Exploration of Loneliness Among Black Older Adults

Background: Loneliness is a public and social issue affecting older adults, but in varying degrees across ethnic groups. Black older adults (BOAs) are more prone to loneliness because they have unique and accumulated factors (e.g., low socioeconomic status, high number of chronic conditions) that predispose them to loneliness. This review aims to describe the extent and the nature of research activities on loneliness and identify the contributory factors to loneliness among BOAs as presented in the global literature. Methods/Design: We will follow the five steps of Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) framework to search multiple databases from inception till June 2021. MeSH terms and keywords, e.g., “older adults,” “blacks,” and “loneliness,” will be adopted for several databases, including CINHAL, Ageline, PsychINFO, Cochrane Central Registers of Control Trials, PubMed, Web of Science, Social Science Abstract. Multiple reviewers will independently screen citations (title/abstract and full text) and extract data using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. “Best fit” framework synthesis using the six social provisions of Weiss’ framework as a priori themes will guide the data analysis.  Discussion: This review will inform policy development around contributory factors for loneliness among BOAs and the most relevant issues on loneliness related to BOAs

Methodology and reporting quality of 544 studies related to ageing: a continued discussion in setting priorities for ageing research in Africa

# Background The quality assessment provides information on the overall strength of evidence and methodological quality of a research design, highlighting the level of confidence the reader should place on the findings for decision making. This paper aimed to assess the quality (methodology and quality of reporting) of ageing studies in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). # Method This paper is the second of a Four-Part Series paper of a previous systematic mapping review of peer-reviewed literature on ageing studies conducted in SSA. We updated the literature search to include additional 32 articles, a total of 544 articles included in this paper. Downs & Black checklist, Case Report guidelines checklist, the 45-items Lundgren et al. checklist, and the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool were used to assess the methodological quality of quantitative, case reports, qualitative, and mixed-method studies. Quality assessment was piloted and conducted in pairs for each study type. Depending on the checklist, each study was classified as excellent, good, fair, or poor. # Result Of the 544 articles, we performed the quality assessment of a total of 451 quantitative studies $$Randomized control trials (RCTs) and pre-post (n=15), longitudinal (n=122), case-control (n=15) and cross-sectional (n=300); 4 case reports, 74 qualitative and 15 mixed-method studies. Only 20.4$$. The remaining 433 were rated as moderate quality (n=292, 53.7%), fair quality (n = 96, 17.7%) and poor quality (n = 45, 8.2%). Most (80%) quantitative articles' sample size is small, resulting in insufficient power to detect a clinically or significant important effect. Three-quarter (75%) of the qualitative studies did not report their research team characteristics and a reflexivity component of the 45-items Lundgren et al. checklist. Mixed-method studies with low quality did not report the qualitative studies properly. # Conclusion We conclude that the methodological and quality reporting of published studies on ageing in SSA show variable quality, albeit primarily moderate quality, against high quality. Studies with a large sample size are recommended, and qualitative researchers should provide a section on research team members' characteristics and reflexivity in their paper or as an appendix

Antropologia pragmatyczna Kanta a problem doskonałości ludzkiej natury

There are still intelectual discussions and controversies on questions about what are the best ways to improve the quality of human life, and what establishes range and limits for the ability of science to facilitate improvement of human nature. Such an improvement preassumes and implies the open-minded approach to refining and bettering oneself, i.e. to self-improvement. This article does not claim to become a exhaustive analysis of duscussions about bettering human nature. The aim of this paper, instead, is to look for and analyse the very basis of justification of that research, and to legitimate it within Kant's viewpoint only, particularly within his anthropology. On the base of rather pragmatic attitude Kant was developing anthropology which puts emphasis on the practical and theological dimension of existence and offers rich implications on the human nature improvement issue.Poszukiwanie sposobów podnoszenia jakości ludzkiego życia i pytanie o to, co konstytuuje zakres i granice, w których obrębie nauka może ułatwiać doskonalenie ludzkiej natury, wciąż prowokują liczne intelektualne dyskusje i kontrowersje. Doskonalenie to zakłada i pociąga za sobą otwartość na poprawianie i ulepszanie samego siebie, czyli samodoskonalenie. Artykuł nie rości sobie pretensji do wyczerpujących analiz przebiegu dyskusji nad doskonaleniem natury ludzkiej. Naszym celem jest raczej poszukiwanie i analiza podstaw usprawiedliwienia i potwierdzenia takiego poszukiwania sposobu doskonalenia natury ludzkiej wyłącznie z perspektywy Kanta, a w szczególności jego antropologii. Optując za podejściem, które jest raczej pragmatyczne, Kant rozwinął antropologię, która kładzie nacisk na praktyczny i teleologiczny wymiar egzystencji i która oferuje bogate implikacje w kwestii doskonalenia natury ludzkiej

The scope and relation of faith and reason in proving the existence of God : making sense of the kantian and hegelian perspective

