The ethics of digital well-being: a multidisciplinary perspective

This chapter serves as an introduction to the edited collection of the same name, which includes chapters that explore digital well-being from a range of disciplinary perspectives, including philosophy, psychology, economics, health care, and education. The purpose of this introductory chapter is to provide a short primer on the different disciplinary approaches to the study of well-being. To supplement this primer, we also invited key experts from several disciplines—philosophy, psychology, public policy, and health care—to share their thoughts on what they believe are the most important open questions and ethical issues for the multi-disciplinary study of digital well-being. We also introduce and discuss several themes that we believe will be fundamental to the ongoing study of digital well-being: digital gratitude, automated interventions, and sustainable co-well-being

The development of political science in Central and Eastern Europe : bibliometric perspective, 1996–2013

This research aims to develop a deeper insight into the development of political science from the bibliometric perspective by analysing peer-reviewed journal articles (n = 1117) indexed in the Scopus database and published by authors from fifteen Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries in the period 1996–2013. Results indicate that the majority of articles (84%) by CEE authors have been published in international journals and in the English language. The visibility of these articles in international journals, measured by the mean number of citations, is 5.2 per paper, while the same indicator for CEE journal articles amounts to 0.2. Authorship analysis indicates a gradual but continuous increase in co-authorships. Additionally, there are significant differences in citations between single-authored and co-authored articles, both in international and CEE journals. Co-authorship among CEE authors is present in only 1% of the analysed articles, confirming weak collaboration between political scientists in CEE countries

Demographic variation in incidence of adult glioma by subtype, United States, 1992-2007

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>We hypothesized that race/ethnic group, sex, age, and/or calendar period variation in adult glioma incidence differs between the two broad subtypes of glioblastoma (GBM) and non-GBM. Primary GBM, which constitute 90-95% of GBM, differ from non-GBM with respect to a number of molecular characteristics, providing a molecular rationale for these two broad glioma subtypes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We utilized data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program for 1992-2007, ages 30-69 years. We compared 15,088 GBM cases with 9,252 non-GBM cases. We used Poisson regression to calculate adjusted rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The GBM incidence rate increased proportionally with the 4^thpower of age, whereas the non-GBM rate increased proportionally with the square root of age. For each subtype, compared to non-Hispanic Whites, the incidence rate among Blacks, Asians/Pacific Islanders, and American Indians/Alaskan Natives was substantially lower (one-fourth to one-half for GBM; about two-fifths for non-GBM). Secondary to this primary effect, race/ethnic group variation in incidence was significantly less for non-GBM than for GBM. For each subtype, the incidence rate was higher for males than for females, with the male/female rate ratio being significantly higher for GBM (1.6) than for non-GBM (1.4). We observed significant calendar period trends of increasing incidence for GBM and decreasing incidence for non-GBM. For the two subtypes combined, we observed a 3% decrease in incidence between 1992-1995 and 2004-2007.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The substantial difference in age effect between GBM and non-GBM suggests a fundamental difference in the genesis of primary GBM (the driver of GBM incidence) versus non-GBM. However, the commonalities between GBM and non-GBM with respect to race/ethnic group and sex variation, more notable than the somewhat subtle, albeit statistically significant, differences, suggest that within the context of a fundamental difference, some aspects of the complex process of gliomagenesis are shared by these subtypes as well. The increasing calendar period trend of GBM incidence coupled with the decreasing trend of non-GBM incidence may at least partly be due to a secular trend in diagnostic fashion, as opposed to real changes in incidence of these subtypes.</p

The 2021 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: code red for a healthy future

