Theory of thermal spin-charge coupling in electronic systems

The interplay between spin transport and thermoelectricity offers several novel ways of generating, manipulating, and detecting nonequilibrium spin in a wide range of materials. Here we formulate a phenomenological model in the spirit of the standard model of electrical spin injection to describe the electronic mechanism coupling charge, spin, and heat transport and employ the model to analyze several different geometries containing ferromagnetic (F) and nonmagnetic (N) regions: F, F/N, and F/N/F junctions which are subject to thermal gradients. We present analytical formulas for the spin accumulation and spin current profiles in those junctions that are valid for both tunnel and transparent (as well as intermediate) contacts. For F/N junctions we calculate the thermal spin injection efficiency and the spin accumulation induced nonequilibrium thermopower. We find conditions for countering thermal spin effects in the N region with electrical spin injection. This compensating effect should be particularly useful for distinguishing electronic from other mechanisms of spin injection by thermal gradients. For F/N/F junctions we analyze the differences in the nonequilibrium thermopower (and chemical potentials) for parallel and antiparallel orientations of the F magnetizations, as evidence and a quantitative measure of the spin accumulation in N. Furthermore, we study the Peltier and spin Peltier effects in F/N and F/N/F junctions and present analytical formulas for the heat evolution at the interfaces of isothermal junctions.Comment: to be published in PRB (in press), 19 pages, 19 figure

Confrontation and the Utility of Rules

There is a good reason why evidence scholars continue to be fascinated and perplexed, and some courts continue at least to be perplexed, by the types of evidence that tend to be lumped together misleadingly under the headings nonassertive conduct or implied assertions. Evidence of this sort highlights a paradox of the prevailing law of hearsay. I believe that this paradox cannot be resolved without fundamentally transforming the structure of that law. Thus, while I agree - within the current framework - with many of the insights so ably stated in this Symposium, I think evidence scholars must devote their efforts to construction of a better structure

The Matter in Extreme Conditions instrument at the Linac Coherent Light Source

The LCLS beam provides revolutionary capabilities for studying the transient behavior of matter in extreme conditions. The particular strength of the Matter in Extreme Conditions instrument is that it combines the unique LCLS beam with high-power optical laser beams, and a suite of dedicated diagnostics tailored for this field of science. In this paper an overview of the beamline, the capabilities of the instrumentation, and selected highlights of experiments and commissioning results are presented

Deconstructing compassionate conservation

Compassionate conservation focuses on 4 tenets: first, do no harm; individuals matter; inclusivity of individual animals; and peaceful coexistence between humans and animals. Recently, compassionate conservation has been promoted as an alternative to conventional conservation philosophy. We believe examples presented by compassionate conservationists are deliberately or arbitrarily chosen to focus on mammals; inherently not compassionate; and offer ineffective conservation solutions. Compassionate conservation arbitrarily focuses on charismatic species, notably large predators and megaherbivores. The philosophy is not compassionate when it leaves invasive predators in the environment to cause harm to vastly more individuals of native species or uses the fear of harm by apex predators to terrorize mesopredators. Hindering the control of exotic species (megafauna, predators) in situ will not improve the conservation condition of the majority of biodiversity. The positions taken by so-called compassionate conservationists on particular species and on conservation actions could be extended to hinder other forms of conservation, including translocations, conservation fencing, and fertility control. Animal welfare is incredibly important to conservation, but ironically compassionate conservation does not offer the best welfare outcomes to animals and is often ineffective in achieving conservation goals. Consequently, compassionate conservation may threaten public and governmental support for conservation because of the limited understanding of conservation problems by the general public

COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy in low- and middle-income countries

