How Does the European Union Talk about Migrant Women and Religion? A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Agenda on Migration of the European Union and the Case Study of Nigerian Women

Women with different identity and migration origins represent one of the most significant groups in the migration flows of the Mediterranean in recent years and the intersection of their religious identity and gender has been often neglected in migration policies. The paper applies the method of Critical Frame Analysis (CFA) to analyze the ways in which European policy documents address the intersection between gender and religious diversity. Through the CFA, the article examines the European Agenda on Migration and the priorities identified in the text. The analysis of the document is based on recent case studies of trafficked Nigerian women, which provide examples of the dangerous invisibility of ethnic and religious women in the priorities highlighted in the policy document of the European Commission. The CFA results show that the European Agenda on Migration, in responding to the increased number of arriving migrants from Africa and in designing a new approach towards mixed migration flows, lacks any reference to the gender perspective of migration and gender mainstreaming is missing from the text. The neutrality of the document and the securitization frame applied does not take into perspective the importance of recognizing a gender and intersectional dimension of migration flows, which impacts primarily women coming from African countries beholding strong religious beliefs

Correction to: Cluster identification, selection, and description in Cluster randomized crossover trials: the PREP-IT trials

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article

Migrant Women: A Critical Frame Analysis of EU integration Policies

Il saggio propone un\u2019analisi della narrazione utilizzata nel quadro degli scenari di policy orientati all\u2019integrazione dei migranti relativamente alle questioni di genere e alla diversit\ue0 in alcuni documenti di particolare in questo ambito dell\u2019intervento pubblico. L\u2019analisi delle politiche pubbliche nei settori dell'integrazione e dell'uguaglianza di genere sviluppata utilizzando la rappresenta il quadro di riferimento teorico proposto per la lettura in chiave critica di una selezione di documenti dell'UE adottati tra il 2004 e il 2018 relativi al tema dell\u2019integrazione. E\u2019 del tutto evidente la tendenza da parte delle istituzioni europee a disegnare in questi documenti scenari di policy nell\u2019area dell\u2019integrazione prevalentemente neutri sotto il profilo delle implicazioni di genere, mentre in chiave interserzionale, il binomio gender+inequalities sembra differire in modo significativo a seconda del metaframe entro il quale \ue8 inquadrato lo stesso discorso dell'integrazione, ovvero se prevalgano logiche umanitarie, securitarie piuttosto che economiche. This paper analyzes the narrative used by the EU to address gender and diversity in same policy documents on the integration of migrants. Based on the theoretical framework of policy analysis in the fields of integration and gender equality, the paper presents the results of a Critical Frame Analysis conducted on a selection of EU documents discussing integration between 2004 and 2018. The results show that integration policy documents are predominately \u201cgender neutral\u201d and that the intersection between gender+ inequalities differs based on the way in which integration itself is framed, whether through a humanitarian, securitarian, or economic metaframe

Patients Place More of an Emphasis on Physical Recovery Than Return to Work or Financial Recovery

