archiepiscopal order or canon of 1571 it became a requirement for copies of these documents to be lodged in diocesan registries for safe-keeping.
Although the present church dates chiefly from the Cl4th and Cl5th, the foundations of the Cl2th church were discovered during excavations in 1975. The later church has a chancel, nave with north and south aisles, south porch and west tower. It retains its Cl5th roof with angels and shields (though the painted decoration is modem) and there is a ceilure above the former rood.
In 1696 a private pew was constructed for Lord Ashbumham of Ampthill Park in the south aisle of the church. Sir Christopher Wren and his pupil Nicholas Hawksmoor were involved in the design, and the pew was built by Alexander Fort, the King’s joiner. There was a heated legal dispute between Lord Ashburnham and Lord Ailesbury of Houghton House about this pew, which was eventually removed in 1847. The entrance through the east wall of the south aisle is shown in Buckler’s drawing dated 1835 (Plate 2). Lord Ailesbury had his own pew in the church, and there are faculties and papers regarding other Cl8th pews. In 1827 Boissier described the church as “crowded with pews & galleries”. Between 1823 and 1839 Bonney ordered several improvements to the pews, and in 1845 W.A. was highly critical of the arrangement of the church interior.
A faculty was obtained in 1728 to replace the pulpit, take down the chancel screen, and alter various windows. It was probably at this date that the pulpit was placed centrally in the chancel arch where it remained until 1847. Other repairs and alterations in the Cl8th and early Cl9th are recorded in the churchwardens’ accounts from 1718, vestry minutes from 1767, and churchwardens bills from 1823 (listed individually by Andrew Underwood) in the parish records.
Restoration came in 1847-8 under James Tacy Wing of Bedford, who provided new seats and galleries in the nave (Plate 3) and renewed the east window, repaired the roof and stonework, and added a small vestry on the north side of the chancel. In 1851-2 the church was lit by gas.
The tracery of the windows in the south aisle was renewed in 1872-3. Further work followed in 1877 when the vestry on the north side of the chancel was enlarged under James Piers St. Aubyn, although not all the work authorised by the faculty was carried out.
The parish churches of England are among the most noble and conspicuous of the nation’s architectural monuments. Their survival, however, owes more to chance than to good stewardship. Neglect, decay, and deliberate destruction are as much a part of their history as the work of dedicated benefactors and parishioners who strove to make our churches worthy for Christian worship.
As the sources selected for inclusion in this series demonstrate all too clearly, many Bedfordshire churches were in a dilapidated state in the opening decades of the nineteenth century. Others, whilst structurally sound and decently furnished for the worship of the day, needed “restoration” – a term meaning much more than just repair. This was the situation facing the Victorians who – far from vandalising our heritage – sought to restore these precious buildings from years of neglect and adapt them to suit the new liturgical arrangements of the time.
The coming of the ecclesiological movement in the 1840s brought a new concern for the ceremonial aspects of worship – the ministry of the sacraments instead of the ministry of the word. This entailed a change in the arrangement of church buildings, the old “preaching boxes” of the Cl8th giving way to churches in which all attention focused on the chancel and the holy table in the sanctuary. The reformers often exaggerated the poor state of church buildings as a means of drawing attention to the need for change, and the Victorians were invariably critical of alterations and repairs carried out in previous centuries when utility had been regarded as more important than sanctity.
Between about 1840 and 1914 virtually every parish church in England was in some measure restored, and vast sums of money were spent on what was seen to be one of the most worthy causes of the Victorian era. Many churches were rescued from the brink of collapse and given a new lease of life. Some were restored to their former glory. Others were mutilated beyond recognition or wholly rebuilt. Churches viewed by the Victorians as “tainted by classical alterations” were gothicised. Sound buildings were “improved” to suit the needs of a new religious age.
Churches remaining “unrestored” in appearance are to be seen at Chaigrave, Dean, Knotting, Odell, Shelton and Wymington (to name a few of the more rewarding examples in the County), but sadly the phrase “over restored” is all too common in the Bedfordshire volume of Dr. Nikolaus Pevsner’s Buildings of England series.
A brief general survey of post-Reformation church work in the County will be useful as an introduction to the subject. It seems sensible to frame the review round the work of architects - the designers of buildings and of furnishing schemes - who worked at different periods and in different styles. In this way, it is possible to view the changes in ecclesiastical taste in the County in their broader national context.
Post-Reformation church building to 1800
In general terms, church building activity came to an abrupt end at the time of the Reformation. There are, however, exceptions and recent studies in the neighbouring county of Huntingdonshire have demonstrated the extent of building work and improvements to churches into the seventeenth century. This may be untypical of the general picture, and Bedfordshire lacks any particularly distinguished examples of churches dating from the period between 1550 and 1800. Those mentioned below are all relatively minor when compared with the treasures in neighbouring counties, such as:
In Bedfordshire, Hulcote church was rebuilt by the Chemocke family in the late sixteenth century. It is gothic in form, but with a distinctly Renaissance feel. The tower at Blunham was rebuilt in 1583. At Odell there is a fine screen and ringing gallery of 1637 in the tower arch. At Campton, the north aisle dates from 1649. Whipsnade church was rebuilt in 1719. Melchboume has a seventeenthcentury porch brought, it is said, from Woodford in Northamptonshire. The body of the church was rebuilt in the classical style in about 1770. Shillington tower, destroyed in a storm in 1701, was rebuilt in brick in 1750. The 1783 black basalt Wedgwood font at Cardington - another formerly existed at Melchboume - is a particularly memorable example of eighteenth-century church furnishing. In every one of these cases the identity of the architect is unknown.
Having lived and worked in Bedfordshire for the past sixteen years, I have visited every church in the County in the course of my work. While on the staff of the Bedfordshire County Record Office I have been responsible for surveying and listing all the church records, and I am fortunate that this has enabled me to develop an intimate knowledge of the churches and their history.
It is my hope that in preparing these volumes I may be able to pass on some of this knowledge for the benefit of people interested either in specific churches or in the subject generally. I should like to thank the Society for publishing this book. I also wish to thank Gordon Vowles, the General Editor, and my colleagues on the Editorial Group for their constructive comments and suggestions throughout its gestation period.
Formal acknowledgment is due to the authorities and owners who have allowed the publication of their material. The 1822 glebe terriers are published here by kind permission of Lincoln Diocesan Record Office. Archdeacon Bonney’s church notes were among the manuscripts transferred to the County Record Office from the old Bedford Library, while Bonney’s visitation notes appear by kind permission of the present Archdeacon of Bedford, the Ven. Malcolm Lesiter. Sir Stephen Glynne’s Bedfordshire church notes are published by kind permission of Sir William Gladstone. Thanks are also due to Geoffrey Veysey, the Clwyd County Archivist, for providing information on the notes and for allowing me to quote from his article about Sir Stephen Glynne. The sources of illustrations are acknowledged separately.
Material for this volume has been gathered from several record repositories and institutions. My first debt of gratitude is to my colleagues in the Bedfordshire County Record Office, but I must also thank the staff at the British Library, the British Newspaper Library, the library of the Society of Antiquaries of London, the Bedfordshire County Library Service, Lambeth Palace Library, Cambridge University Library, Lincolnshire Archives, and the Hertfordshire County Record Office for their help and advice.
Thanks are also due to all those who have typed parts of the text including Deborah Blake and Ellen Collier, but especially to Pauline Newbery on whom the main body of the work has fallen.