Widespread acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines is crucial for achieving sufficient immunization coverage to end the global pandemic, yet few studies have investigated COVID-19 vaccination attitudes in lower-income countries, where large-scale vaccination is just beginning. We analyze COVID-19 vaccine acceptance across 15 survey samples covering 10 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in Asia, Africa and South America, Russia (an upper-middle-income country) and the United States, including a total of 44,260 individuals. We find considerably higher willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine in our LMIC samples (mean 80.3%; median 78%; range 30.1 percentage points) compared with the United States (mean 64.6%) and Russia (mean 30.4%). Vaccine acceptance in LMICs is primarily explained by an interest in personal protection against COVID-19, while concern about side effects is the most common reason for hesitancy. Health workers are the most trusted sources of guidance about COVID-19 vaccines. Evidence from this sample of LMICs suggests that prioritizing vaccine distribution to the Global South should yield high returns in advancing global immunization coverage. Vaccination campaigns should focus on translating the high levels of stated acceptance into actual uptake. Messages highlighting vaccine efficacy and safety, delivered by healthcare workers, could be effective for addressing any remaining hesitancy in the analyzed LMICs.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

A bespoke smoking cessation service compared with treatment as usual for people with severe mental ill health: the SCIMITAR+ RCT

BackgroundThere is a high prevalence of smoking among people with severe mental ill health (SMI). Helping people with SMI to quit smoking could improve their health and longevity, and reduce health inequalities. However, those with SMI are less likely to access and engage with routine smoking cessation services than the general population.ObjectivesTo compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a bespoke smoking cessation (BSC) intervention with usual stop smoking services for people with SMI.DesignA pragmatic, two-arm, individually randomised controlled trial.SettingPrimary care and secondary care mental health services in England.ParticipantsSmokers aged ≥ 18 years with SMI who would like to cut down on or quit smoking.InterventionsA BSC intervention delivered by mental health specialists trained to deliver evidence-supported smoking cessation interventions compared with usual care.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was self-reported, CO-verified smoking cessation at 12 months. Smoking-related secondary outcomes were self-reported smoking cessation, the number of cigarettes smoked per day, the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence and the Motivation to Quit questionnaire. Other secondary outcomes were Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items, Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment-7 items and 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey, to assess mental health and body mass index measured at 6 and 12 months post randomisation.ResultsThe trial randomised 526 people (265 to the intervention group, 261 to the usual-care group) aged 19 to 72 years (mean 46 years). About 60% of participants were male. Participants smoked between 3 and 100 cigarettes per day (mean 25 cigarettes per day) at baseline. The intervention group had a higher rate of exhaled CO-verified smoking cessation at 6 and 12 months than the usual-care group [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 12 months: 1.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9 to 2.8; adjusted OR 6 months: 2.4, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.7]. This was not statistically significant at 12 months (p = 0.12) but was statistically significant at 6 months (p = 0.01). In total, 111 serious adverse events were reported (69 in the BSC group and 42 in the usual-care group); the majority were unplanned hospitalisations due to a deterioration in mental health (n = 98). The intervention is likely (57%) to be less costly but more effective than usual care; however, this result was not necessarily associated with participants’ smoking status.LimitationsFollow-up was not blind to treatment allocation. However, the primary outcome included a biochemically verified end point, less susceptible to observer biases. Some participants experienced difficulties in accessing nicotine replacement therapy because of changes in service provision. Efforts were made to help participants access nicotine replacement therapy, but this may have affected participants’ quit attempt.ConclusionsPeople with SMI who received the intervention were more likely to have stopped smoking at 6 months. Although more people who received the intervention had stopped smoking at 12 months, this was not statistically significant.Future workFurther research is needed to establish how quitting can be sustained among people with SMI.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN72955454.