Additional file 1: Table S1. of Comparative study of Cronobacter identification according to phenotyping methods

Cronobacter spp. identifications using previous and current versions of the API20E database. (XLSX 12 kb

Additional file 2: Table S2. of Comparative study of Cronobacter identification according to phenotyping methods

Cronobacter spp. identifications using previous and current versions of the ID32E database. (XLSX 14 kb

Assessing children’s vocabulary: An exploratory cross-sectional survey of speech-language pathologists

Purpose: Past research highlights the importance of evaluating word learning abilities to build understanding of an individual’s language-learning capacity and make evidence-informed decisions in speech-language pathology practice. However, little research has explored vocabulary and word learning assessment practices among speech-language pathologists (SLPs). This pilot, exploratory study aimed to explore current assessment practices and guide translation of research to practice among SLPs who work with children of all ages. Method: SLPs (N = 127) from three predominantly English-speaking countries (Australia, USA, and UK) completed an online survey. The survey explored methods and purposes for assessing vocabulary knowledge and word learning skills via binary and multiple-choice questions. Responses to three open-ended questions were analysed using conventional content analysis. The survey also asked about perspectives regarding assessment practices with individuals from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds. Result: Of the surveyed SLPs, 118 (92%) reported using norm-referenced measures of vocabulary, with 27 reporting additional use of non-normed measures. Seventy-seven SLPs (61%) reported that they measure word learning skills, and 20 of these SLPs used dynamic assessment procedures to evaluate word learning. Responding SLPs across all three countries reported using vocabulary and word learning assessment data in a variety of ways (e.g. to support diagnostic decision-making). Regarding the use of standardised, norm-referenced vocabulary assessments with individuals from CALD backgrounds, SLPs reported concerns regarding poor cultural sensitivity and limited access to alternative methods. Conclusion: The findings highlight the need for further development and dissemination of accessible resources to support SLPs’ implementation of word learning assessment, including resources for dynamic assessment. This is especially critical considering the established limitations associated with using standardised, norm-referenced tests with minority groups who are underrepresented in standardisation samples.</p

Is the use of IVF add-on treatments driven by patients or clinics? Findings from a UK patient survey

There are conflicting narratives over what drives demand for add-ons. We undertook an online survey of IVF patients to determine whether patients perceive that use of IVF add-ons is driven by patients or practitioners. People who underwent IVF in the UK in the previous five years were recruited via social media Survey questions focussed on the roles of clinician offer and patient request, including who first suggested use of add-ons in IVF consultations, where patients first heard about them, and which information sources they trusted. From a total of 261 responses, 224 met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 67% of respondents had used one or more IVF add-ons, most commonly: time-lapse imaging (27%), EmbryoGlue (27%), and endometrial scratching (26%). Overall, 81% of the add-ons used were offered to participants by clinicians (compared to 19% requested by themselves). Half (54%) reported being offered add-ons during consultations, compared to 24% who initiated discussion about add-ons. Higher proportions of private patients reported being offered (90%), requesting (47%) and using (74%) add-ons than those with NHS funding (74%, 29%, 52%, respectively). The main limitations of this study are the small sample size, recruitment via a convenience sample, and the self-reported data capture which is subject to recall bias.</p

Contraindications and cautions (conditions that require further evaluation by a CAC-provider before MA drug use) reported by women or determined by CAC-provider (n = 42^a).

<p>Contraindications and cautions (conditions that require further evaluation by a CAC-provider before MA drug use) reported by women or determined by CAC-provider (n = 42<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0178248#t003fn001" target="_blank">^a</a>).</p

Modified gestational dating wheel.

<p>To use the wheel, turn the wheel until the arrow points at the first day of the woman’s reported LMP, then find the current date on the wheel. If the date is in the green zone (here, from May 15 to July 15) the woman is eligible for MA based on the gestational age of the pregnancy (< 63 days). If the date is in the red zone, she is not eligible. (Note: the version used in the study included the Nepali calendar and all instructions written in in Nepali).</p

Women’s self-assessments of their overall eligibility, eligibility based on gestational age determination using the dating wheel, and medical eligibility using the checklist for MA drug use compared to CAC-provider’s determinations of their eligibility based on standard of care.

<p>Women’s self-assessments of their overall eligibility, eligibility based on gestational age determination using the dating wheel, and medical eligibility using the checklist for MA drug use compared to CAC-provider’s determinations of their eligibility based on standard of care.</p

Clinical risk for the 482 women (15% of n = 3113) who were determined to be ineligible for medical abortion by comprehensive abortion care providers.

<p>Clinical risk for the 482 women (15% of n = 3113) who were determined to be ineligible for medical abortion by comprehensive abortion care providers.</p

Participant sociodemographic data.

<p>Participant sociodemographic data.</p

FCHV’s assessments of a woman’s overall eligibility, eligibility based on gestational age determination using the dating wheel, and medical eligibility using the checklist for MA drug use compared to CAC-provider’s determinations of their eligibility based on standard of care.

<p>FCHV’s assessments of a woman’s overall eligibility, eligibility based on gestational age determination using the dating wheel, and medical eligibility using the checklist for MA drug use compared to CAC-provider’s determinations of their eligibility based on standard of care.</p