Executive summary The Lancet Countdown is an international collaboration that independently monitors the health consequences of a changing climate. Publishing updated, new, and improved indicators each year, the Lancet Countdown represents the consensus of leading researchers from 43 academic institutions and UN agencies. The 44 indicators of this report expose an unabated rise in the health impacts of climate change and the current health consequences of the delayed and inconsistent response of countries around the globe—providing a clear imperative for accelerated action that puts the health of people and planet above all else. The 2021 report coincides with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26), at which countries are facing pressure to realise the ambition of the Paris Agreement to keep the global average temperature rise to 1·5°C and to mobilise the financial resources required for all countries to have an effective climate response. These negotiations unfold in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic—a global health crisis that has claimed millions of lives, affected livelihoods and communities around the globe, and exposed deep fissures and inequities in the world's capacity to cope with, and respond to, health emergencies. Yet, in its response to both crises, the world is faced with an unprecedented opportunity to ensure a healthy future for all. Deepening inequities in a warming world Record temperatures in 2020 resulted in a new high of 3·1 billion more person-days of heatwave exposure among people older than 65 years and 626 million more person-days affecting children younger than 1 year, compared with the annual average for the 1986–2005 baseline (indicator 1.1.2). Looking to 2021, people older than 65 years or younger than 1 year, along with people facing social disadvantages, were the most affected by the record-breaking temperatures of over 40°C in the Pacific Northwest areas of the USA and Canada in June, 2021— an event that would have been almost impossible without human-caused climate change. Although the exact number will not be known for several months, hundreds of people have died prematurely from the heat. Furthermore, populations in countries with low and medium levels of UN-defined human development index (HDI) have had the biggest increase in heat vulnerability during the past 30 years, with risks to their health further exacerbated by the low availability of cooling mechanisms and urban green space (indicators 1.1.1, 2.3.2, and 2.3.3). Agricultural workers in countries with low and medium HDI were among the worst affected by exposure to extreme temperatures, bearing almost half of the 295 billion potential work hours lost due to heat in 2020 (indicator 1.1.4). These lost work hours could have devastating economic consequences to these already vulnerable workers—data in this year's report shows that the average potential earnings lost in countries in the low HDI group were equivalent to 4–8% of the national gross domestic product (indicator 4.1.3). Through these effects, rising average temperatures, and altered rainfall patterns, climate change is beginning to reverse years of progress in tackling the food and water insecurity that still affects the most underserved populations around the world, denying them an essential aspect of good health. During any given month in 2020, up to 19% of the global land surface was affected by extreme drought; a value that had not exceeded 13% between 1950 and 1999 (indicator 1.2.2). In parallel with drought, warm temperatures are affecting the yield potential of the world's major staple crops—a 6·0% reduction for maize; 3·0% for winter wheat; 5·4% for soybean; and 1·8% for rice in 2020, relative to 1981–2010 (indicator 1.4.1)—exposing the rising risk of food insecurity. Adding to these health hazards, the changing environmental conditions are also increasing the suitability for the transmission of many water-borne, air-borne, food-borne, and vector-borne pathogens. Although socioeconomic development, public health interventions, and advances in medicine have reduced the global burden of infectious disease transmission, climate change could undermine eradication efforts. The number of months with environmentally suitable conditions for the transmission of malaria (Plasmodium falciparum) rose by 39% from 1950–59 to 2010–19 in densely populated highland areas in the low HDI group, threatening highly disadvantaged populations who were comparatively safer from this disease than those in the lowland areas (indicator 1.3.1). The epidemic potential for dengue virus, Zika virus, and chikungunya virus, which currently primarily affect populations in central America, South America, the Caribbean, Africa, and south Asia, increased globally, with a basic reproductive rate increase of 13% for transmission by Anopheles aegypti and 7% for transmission by Anopheles albopictus compared with the 1950s. The biggest relative increase in basic reproductive rate of these arboviruses was seen in countries in the very high HDI group (indicator 1.3.1); however, people in the low HDI group are confronted with the highest vulnerability to these arboviruses (indicator 1.3.2). Similar findings are observed in the environmental suitability for Vibrio cholerae, a pathogen estimated to cause almost 100 000 deaths annually, particularly among populations with poor access to safe water and sanitation. Between 2003 and 2019, the coastal areas suitable for V cholerae transmission increased substantially across all HDI country groups—although, with 98% of their coastline suitable to the transmission of V cholerae in 2020, it is people in the low HDI country group that have the highest environmental suitability for this disease (indicator 1.3.1). The concurrent and interconnecting risks posed by extreme weather events, infectious disease transmission, and food, water, and financial insecurity are overburdening the most vulnerable populations. Through multiple simultaneous and interacting health risks, climate change is threatening to reverse years of progress in public health and sustainable development. Even with overwhelming evidence on the health impacts of climate change, countries are not delivering an adaptation response proportionate to the rising risks their populations face. In 2020, 104 (63%) of 166 countries did not have a high level of implementation of national health emergency frameworks, leaving them unprepared to respond to pandemics and climate-related health emergencies (indicator 2.3.1). Importantly, only 18 (55%) of 33 countries with a low HDI had reported at least a medium level of implementation of national health emergency frameworks, compared with 47 (89%) of 53 countries with a very high HDI. In addition, only 47 (52%) of 91 countries reported having a national adaptation plan for health, with insufficient human and financial resources identified as the main barrier for their implementation (indicator 2.1.1). With a world facing an unavoidable temperature rise, even with the most ambitious climate change mitigation, accelerated adaptation is essential to reduce the vulnerabilities