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Smoking cessation for people with severe mental illness (SCIMITAR+) : a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: People with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia are three times more likely to smoke than the wider population, contributing to widening health inequalities. Smoking remains the largest modifiable risk factor for this health inequality, but people with severe mental illness have not historically engaged with smoking cessation services. We aimed to test the effectiveness of a combined behavioural and pharmacological smoking cessation intervention targeted specifically at people with severe mental illness. METHODS: In the smoking cessation intervention for severe mental illness (SCIMITAR+) trial, a pragmatic, randomised controlled study, we recruited heavy smokers with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia from 16 primary care and 21 community-based mental health sites in the UK. Participants were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, and smoked at least five cigarettes per day. Exclusion criteria included substantial comorbid drug or alcohol problems and people who lacked capacity to consent at the time of recruitment. Using computer-generated random numbers, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a bespoke smoking cessation intervention or to usual care. Participants, mental health specialists, and primary care physicians were unmasked to assignment. The bespoke smoking cessation intervention consisted of behavioural support from a mental health smoking cessation practitioner and pharmacological aids for smoking cessation, with adaptations for people with severe mental illness-such as, extended pre-quit sessions, cut down to quit, and home visits. Access to pharmacotherapy was via primary care after discussion with the smoking cessation specialist. Under usual care participants were offered access to local smoking cessation services not specifically designed for people with severe mental illnesses. The primary endpoint was smoking cessation at 12 months ascertained via carbon monoxide measurements below 10 parts per million and self-reported cessation for the past 7 days. Secondary endpoints were biologically verified smoking cessation at 6 months; number of cigarettes smoked per day, Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) and Motivation to Quit (MTQ) questionnaire; general and mental health functioning determined via the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) questionnaire, and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12); and body-mass index (BMI). This trial was registerd with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN72955454, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Oct 7, 2015, and Dec 16, 2016, 526 eligible patients were randomly assigned to the bespoke smoking cessation intervention (n=265) or usual care (n=261). 309 (59%) participants were male, median age was 47·2 years (IQR 36·3-54·5), with high nicotine dependence (mean 24 cigarettes per day [SD 13·2]), and the most common severe mental disorders were schizophrenia or other psychotic illness (n=343 [65%]), bipolar disorder (n=115 [22%]), and schizoaffective disorder (n=66 [13%]). 234 (88%) of intervention participants engaged with the treatment programme and attended 6·4 (SD 3·5) quit smoking sessions, with an average duration of 39 min (SD 17; median 35 min, range 5-120). Verified quit data at 12 months were available for 219 (84%) of 261 usual care and 223 (84%) of 265 intervention participants. The proportion of participants who had quit at 12 months was higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group, but non-significantly (34 [15%] of 223 [13% of those assigned to group] vs 22 [10%] of 219 [8% of those assigned to group], risk difference 5·2%, 95% CI -1·0 to 11·4; odds ratio [OR] 1·6, 95% CI 0·9 to 2·9; p=0·10). The proportion of participants who quit at 6 months was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group (32 [14%] of 226 vs 14 [6%] of 217; risk difference 7·7%, 95% CI 2·1 to 13·3; OR 2·4, 95% CI 1·2 to 4·6; p=0·010). The incidence rate ratio for number of cigarettes smoked per day at 6 months was 0·90 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·01; p=0·079), and at 12 months was 1·00 (0·89 to 1·13; p=0·95). At both 6 months and 12 months, the intervention group was non-significantly favoured in the FTND (adjusted mean difference 6 months -0·18, 95% CI -0·53 to 0·17, p=0·32; and 12 months -0·01, -0·39 to 0·38, p=0·97) and MTQ questionnaire (adjusted mean difference 0·58, -0·01 to 1·17, p=0·056; and 12 months 0·64, 0·04 to 1·24, p=0·038). The PHQ-9 showed no difference between the groups (adjusted mean difference at 6 months 0·20, 95% CI -0·85 to 1·24 vs 12 months -0·12, -1·18 to 0·94). For the SF-12 survey, we saw evidence of improvement in physical health in the intervention group at 6 months (adjusted mean difference 1·75, 95% CI 0·21 to 3·28), but this difference was not evident at 12 months (0·59, -1·07 to 2·26); and we saw no difference in mental health between the groups at 6 or 12 months (adjusted mean difference at 6 months -0·73, 95% CI -2·82 to 1·36, and 12 months -0·41, -2·35 to 1·53). The GAD-7 questionnaire showed no difference between the groups (adjusted mean difference at 6 months -0·32 95% CI -1·26 to 0·62 vs 12 months -0·10, -1·05 to 0·86). No difference in BMI was seen between the groups (adjusted mean difference 6 months 0·16, 95% CI -0·54 to 0·85; 12 months 0·25, -0·62 to 1·13). INTERPRETATION: This bespoke intervention is a candidate model of smoking cessation for clinicians and policy makers to address high prevalence of smoking. The incidence of quitting at 6 months shows that smoking cessation can be achieved, but the waning of this effect by 12 months means more effort is needed for sustained quitting. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme