Discrimination against Mixed-Status Families and its Health Impact on Latino Children

Background and Objective: Restrictive immigration policies and discrimination are associated with negative health outcomes for immigrant and Latino families. Mixed-status families represent a unique subpopulation of Latinos affected by restrictive immigration policies. This qualitative study explored discrimination against mixed-status families and its potential health impact on Latino children from the perspective of Latina mothers. Methods: In 2017, twenty in-depth interviews with Latina mothers of mixed-status families living in northwestern North Carolina were conducted, transcribed, and analyzed. Constant comparison, an approach to grounded theory development, was used. Results: Nine themes emerged that reflected experiences with discrimination and its negative impact on children. Themes included more frequent and severe discrimination during and after the 2016 US presidential election, determination to stay together and remain in the US, experiences of discrimination in multiple settings, the impact of discrimination on child health and well-being, the impact of fear and stress on meeting the needs of children, the burden on children serving as liaisons between families and services, the inability of citizenship to protect against the effects of discrimination, positive and hopeful responses to discrimination, and the potential role of education in building a foundation for reducing discrimination (and thus promoting the health and well-being of Latino children) in the future. Conclusions: Discrimination against mixed-status Latino families constitutes a critical threat to the health and well-being of Latino children. Further research should inform immigration policies that support (rather than threaten) the health, well-being, and health care practices that mitigate the stresses experienced by Latino children

Could rebel child soldiers prolong civil wars?

While we know why rebels may recruit children for their cause, our understanding of the consequences of child soldiering by non-state armed groups remains limited. The following research contributes to addressing this by examining how rebels? child recruitment practice affects the duration of internal armed conflicts. We advance the argument that child soldiering increases the strength of rebel organizations vis-�-vis the government. This, in turn, lowers the capability asymmetry between these nonstate actors and the incumbent, allowing the former to sustain in dispute. Ultimately, the duration of armed conflicts is likely to be prolonged. We analyze this relationship with quantitative data on child soldier recruitment by rebel groups in the post-1989 period. The results confirm our main hypothesis: disputes are substantially longer when rebels recruit children. This work has important implications for the study of armed conflicts, conflict duration, and our understanding of child soldiering

Under pressure: Response urgency modulates striatal and insula activity during decision-making under risk

When deciding whether to bet in situations that involve potential monetary loss or gain (mixed gambles), a subjective sense of pressure can influence the evaluation of the expected utility associated with each choice option. Here, we explored how gambling decisions, their psychophysiological and neural counterparts are modulated by an induced sense of urgency to respond. Urgency influenced decision times and evoked heart rate responses, interacting with the expected value of each gamble. Using functional MRI, we observed that this interaction was associated with changes in the activity of the striatum, a critical region for both reward and choice selection, and within the insula, a region implicated as the substrate of affective feelings arising from interoceptive signals which influence motivational behavior. Our findings bridge current psychophysiological and neurobiological models of value representation and action-programming, identifying the striatum and insular cortex as the key substrates of decision-making under risk and urgency

Cost-effectiveness of HBV and HCV screening strategies:a systematic review of existing modelling techniques

Introduction: Studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of screening for Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) and Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) are generally heterogeneous in terms of risk groups, settings, screening intervention, outcomes and the economic modelling framework. It is therefore difficult to compare cost-effectiveness results between studies. This systematic review aims to summarise and critically assess existing economic models for HBV and HCV in order to identify the main methodological differences in modelling approaches. Methods: A structured search strategy was developed and a systematic review carried out. A critical assessment of the decision-analytic models was carried out according to the guidelines and framework developed for assessment of decision-analytic models in Health Technology Assessment of health care interventions. Results: The overall approach to analysing the cost-effectiveness of screening strategies was found to be broadly consistent for HBV and HCV. However, modelling parameters and related structure differed between models, producing different results. More recent publications performed better against a performance matrix, evaluating model components and methodology. Conclusion: When assessing screening strategies for HBV and HCV infection, the focus should be on more recent studies, which applied the latest treatment regimes, test methods and had better and more complete data on which to base their models. In addition to parameter selection and associated assumptions, careful consideration of dynamic versus static modelling is recommended. Future research may want to focus on these methodological issues. In addition, the ability to evaluate screening strategies for multiple infectious diseases, (HCV and HIV at the same time) might prove important for decision makers

Lethal trap created by adaptive evolutionary response to an exotic resource

International audienceGlobal transport of organisms by humans provides novel resources to wild species, which often respond maladaptively. Native herbivorous insects have been killed feeding on toxic exotic plants, which acted as ‘ecological traps’1,2,3,4. We document a novel ‘eco-evolutionary trap’ stemming from the opposite effect; that is, high fitness on an exotic resource despite lack of adaptation to it. Plantago lanceolata was introduced to western North America by cattle-ranching. Feeding on this exotic plant released a large, isolated population of the native butterfly Euphydryas editha from a longstanding trade-off between maternal fecundity and offspring mortality. Because of this release—and despite a reduced insect developmental rate when feeding on this exotic—Plantago immediately supported higher larval survival than did the insects’ traditional host, Collinsia parviflora5. Previous work from the 1980s documented an evolving preference for Plantago by ovipositing adults6. We predicted that if this trend continued the insects could endanger themselves, because the availability of Plantago to butterflies is controlled by humans, who change land management practices faster than butterflies evolve6. Here we report the fulfilment of this prediction. The butterflies abandoned Collinsia and evolved total dependence on Plantago. The trap was set. In 2005, humans withdrew their cattle, springing the trap. Grasses grew around the Plantago, cooling the thermophilic insects, which then went extinct. This local extinction could have been prevented if the population had retained partial use of Collinsia, which occupied drier microhabitats unaffected by cattle removal. The flush of grasses abated quickly, rendering the meadow once again suitable for Euphydryas feeding on either host, but no butterflies were observed from 2008 to 2012. In 2013–2014, the site was naturally recolonized by Euphydryas feeding exclusively on Collinsia, returning the system to its starting point and setting the stage for a repeat of the anthropogenic evolutionary cycle

Consensus guidelines on analgesia and sedation in dying intensive care unit patients

BACKGROUND: Intensivists must provide enough analgesia and sedation to ensure dying patients receive good palliative care. However, if it is perceived that too much is given, they risk prosecution for committing euthanasia. The goal of this study is to develop consensus guidelines on analgesia and sedation in dying intensive care unit patients that help distinguish palliative care from euthanasia. METHODS: Using the Delphi technique, panelists rated levels of agreement with statements describing how analgesics and sedatives should be given to dying ICU patients and how palliative care should be distinguished from euthanasia. Participants were drawn from 3 panels: 1) Canadian Academic Adult Intensive Care Fellowship program directors and Intensive Care division chiefs (N = 9); 2) Deputy chief provincial coroners (N = 5); 3) Validation panel of Intensivists attending the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group meeting (N = 12). RESULTS: After three Delphi rounds, consensus was achieved on 16 statements encompassing the role of palliative care in the intensive care unit, the management of pain and suffering, current areas of controversy, and ways of improving palliative care in the ICU. CONCLUSION: Consensus guidelines were developed to guide the administration of analgesics and sedatives to dying ICU patients and to help distinguish palliative care from euthanasia