of populations to climate change and protect the health of people around the world. An inequitable response fails everyone 10 months into 2021, global and equitable access to the COVID-19 vaccine had not been delivered—more than 60% of people in high-income countries have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine compared with just 3·5% of people in low-income countries. Data in this report exposes similar inequities in the global climate change mitigation response. To meet the Paris Agreement goals and prevent catastrophic levels of global warming, global greenhouse gas emissions must reduce by half within a decade. However, at the current pace of reduction, it would take more than 150 years for the energy system to fully decarbonise (indicator 3.1), and the unequal response between countries is resulting in an uneven realisation of the health benefits of a low-carbon transition. The use of public funds to subsidise fossil fuels is partly responsible for the slow decarbonisation rate. Of the 84 countries reviewed, 65 were still providing an overall subsidy to fossil fuels in 2018 and, in many cases, subsidies were equivalent to substantial proportions of the national health budget and could have been redirected to deliver net benefits to health and wellbeing. Furthermore, all the 19 countries whose carbon pricing policies outweighed the effect of any fossil fuels subsidies came from the very high HDI group (indicator 4.2.4). Although countries in the very high HDI group have collectively made the most progress in the decarbonisation of the energy system, they are still the main contributors to CO2 emissions through the local production of goods and services, accounting for 45% of the global total (indicator 4.2.5). With a slower pace of decarbonisation and poorer air quality regulations than countries in the very high HDI group, the medium and high HDI country groups produce the most fine particle matter (PM2·5) emissions and have the highest rates of air pollution-related deaths, which are about 50% higher than the total deaths in the very high HDI group (indicator 3.3). The low HDI group, with comparatively lower amounts of industrial activity than in the other groups, has a local production that contributes to only 0·7% of global CO2 emissions, and has the lowest mortality rate from ambient air pollution. However, with only 12% of its inhabitants relying on clean fuels and technologies for cooking, the health of these populations is still at risk from dangerously high concentrations of household air pollution (indicator 3.2). Even in the most affluent countries, people in the most deprived areas overwhelmingly bear the burden of health effects from exposure to air pollution. These findings expose the health costs of the delayed and unequal mitigation response and underscore the millions of deaths to be prevented annually through a low-carbon transition that prioritises the health of all populations. However, the world is not on track to realising the health gains of the transition to a low-carbon economy. Current global decarbonisation commitments are insufficient to meet Paris Agreement ambitions and would lead to a roughly 2·4°C average global temperature increase by the end of the century. The current direction of post-COVID-19 spending is threatening to make this situation worse, with just 18% of all the funds committed for economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic by the end of 2020 expected to lead to a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, the economic recovery from the pandemic is already predicted to lead to an unprecedented 5% increase in greenhouse gas emissions in 2021, which will bring global anthropogenic emissions back to their peak amounts. In addition, the current economic recession is threatening to undermine the target of mobilising US$100 billion per year from 2020 onwards to promote low-carbon shifts and adaptation responses in the most underserved countries, even though this quantity is minute compared with the trillions allocated to COVID-19 recovery. The high amounts of borrowing that countries have had to resort to during the pandemic could erase their ability to deliver a green recovery and maximise the health gains to their population of a low-carbon transition. An unprecedented opportunity to ensure a healthy future for all The overshoot in emissions resulting from a carbon-intensive COVID-19 recovery would irreversibly prevent the world from meeting climate commitments and the Sustainable Development Goals and lock humanity into an increasingly extreme and unpredictable environment. Data in this report expose the health impacts and health inequities of the current world at 1·2°C of warming above pre-industrial levels and supports that, on the current trajectory, climate change will become the defining narrative of human health. However, by directing the trillions of dollars that will be committed to COVID-19 recovery towards the WHO's prescriptions for a healthy, green recovery, the world could meet the Paris Agreement goals, protect the natural systems that support wellbeing, and minimise inequities through reduced health effects and maximised co-benefits of a universal low-carbon transition. Promoting equitable climate change mitigation and universal access to clean energies could prevent millions of deaths annually from reduced exposure to air pollution, healthier diets, and more active lifestyles, and contribute to reducing health inequities globally. This pivotal moment of economic stimulus represents a historical opportunity to secure the health of present and future generations. There is a glimpse of positive change through several promising trends in this year's data: electricity generation from renewable wind and solar energy increased by an annual average of 17% between 2013 and 2018 (indicator 3.1); investment in new coal capacity decreased by 10% in 2020 (indicator 4.2.1); and the global number of electric vehicles reached 7·2 million in 2019 (indicator 3.4). Additionally, the global pandemic has driven increased engagement in health and climate change across multiple domains in society, with 91 heads of state making the connection in the 2020 UN General Debate and newly widespread engagement among countries in the very high HDI group (indicator 5.4). Whether COVID-19 recovery supports, or reverses these trends, is yet to be seen. Neither COVID-19 nor climate change respect national borders. Without widespread, accessible vaccination across all countries and societies, SARS-CoV-2 and its new variants will continue to put the health of everybody at risk. Likewise, tackling climate change requires all countries to deliver an urgent and coordinated response, with COVID-19 recovery funds allocated to support and ensure a just transition to a low-carbon future and climate change adaptation across the globe. Leaders of the world have an unprecedented opportunity to deliver a future of improved health, reduced inequity, and economic and environmental sustainability. However, this will only be possible if the world acts together to ensure that no person is left behind

Association of Immunosuppression and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Viremia with Anal Cancer Risk in Persons Living with HIV in the United States and Canada

Background: People living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV; PLWH) have a markedly elevated anal cancer risk, largely due to loss of immunoregulatory control of oncogenic human papillomavirus infection. To better understand anal cancer development and prevention, we determined whether recent, past, cumulative, or nadir/peak CD4+ T-cell count (CD4) and/or HIV-1 RNA level (HIV RNA) best predict anal cancer risk. Methods: We studied 102 777 PLWH during 1996-2014 from 21 cohorts participating in the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design. Using demographics-adjusted, cohort-stratified Cox models, we assessed associations between anal cancer risk and various time-updated CD4 and HIV RNA measures, including cumulative and nadir/peak measures during prespecified moving time windows. We compared models using the Akaike information criterion. Results: Cumulative and nadir/peak CD4 or HIV RNA measures from approximately 8.5 to 4.5 years in the past were generally better predictors for anal cancer risk than their corresponding more recent measures. However, the best model included CD4 nadir (ie, the lowest CD4) from approximately 8.5 years to 6 months in the past (hazard ratio [HR] for <50 vs ≥500 cells/μL, 13.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.5-51.0) and proportion of time CD4 <200 cells/μL from approximately 8.5 to 4.5 years in the past (a cumulative measure; HR for 100% vs 0%, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.5-6.6). Conclusions: Our results are consistent with anal cancer promotion by severe, prolonged HIV-induced immunosuppression. Nadir and cumulative CD4 may represent useful markers for identifying PLWH at higher anal cancer risk

