Geven in Nederland 2022

Giving in the Netherlands provides the macro-economic estimates of philanthropy by households, bequests, foundations, corporations and lotteries. The Center for Philanthropic Studies at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam has conducted the research since 1995. This is the 13th edition, about giving in the year 2020. Giving in the Netherlands 2022 answers the following questions: How generous are the Dutch in their charitable giving? Who gives to which charitable causes? How has giving behavior developed over the past 25 years? In Giving in the Netherlands, we do not only examine financial contributions, but also volunteer service. Giving in the Netherlands contributes to the visibility of the philanthropic sector in the Netherlands. This is important to legitimize an independent and rapidly growing sector. In 2020, the Netherlands gave € 5.6 billion ($ 5.6 billion, £ 4.9 billion) which equals 0.7% of GDP. As a proportion of GDP, the Netherlands gave slightly less in 2020 than in 2018. In addition, 44% of the population was engaged in volunteer work. Corporations and households give most. Together, corporations and households are responsible for almost 80% of all philanthropy in the Netherlands. While, every source has a favorite charitable cause, health received the most in 2020

When the going gets tough, the tough get going: Social identification and individual effort in intergroup competition.

Based on social identity theory, the authors predicted that in ongoing intergroup competition, people’s strength of social identification will have a positive impact on their behavioral efforts on behalf of an ingroup when its current status is low, whereas this will not be the case when its current status is high. In a first experiment, male participants showed the expected pattern of behavior. Female participants, however, tended to display opposite reactions. As a possible explanation, it was argued that the experimental procedure may have inadvertently evoked a gender-based stereotype threat for female participants. In an attempt to obtain more consistent support for their hypothesis, the authors therefore replicated the experiment with modifications to avoid such a threat. These changes proved to be effective in the sense that this time the predicted interaction effect between ingroup identification and current group status was obtained for both male and female participants

Geven in Nederland 2022

Giving in the Netherlands provides the macro-economic estimates of philanthropy by households, bequests, foundations, corporations and lotteries. The Center for Philanthropic Studies at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam has conducted the research since 1995. This is the 13th edition, about giving in the year 2020. Giving in the Netherlands 2022 answers the following questions: How generous are the Dutch in their charitable giving? Who gives to which charitable causes? How has giving behavior developed over the past 25 years? In Giving in the Netherlands, we do not only examine financial contributions, but also volunteer service. Giving in the Netherlands contributes to the visibility of the philanthropic sector in the Netherlands. This is important to legitimize an independent and rapidly growing sector. In 2020, the Netherlands gave € 5.6 billion ($ 5.6 billion, £ 4.9 billion) which equals 0.7% of GDP. As a proportion of GDP, the Netherlands gave slightly less in 2020 than in 2018. In addition, 44% of the population was engaged in volunteer work. Corporations and households give most. Together, corporations and households are responsible for almost 80% of all philanthropy in the Netherlands. While, every source has a favorite charitable cause, health received the most in 2020

The Power of Choice: A Study Protocol on How Identity Leadership Fosters Commitment Toward the Organization

Identity leadership (IL) describes that the effectiveness of a leader will depend upon his capacity to represent a given group, to make the group go forward, to create a group identity, and to make the group matter. An identity leader may increase commitment among his followers by increasing the perception of shared identity and giving more weight in the decision process to his followers. We aim to explore the mechanisms through which a leader who creates a shared group identity can increase organizational commitment. In the first study, we plan to conduct a cross-cultural correlational study where we aim to test if the relationship between IL and organizational commitment is mediated by team identification and mediated-moderated by participation in decision making (PDM) and collective efficacy. In the second study, we aim to explore the direction of the causality between IL and PDM. To test this hypothesis, we will conduct an experimental study in which (1) we will manipulate IL to test its influence on the perception of PDM and (2) we will manipulate PDM to test its influence on the perception of IL. Thus, we will be able to identify the role of IL and the perception of PDM on organizational commitment

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

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

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake

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

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