At the root of every philosophical engagement with the question of the existence of God lie some more fundamental questions: has the human reason the capability to lead us to the truth about God? If yes, where and how does faith come into the equation? Is faith completely dissociated from reason or is there something about it that makes it inseparable from reason? Focusing on Kant’s and Hegel’s understanding and assessment of the proofs of the existence of God, the present study explores the submissions of these two thinkers on the faith-reason relation with the view to seeing what relevance their positions hold for contemporary debate on the subject. Proof implies quest for objective grounds of certainty. In the case of the existence of God, the question is whether such objective ground to assert the existence of God can be found in reason or in faith. Kant’s and Hegel’s assessment of the proofs of the existence of God respectively reveal a sustained attempt to clarify what reason can offer and what validity faith can claim in providing grounds of certainty about the claims of the existence of God. The key to the whole argument advanced by both Kant and Hegel is found in their respective interpretation of the legitimate scope of the operations of reason. Comparative analysis of the positions of both thinkers reveals that they appear to be united in the view that formal rational operations such as logical proofs and scientific demonstrations offer no faultless guarantee for a satisfactory explanation of the existence of God. Reconciling faith and reason became an issue for both of them as their arguments tend towards underlining the rationality of faith. Kant’s arguments lead him to the denial of objective knowledge of God while insisting on the usefulness of postulating the existence of God. Hegel, with his redefinition of the meaning and scope of reason, makes a consistent case for the possibility of objective knowledge of God and argues for the inseparability of this knowledge from faith. Attempts to achieve the reconciliation of faith and reason appear to be a recurring feature in the debates about proving the existence of God. Perhaps this is one feature resurgent contemporary interest in the theistic debates shares in common with Kant’s and Hegel’s engagement with the subject. Hegel offers an interpretation of reason and an explanation of the reason-faith relation in which that claim of objectivity of what we know about God – the crucial element that is necessary for continued interest in the God question – is not denied. If the standard for judging the success of any faith-reason reconciliation is based on the extent to which the result can be said to provide meaningful springboard for further objective philosophical exploration of the God question, the position of this research is that Hegel’s confidence in the power of speculative reason, his dynamic understanding of faith that blends immediacy with rationality, all these offer better prospect for meaningful and objective philosophical engagement with the question of God than Kant’s denial of objective knowledge of God. The task of finding a viable reconciliation of faith and reason is one area where philosophy stands to make meaningful and rich contribution to theology. And the philosophy that will be relevant to and adequate for this must be one which affirms man’s capacity to attain the truth about the being and reality of God, and not one which promises a postulated God for which no objective knowledge can be claimed.Les débats philosophiques sur la question de l’existence de Dieu reposent sur quelques questions fondamentales : la raison humaine a-t-elle la capacité de nous mener à la connaissance de Dieu ? Quelle est la signification et la valeur de la foi par rapport au savoir ? La foi est-elle complètement en dehors de la raison ou inséparable de la raison ? En se focalisant sur l’évaluation kantienne et hégélienne des preuves de l’existence de Dieu, cette recherche vise à évaluer comment leurs positions sur la relation entre la foi et la raison reste pertinente pour les débats contemporains. Le mot « preuve » implique une quête des fondements objectifs de certitude. Dans le cas de l'existence de Dieu, il s’agit de vérifier si le fondement objectif d’affirmer l'existence de Dieu peut être trouvé dans la raison ou dans la foi. L’analyse des preuves de l’existence de Dieu par Kant et Hegel montre qu’ils cherchent, chacun à sa manière, à clarifier la portée de la raison et la foi et le lien entre les deux. La clé des arguments avancés par les deux penseurs se base sur leurs interprétations respectives des opérations de la raison. L’étude comparée des deux penseurs indique qu’ils partagent la conviction que les opérations formelles de la raison, y compris les preuves logiques et démonstrations scientifiques, ne peuvent pas donner une explication parfaite de l’existence de Dieu. Ayant plaidé pour la rationalité de la foi, la conciliation de la foi et de la raison devient pour les deux penseurs un enjeu pertinent. Fidèle aux arguments de sa logique transcendantale, la position kantienne est qu’on ne peut obtenir aucun savoir objectif en tout ce qui concerne Dieu et son existence, même s’il insiste sur le fait qu’il est utile de postuler l’existence de Dieu. De sa part, Hegel redéfinit la portée de la raison. En affirmant la possibilité d’obtenir une connaissance rationnelle et objective de Dieu, pour lui la raison et la foi ne peuvent pas être séparées. La tendance de poursuivre la conciliation de la foi et de la raison semble être une caractéristique récurrente des débats sur les preuves de l'existence de Dieu. C’est une caractéristique qui définit les pensées de Kant et de Hegel aussi bien que la plupart des débats contemporains sur le sujet de l’existence de Dieu. L’idée de la raison et l’interprétation de la relation entre la raison et la foi proposées par Hegel affirment la possibilité d’une connaissance objective de Dieu. Ce dernier se présente comme élément crucial et nécessaire qui rend les débats sur l’existence de Dieu raisonnable. Si la norme pour juger la réussite de toute conciliation de la foi et de la raison est basée sur la mesure dans laquelle une connaissance objective de l’existence de Dieu est assurée dans les débats philosophiques sur ce sujet, l’argument principal de cette thèse est que la perspective hégélienne se montre plus pertinente que celle de Kant. Hegel relance la confiance en la capacité de la raison spéculative d’accéder à la connaissance de Dieu. Sa conception de la foi ne s’oppose pas à la raison ; elle combine plutôt immédiateté avec rationalité. La perspective hégélienne, surtout sa conviction de la possibilité d’une connaissance objective de Dieu offre des conditions plus appropriées à tous les débats philosophiques liés à l’existence de Dieu que celle de Kant qui a rejeté l’idée de la possibilité d’une connaissance objective de Dieu. La tâche de trouver un rapprochement viable de la foi et de la raison est un domaine où la philosophie se tente d’apporter une contribution significative et riche à la théologie. Et la philosophie qui sera pertinente et suffisante pour ce projet est celle qui affirme la capacité de l'homme à atteindre la connaissance objective de Dieu, et non celui qui offre un Dieu postulé et inconnaissable.(FILO - Philosophie) -- UCL, 201