Malignant Tumors of the Central Nervous System

Malignant tumors of the central nervous system in adults comprise a heterogeneous group of malignancies, the largest subgroups comprising astrocytomas, ependymomas, and oligodendrogliomas. Glioblastomas are the most common tumor type, and they have dismal prognosis. Due to differences in cell type of origin, as well as pathogenesis, it is plausible that their etiology also differs between tumor types. The etiology of malignant CNS tumors is largely unknown and no occupational risk factors have been definitively identified. High doses of ionizing radiation increase the risk, but in occupational settings the dose levels appear too small to result in discernible excesses. Several studies have assessed possible effect of extremely low frequency and radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, but the results are inconsistent. Increased brain tumor risk has been reported in agricultural workers, but no specific exposure has been linked to them. Pesticides have been analyzed in several studies without showing a clear increase in risk.acceptedVersionPeer reviewe

SPARC 2022 book of abstracts

Welcome to the Book of Abstracts for the 2022 SPARC conference. Our conference is called “Moving Forwards” reflecting our re-emergence from the pandemic and our desire to reconnect our PGR community, in celebration of their research. PGRs have continued with their research endeavours despite many challenges, and their ongoing successes are underpinned by the support and guidance of dedicated supervisors and the Doctoral School Team. To recognise supervision excellence we will be awarding our annual Supervisor of the Year prizes, based on the wonderful nominations received from their PGR students.Once again, we have received a tremendous contribution from our postgraduate research community; with over 60 presenters, 12 Three-Minute Thesis finalists, and 20 poster presentations, the conference showcases our extraordinarily vibrant, inclusive, and resilient PGR community at Salford. This year there will be prizes to be won for ‘best in conference’ presentations, in addition to the winners from each parallel session. Audience members too could be in for a treat, with judges handing out spot prizes for the best questions asked, so don’t miss the opportunity to put your hand up. These abstracts provide a taster of the diverse and impactful research in progress and provide delegates with a reference point for networking and initiating critical debate. Take advantage of the hybrid format: in online sessions by posting a comment or by messaging an author to say “Hello”, or by initiating break time discussions about the amazing research you’ve seen if you are with us in person. Who knows what might result from your conversation? With such wide-ranging topics being showcased, we encourage you to take up this great opportunity to engage with researchers working in different subject areas from your own. As recent events have shown, researchers need to collaborate to meet global challenges. Interdisciplinary and international working is increasingly recognised and rewarded by all major research funders. We do hope, therefore, that you will take this opportunity to initiate interdisciplinary conversations with other researchers. A question or comment from a different perspective can shed new light on a project and could lead to exciting collaborations, and that is what SPARC is all about. SPARC is part of a programme of personal and professional development opportunities offered to all postgraduate researchers at Salford. More information about this programme is available on our website: Doctoral School | University of Salford. Registered Salford students can access full details on the Doctoral School hub: Doctoral School Hub - Home (sharepoint.com) You can follow us on Twitter @SalfordPGRs and please use the #SPARC2022 to share your conference experience.We particularly welcome taught students from our undergraduate and master’s programmes as audience members. We hope you enjoy the presentations on offer and that they inspire you to pursue your own research career. If you would like more information about studying for a PhD here at the University of Salford, your lecturers can advise, or you can contact the relevant PGR Support Officer; their details can be found at Doctoral School | University of Salford. We wish you a rich and rewarding conference experience