Empowerment/sexism: Figuring female sexual agency in contemporary advertising

This paper argues that there has been a significant shift in advertising representations of women in recent years, such that rather than being presented as passive objects of the male gaze, young women in adverts are now frequently depicted as active, independent and sexually powerful. This analysis examines contemporary constructions of female sexual agency in advertisements examining three recognizable ‘figures’: the young, heterosexually desiring ‘midriff’, the vengeful woman set on punishing her partner or ex partner for his transgressions, and the ‘hot lesbian’, almost always entwined with her beautiful Other or double. Using recent examples of adverts the paper asks how this apparent ‘agency’ and ‘empowerment’ should be understood. Drawing on accounts of the incorporation or recuperation of feminist ideas in advertising the paper takes a critical approach to these representations, examining their exclusions, their constructions of gender relations and heteronormativity, and the way power is figured within them. A feminist poststructuralist approach is used to interrogate the way in which ‘sexual agency’ becomes a form of regulation in these adverts, that requires the re-moulding of feminine subjectivity to fit the current postfeminist, neoliberal moment in which young women should not only be beautiful but sexy, sexually knowledgeable/practised and always ‘up for it’. The paper makes an original contribution to debates about representations of gender in advertising, to poststructuralist analyses about the contemporary operation of power, and to writing about female ‘sexual agency’ by suggesting that ‘voice’ or ‘agency’ may not be the solution to the ‘missing discourse of female desire' but may in fact be a technology of discipline and regulation

High-dose corticosteroids in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia: an observational study of comparative effectiveness

Objectives: To assess whether high- compared with low-dose corticosteroids started upon hospitalization reduce mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia or in subgroups stratified by severity of respiratory impairment on admission. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required oxygen supplementation upon hospitalization between March 1 and December 31, 2020. In-hospital death was analyzed using logistic regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting of receiving low- or high-dose corticosteroid (dexamethasone 6-10 mg daily or >10-20 mg daily or other corticosteroid equivalents). Results: We analyzed 13,366 patients who received low-dose and 948 who received high-dose corticosteroids, of whom 31.3% and 40.4% had severe respiratory impairment (>15 l/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation) upon admission, respectively. There were no differences in the propensity score-adjusted odds of death (odds ratio 1.17, 95% CI 0.72-1.90) or infections (odds ratio 0.70, 95% CI 0.44-1.11) for patients who received high-dose compared with low-dose corticosteroids, beginning on the day of admission. No significant differences in subgroups stratified by severity of respiratory impairment were found. Conclusion: Initiating high-dose compared with low-dose corticosteroids among newly hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia did not improve survival. However, benefit of high-dose corticosteroids in specific subgroups cannot be excluded

The impact of timing of initiating invasive mechanical ventilation in COVID-19-related respiratory failure.

PurposeOptimal timing of initiating invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related respiratory failure is unclear. We hypothesized that a strategy of IMV as opposed to continuing high flow oxygen or non-invasive mechanical ventilation each day after reaching a high FiO2 threshold would be associated with worse in-hospital mortality.MethodsUsing data from Kaiser Permanente Northern/Southern California's 36 medical centers, we identified patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure who reached ≥80% FiO2 on high flow nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation. Exposure was IMV initiation each day after reaching high FiO2 threshold (T0). We developed propensity scores with overlap weighting for receipt of IMV each day adjusting for confounders. We reported relative risk of inpatient death with 95% Confidence Interval.ResultsOf 28,035 hospitalizations representing 21,175 patient-days, 5758 patients were included (2793 received and 2965 did not receive IMV). Patients receiving IMV had higher unadjusted mortality (63.6% versus 18.2%, P < 0.0001). On each day after reaching T0 through day >10, the adjusted relative risk was higher for those receiving IMV compared to those not receiving IMV (Relative Risk>1).ConclusionsInitiation of IMV on each day after patients reach high FiO2 threshold was associated with higher inpatient mortality after adjusting for time-varying confounders. Remaining on high flow nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation does not appear to be harmful compared to IMV. Prospective evaluation is needed

Barriers and facilitators to implementation of VA home-based primary care on American Indian reservations: a qualitative multi-case study

Abstract Background Veterans Health Affairs (VA) home-based primary care (HBPC) is an evidence-based interdisciplinary approach to non-institutional long-term care that was developed in urban settings to provide longitudinal care for vulnerable older patients. Under the authority of a Memorandum of Understanding between VA and Indian Health Service (IHS) to improve access to healthcare, 14 VA medical centers (VAMC) independently initiated plans to expand HBPC programs to rural American Indian reservations and 12 VAMC successfully implemented programs. The purpose of this study is to describe barriers and facilitators to implementation in rural Native communities with the aim of informing planners and policy-makers for future program expansions. Methods A qualitative comparative case study approach was used, treating each of the 14 VAMC as a case. Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to inform an open-ended interview guide, telephone interviews (n = 37) were conducted with HBPC staff and clinicians and local/regional managers, who participated or oversaw implementation. The interviews were transcribed, coded, and then analyzed using CFIR domains and constructs to describe and compare experiences and to identify facilitators, barriers, and adaptations that emerged in common across VAMC and HBPC programs. Results There was considerable variation in local contexts across VAMC. Nevertheless, implementation was typically facilitated by key individuals who were able to build trust and faith in VA healthcare among American Indian communities. Policy promoted clinical collaboration but collaborations generally occurred on an ad hoc basis between VA and IHS clinicians to optimize patient resources. All programs required some adaptations to address barriers in rural areas, such as distances, caseloads, or delays in hiring additional clinicians. VA funding opportunities facilitated expansion and sustainment of these programs. Conclusions Since program expansion is a responsibility of the HBPC program director, there is little sharing of lessons learned across VA facilities. Opportunities for shared learning would benefit federal healthcare organizations to expand other medical services to additional American Indian communities and other rural and underserved communities, as well as to coordinate with other healthcare organizations. The CFIR structure was an effective analytic tool to compare programs addressing multiple inner and outer settings