7 research outputs found

    Understanding Citizens’ Environmental Concern and Their Pro-environmental Behaviours and Attitudes and Their Influence on Energy Use

    Get PDF
    [Abstract] The analysis of the prime political ideologies that affect human behaviours and how these make people interact with their habitat is most necessary for policy making. The objective of the present research is to analyse the relationship between an individual’s political ideology and his/her environmental concern and pro-environmental behaviours and attitudes, and how these last two influences on pro-electrical consumption attitudes. To achieve the objective, we based the research on information from two surveys effectuated two years apart. A total of 3,395 household heads were interviewed (84.5% from 2019 and 15.5% from 2021). Four hypotheses were launched and only one validated through our study which proved the relationship between environmental concern and pro-electrical consumption attitudes. However, the study additionally shows a gradual decrease in environmental concern and pro-environmental behaviours and attitudes from centre ideology to the extreme left and right, being the values of the left-wing (extreme left and left-centre) higher than those of the right-wing (extreme right and right-centre). Additionally, a strong influence of environmental concern in pro-environmental behaviours and attitudes was found, meaning that environmental knowledge is necessary to develop greener attitudes and behaviours. These results shed light on citizens environmental policy preferences, making clear the discussion about the effects of political ideology on pro-environmental behaviours and attitudes

    Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

    Get PDF
    Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

    Correction to: Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study (Intensive Care Medicine, (2021), 47, 2, (160-169), 10.1007/s00134-020-06234-9)

    No full text
    The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The members of the ESICM Trials Group Collaborators were not shown in the article but only in the ESM. The full list of collaborators is shown below. The original article has been corrected
    corecore