BACKGROUND: Value-based healthcare models aim to incentivize healthcare providers to offer interventions that address determinants of health. Understanding patient priorities for physical and socioeconomic recovery after injury can help determine which services and resources are most useful to patients. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Do trauma patients consistently identify a specific aspect/domain of recovery as being most important at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after an injury? (2) Does the relative importance of those domains change within the first year after injury? (3) Are differences in priorities greater between patients than for a given patient over time? (4) Are different recovery priorities associated with identifiable biopsychosocial factors? METHODS: Between June 2018 and December 2018, 504 adult patients with fractures of the extremities or pelvis were surgically treated at the study site. For this prospective longitudinal study, we purposefully sampled patients from 6 of the 12 orthopaedic attendings' postoperative clinics. The participating surgeons surgically treated 243 adult patients with fractures of the extremities or pelvis. Five percent (11 of 243) of patients met inclusion criteria but missed their appointments during the 6-week recruitment window and could not be consented. We excluded 4% (9 of 243) of patients with a traumatic brain injury, 1% (2) of patients with a spinal cord injury, and 5% (12) of non-English-speaking patients (4% Spanish speaking [10]; 1% other languages [2]). Eighty-six percent of eligible patients (209 of 243) were approached for consent, and 5% (11 of 209) of those patients refused to participate. All remaining 198 patients consented and completed the baseline survey; 83% (164 of 198 patients) completed at least 6 months of follow-up, and 68% (134 of 198 patients) completed the 12-month assessment. The study participants' mean age was 44 ± 17 years, and 63% (125 of 198) were men. The primary outcome was the patient's recovery priorities, assessed at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after fracture using a discrete choice experiment. Discrete choice experiments are a well-established method for eliciting decisional preferences. In this technique, respondents are presented with a series of hypothetical scenarios, described by a set of plausible attributes or outcomes, and asked to select their preferred scenario. We used hierarchical Bayesian modeling to calculate individual-level estimates of the relative importance of physical recovery, work-related recovery, and disability benefits, based on the discrete choice experiment responses. The hierarchical Bayesian model improves upon more commonly used regression techniques by accounting for the observed response patterns of individual patients and the sequence of scenarios presented in the discrete choice experiment when calculating the model estimates. We computed the coefficient of variation for the three recovery domains and compared the between-patient versus within-patient differences using asymptotic tests. Separate prognostic models were fit for each of the study's three recovery domains to assess marginal changes in the importance of the recovery domain based on patient characteristics and factors that remained constant over the study (such as sex or preinjury work status) and patient characteristics and factors that varied over the study (including current work status or patient-reported health status). We previously published the 6-week results. This paper expands upon the prior publication to evaluate longitudinal changes in patient recovery priorities. RESULTS: Physical recovery was the respondents' main priority at all three timepoints, representing 60% ± 9% of their overall concern. Work-related recovery and access to disability benefits were of secondary importance and were associated with 27% ± 6% and 13% ± 7% of the patients' concern, respectively. The patients' concern for physical recovery was 6% (95% CrI 4% to 7%) higher at 12 months after fracture that at 6 weeks postfracture. The mean concern for work-related recovery increased by 7% (95% CrI 6% to 8%) from 6 weeks to 6 months after injury. The mean importance of disability benefits increased by 2% (95% CrI 1% to 4%) from 6 weeks to 6 months and remained 2% higher (95% CrI 0% to 3%) at 12 months after the injury. Differences in priorities were greater within a given patient over time than between patients as measured using the coefficient of variation (physical recovery [245% versus 7%; p < 0.001], work-related recovery [678% versus 12%; p < 0.001], and disability benefits [620% versus 33%; p < 0.001]. There was limited evidence that biopsychosocial factors were associated with variation in recovery priorities. Patients' concern for physical recovery was 2% higher for every 10-point increase in their Patient-reported Outcome Measure Information System (PROMIS) physical health status score (95% CrI 1% to 3%). A 10-point increase in the patient's PROMIS mental health status score was associated with a 1% increase in concern for work-related recovery (95% CrI 0% to 2%). CONCLUSION: Work-related recovery and accessing disability benefits were a secondary concern compared with physical recovery in the 12 months after injury for patients with fractures. However, the importance of work-related recovery was elevated after the subacute phase. Priorities were highly variable within a given patient in the year after injury compared with between-patient differences. Given this variation, orthopaedic surgeons should consider assessing and reassessing the socioeconomic well-being of their patients throughout their continuum of care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study

Vaping and Hookah Use Among Medical Trainees: A Multinational Survey Study

The increased use of E-cigarettes and hookah among young consumers represents a public health concern. This study aimed to investigate the frequency and patterns of use of E-cigarettes and hookah among medical trainees. This cross-sectional multinational online survey included medical students, residents, and fellows in Brazil, the U.S., and India between October 2020 and November 2021. Information on sociodemographics; mental health; and E-cigarettes, hookah, tobacco, marijuana, and alcohol use were collected. Generalized structural equation models were used in 2022 to explore the factors associated with current vaping and current hookah use (ongoing monthly/weekly/daily use). People reporting previous sporadic/frequent use or those who never used/only tried it once were the reference group. Overall, 7,526 participants were recruited (Brazil=3,093; U.S.=3,067; India=1,366). The frequency of current vaping was 20% (Brazil), 11% (U.S.), and \u3c1% (India), and current hookah use was 10% (Brazil), 6% (U.S.), and 1% (India). Higher family income (OR=6.35, 95% CI=4.42, 9.12), smoking cigarettes (OR=5.88, 95% CI=4.88, 7.09) and marijuana (OR=2.8, 95% CI=2.35, 3.34), and binge drinking (OR=3.03, 95% CI=2.56, 3.59) were associated with current vaping. The same was true for hookah use: higher family income (OR=2.69, 95% CI=1.75, 4.14), smoking cigarettes (OR=3.20, 95% CI=2.53, 4.06), smoking marijuana (OR=4.17, 95% CI=3.35, 4.19), and binge drinking (OR=2.42, 95% CI=1.96, 2.99). In conclusion, E-cigarettes and hookah were frequently used by Brazilian and American trainees, sharply contrasting with data from India. Cultural aspects and public health policies may explain the differences among countries. Addressing the problems of hookah and E-cigarette smoking in this population is relevant to avoid the renormalization of smoking

Implementing stakeholder engagement to explore alternative models of consent: An example from the PREP-IT trials.

