Partners No More: Relational Transformation and the Turn to Litigation in Two Conservationist Organizations

The rise in litigation against administrative bodies by environmental and other political interest groups worldwide has been explained predominantly through the liberalization of standing doctrines. Under this explanation, termed here the floodgate model, restrictive standing rules have dammed the flow of suits that groups were otherwise ready and eager to pursue. I examine this hypothesis by analyzing processes of institutional transformation in two conservationist organizations: the Sierra Club in the United States and the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel (SPNI). Rather than an eagerness to embrace newly available litigation opportunities, as the floodgate model would predict, the groups\u27 history reveals a gradual process of transformation marked by internal, largely intergenerational divisions between those who abhorred conflict with state institutions and those who saw such conflict as not only appropriate but necessary to the mission of the group. Furthermore, in contrast to the pluralist interactions that the floodgate model imagines, both groups\u27 relations with pertinent agencies in earlier eras better accorded with the partnership-based corporatist paradigm. Sociolegal research has long indicated the importance of relational distance to the transformation of interpersonal disputes. I argue that, at the group level as well, the presence or absence of a (national) partnership-centered relationship determines propensities to bring political issues to court. As such, well beyond change in groups\u27 legal capacity and resources, current increases in levels of political litigation suggest more fundamental transformations in the structure and meaning of relations between citizen groups and the state

Antibiotic misuse in respiratory tract infections in children and adults—a prospective, multicentre study (TAILORED Treatment)

Respiratory tract infections (RTI) are more commonly caused by viral pathogens in children than in adults. Surprisingly, little is known about antibiotic use in children as compared to adults with RTI. This prospective study aimed to determine antibiotic misuse in children and adults with RTI, using an expert panel reference standard, in order to prioritise the target age population for antibiotic stewardship interventions. We recruited children and adults who presented at the emergency department or were hospitalised with clinical presentation of RTI in The Netherlands and Israel. A panel of three experienced physicians adjudicated a reference standard diagnosis (i.e. bacterial or viral infection) for all the patients using all available clinical and laboratory information, including a 28-day follow-up assessment. The cohort included 284 children and 232 adults with RTI (median age, 1.3 years and 64.5 years, respectively). The proportion of viral infections was larger in children than in adults (209(74%) versus 89(38%), p < 0.001). In case of viral RTI, antibiotics were prescribed (i.e. overuse) less frequently in children than in adults (77/209 (37%) versus 74/89 (83%), p < 0.001). One (1%) child and three (2%) adults with bacterial infection were not treated with antibiotics (i.e. underuse); all were mild cases. This international, prospective study confirms major antibiotic overuse in patients with RTI. Viral infection is more common in children, but antibiotic overuse is more frequent in adults with viral RTI. Together, these findings support the need for effective interventions to decrease antibiotic overuse in RTI patients of all ages

Challenges and Opportunities in Global Mental Health: a Research-to-Practice Perspective

Globally, the majority of those who need mental health care worldwide lack access to high-quality mental health services. Stigma, human resource shortages, fragmented service delivery models, and lack of research capacity for implementation and policy change contribute to the current mental health treatment gap. In this review, we describe how health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are addressing the mental health gap and further identify challenges and priority areas for future research. Common mental disorders are responsible for the largest proportion of the global burden of disease; yet, there is sound evidence that these disorders, as well as severe mental disorders, can be successfully treated using evidence-based interventions delivered by trained lay health workers in low-resource community or primary care settings. Stigma is a barrier to service uptake. Prevention, though necessary to address the mental health gap, has not solidified as a research or programmatic focus. Research-to-practice implementation studies are required to inform policies and scale-up services. Four priority areas are identified for focused attention to diminish the mental health treatment gap and to improve access to high-quality mental health services globally: diminishing pervasive stigma, building mental health system treatment and research capacity, implementing prevention programs to decrease the incidence of mental disorders, and establishing sustainable scale up of public health systems to improve access to mental health treatment using evidence-based interventions

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field