Consultation and illness behaviour in response to symptoms: a comparison of models from different disciplinary frameworks and suggestions for future research directions

We all get ill and social scientific interest in how we respond – the study of illness behaviour – continues unabated. Existing models are useful, but have been developed and applied within disciplinary silos, resulting in wasted intellectual and empirical effort and an absence of accumulation of knowledge across disciplines. We present a critical review and detailed comparison of three process models of response to symptoms: the Illness Action Model, the Common Sense Model of the Self-Regulation of Health and Illness and the Network Episode Model. We suggest an integrated framework in which symptoms, responses and actions are simultaneously interpreted and evaluated in the light of accumulated knowledge and through interactions. Evaluation may be subconscious and is influenced by the extent to which the symptoms impose themselves, expectations of outcomes, the resources available and understanding of symptoms' salience and possible outcomes. Actions taken are part of a process of problem solving through which both individuals and their immediate social network seek to (re)achieve ‘normality’. Response is also influenced by social structure (directly and indirectly), cultural expectations of health, the meaning of symptoms, and access to and understandings of the legitimate use of services. Changes in knowledge, in embodied state and in emotions can all be directly influential at any point. We do not underestimate the difficulty of operationalising an integrated framework at different levels of analysis. Attempts to do so will require us to move easily between disciplinary understandings to conduct prospective, longitudinal, research that uses novel methodologies to investigate response to symptoms in the context of affective as well as cognitive responses and interactions within social networks. While challenging such an approach would facilitate accumulation of knowledge across disciplines and enable movement beyond description to change in individual and organisational responses

Hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use in early acute respiratory distress syndrome : Insights from the LUNG SAFE study

Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s). Copyright: Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.Background: Concerns exist regarding the prevalence and impact of unnecessary oxygen use in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We examined this issue in patients with ARDS enrolled in the Large observational study to UNderstand the Global impact of Severe Acute respiratory FailurE (LUNG SAFE) study. Methods: In this secondary analysis of the LUNG SAFE study, we wished to determine the prevalence and the outcomes associated with hyperoxemia on day 1, sustained hyperoxemia, and excessive oxygen use in patients with early ARDS. Patients who fulfilled criteria of ARDS on day 1 and day 2 of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure were categorized based on the presence of hyperoxemia (PaO2 > 100 mmHg) on day 1, sustained (i.e., present on day 1 and day 2) hyperoxemia, or excessive oxygen use (FIO2 ≥ 0.60 during hyperoxemia). Results: Of 2005 patients that met the inclusion criteria, 131 (6.5%) were hypoxemic (PaO2 < 55 mmHg), 607 (30%) had hyperoxemia on day 1, and 250 (12%) had sustained hyperoxemia. Excess FIO2 use occurred in 400 (66%) out of 607 patients with hyperoxemia. Excess FIO2 use decreased from day 1 to day 2 of ARDS, with most hyperoxemic patients on day 2 receiving relatively low FIO2. Multivariate analyses found no independent relationship between day 1 hyperoxemia, sustained hyperoxemia, or excess FIO2 use and adverse clinical outcomes. Mortality was 42% in patients with excess FIO2 use, compared to 39% in a propensity-matched sample of normoxemic (PaO2 55-100 mmHg) patients (P = 0.47). Conclusions: Hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use are both prevalent in early ARDS but are most often non-sustained. No relationship was found between hyperoxemia or excessive oxygen use and patient outcome in this cohort. Trial registration: LUNG-SAFE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02010073publishersversionPeer reviewe

A multi-country test of brief reappraisal interventions on emotions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased negative emotions and decreased positive emotions globally. Left unchecked, these emotional changes might have a wide array of adverse impacts. To reduce negative emotions and increase positive emotions, we tested the effectiveness of reappraisal, an emotion-regulation strategy that modifies how one thinks about a situation. Participants from 87 countries and regions (n = 21,644) were randomly assigned to one of two brief reappraisal interventions (reconstrual or repurposing) or one of two control conditions (active or passive). Results revealed that both reappraisal interventions (vesus both control conditions) consistently reduced negative emotions and increased positive emotions across different measures. Reconstrual and repurposing interventions had similar effects. Importantly, planned exploratory analyses indicated that reappraisal interventions did not reduce intentions to practice preventive health behaviours. The findings demonstrate the viability of creating scalable, low-cost interventions for use around the world

The seventh arrow : a reading of the ecology of first nations literature and thought

EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

New literatures

This chapter has six sections: 1. Africa; 2. Australia; 3. Canada; 4. The Caribbean; 5. South Asia; 6. New Zealand. Section 1 is by Femi Abodunrin, Margaret Daymond, and Paul Sharrad; section 2 is by Marguerite Nolan; section 3 is by Sally Carpentier and Ian Whitehouse; section 4 is by Giselle Rampaul and Geraldine Skeete; section 5 is by Mridula Nath Chakraborty and Ira Raja; section 6 is by Jane Stafford and Mark Williams

Australia (in XVII New Literatures)

This chapter has seven sections: 1. Africa; 2. Australia; 3. Canada; 4. The Caribbean; 5. South Asia: The Indian Subcontinent and Sri Lanka; 6. New Zealand; 7. Southeast Asia. Section 1 is by Margaret Daymond and Tony Simoes Da Silva; section 2 is by Marguerite Nolan; section 3 is by Sally Carpentier, Paul Sharrad, and Ian Whitehouse; section 4 is by Giselle Rampaul and Geraldine Skeete; section 5 is by Mridula Nath Chakraborty and Ira Raja; section 6 is by Dougal McNeill; section 7 is by Philip Holden