IntroductionCluster randomized crossover trials are often faced with a dilemma when selecting an optimal model of consent, as the traditional model of obtaining informed consent from participant's before initiating any trial related activities may not be suitable. We describe our experience of engaging patient advisors to identify an optimal model of consent for the PREP-IT trials. This paper also examines surrogate measures of success for the selected model of consent.MethodsThe PREP-IT program consists of two multi-center cluster randomized crossover trials that engaged patient advisors to determine an optimal model of consent. Patient advisors and stakeholders met regularly and reached consensus on decisions related to the trial design including the model for consent. Patient advisors provided valuable insight on how key decisions on trial design and conduct would be received by participants and the impact these decisions will have.ResultsPatient advisors, together with stakeholders, reviewed the pros and cons and the requirements for the traditional model of consent, deferred consent, and waiver of consent. Collectively, they agreed upon a deferred consent model, in which patients may be approached for consent after their fracture surgery and prior to data collection. The consent rate in PREP-IT is 80.7%, and 0.67% of participants have withdrawn consent for participation.DiscussionInvolvement of patient advisors in the development of an optimal model of consent has been successful. Engagement of patient advisors is recommended for other large trials where the traditional model of consent may not be optimal

PREVENTion of CLots in Orthopaedic Trauma (PREVENT CLOT): a randomised pragmatic trial protocol comparing aspirin versus low-molecular-weight heparin for blood clot prevention in orthopaedic trauma patients

Introduction Patients who sustain orthopaedic trauma are at an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), including fatal pulmonary embolism (PE). Current guidelines recommend low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for VTE prophylaxis in orthopaedic trauma patients. However, emerging literature in total joint arthroplasty patients suggests the potential clinical benefits of VTE prophylaxis with aspirin. The primary aim of this trial is to compare aspirin with LMWH as a thromboprophylaxis in fracture patients.Methods and analysis PREVENT CLOT is a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic trial that aims to enrol 12 200 adult patients admitted to 1 of 21 participating centres with an operative extremity fracture, or any pelvis or acetabular fracture. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality. We will evaluate non-inferiority by testing whether the intention-to-treat difference in the probability of dying within 90 days of randomisation between aspirin and LMWH is less than our non-inferiority margin of 0.75%. Secondary efficacy outcomes include cause-specific mortality, non-fatal PE and deep vein thrombosis. Safety outcomes include bleeding complications, wound complications and deep surgical site infections.Ethics and dissemination The PREVENT CLOT trial has been approved by the ethics board at the coordinating centre (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) and all participating sites. Recruitment began in April 2017 and will continue through 2021. As both study medications are currently in clinical use for VTE prophylaxis for orthopaedic trauma patients, the findings of this trial can be easily adopted into clinical practice. The results of this large, patient-centred pragmatic trial will help guide treatment choices to prevent VTE in fracture patients.Trial registration number NCT02984384

Implementing stakeholder engagement to explore alternative models of consent: An example from the PREP-IT trials

Introduction: Cluster randomized crossover trials are often faced with a dilemma when selecting an optimal model of consent, as the traditional model of obtaining informed consent from participant's before initiating any trial related activities may not be suitable. We describe our experience of engaging patient advisors to identify an optimal model of consent for the PREP-IT trials. This paper also examines surrogate measures of success for the selected model of consent. Methods: The PREP-IT program consists of two multi-center cluster randomized crossover trials that engaged patient advisors to determine an optimal model of consent. Patient advisors and stakeholders met regularly and reached consensus on decisions related to the trial design including the model for consent. Patient advisors provided valuable insight on how key decisions on trial design and conduct would be received by participants and the impact these decisions will have. Results: Patient advisors, together with stakeholders, reviewed the pros and cons and the requirements for the traditional model of consent, deferred consent, and waiver of consent. Collectively, they agreed upon a deferred consent model, in which patients may be approached for consent after their fracture surgery and prior to data collection. The consent rate in PREP-IT is 80.7%, and 0.67% of participants have withdrawn consent for participation. Discussion: Involvement of patient advisors in the development of an optimal model of consent has been successful. Engagement of patient advisors is recommended for other large trials where the traditional model of consent may not be optimal