1,564 research outputs found
At the viaduct, the Hudson in march, fourteen days since he fell under // eastern meadowlark, thirty-ninth mile of morning
At the viaduct, the Hudson in march, fourteen days since he fell under // eastern meadowlark, thirty-ninth mile of morning
A decade of One Health and Ecohealth in Southeast Asia: Inventory and perspectives
South East Asia (SEA) is a hot spot for diseases emergence as demonstrated for HPAI
and SARS. To address challenges on disease emergence in livestock and human such
as urbanisation, agriculture intensification, land use changes and others new integrated
approaches have been increasingly introduced to the region to facilitated collaboration
across disciplines, groups and stakeholders. Those approaches include the ‘ecohealth’
(EH) and ‘onehealth’ (OH) concept, both focusing on integrated research but
having a different history and characteristics. The EH approach was pioneered over
the last decades by the International Development Research Centre, Canada (IDRC).
The OH concept builds up on Schwabe’s One Medicine and is currently institutionalised
by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and FAO. To promote EH
in the region, ILRI implemented an EH capacity building project (EcoZD) funded by
IDRC between 2008 and 2013. The project targeted six Southeast Asian countries. In
each country an across-disciplines research team was formed and implemented an EH
case study aligned with capacity building on transdisciplinary research. In a subsequent
step, ‘onehealth-ecohealth’ resource centres were established in three universities/institutions
in Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia. For this paper we also screened
selected other OH/EH initiatives implemented since 2004 in SEA for their focus and
impact. Most initiatives emphasised on capacity building others mainly on research
or both. Challenges are various and complex, such as ‘loose’ or overlapping defi-
nitions of OH/EH, cultural barriers, silo thinking, lack of qualitative research skills.
While the use of integrated research has been successfully demonstrated in case studies
(e.g. for Brucellosis in Yunnan) donor dependency, limited impact assessments
of the added value of used integrated approaches and coordination gaps among the
various initiatives remain a challenges and need more attention in the future
Cancer risk in socially marginalised women: An exploratory study
Background: Cancer is a leading cause of premature death in women worldwide, and is associated with socio-economic disadvantage. Yet many interventions designed to reduce risk and improve health fail to reach the most marginalised with the greatest needs. Our study focused on socially marginalised women at two women's centres that provide support and training to women in the judicial system or who have experienced domestic abuse. Methods: This qualitative study was framed within a sociological rather than behavioural perspective involving thirty participants in individual interviews and focus groups. It sought to understand perceptions of, and vulnerability to, cancer; decision making (including screening); cancer symptom awareness and views on health promoting activities within the context of the women's social circumstances. Findings: Women's experiences of social adversity profoundly shaped their practices, aspirations and attitudes towards risk, health and healthcare. We found that behaviours, such as unhealthy eating and smoking need to be understood in the context of inherently risky lives. They were a coping mechanism whilst living in extreme adverse circumstances, navigating complex everyday lives and structural failings. Long term experiences of neglect, harm and violence, often by people they should be able to trust, led to low self-esteem and influenced their perceptions of risk and self-care. This was reinforced by negative experiences of navigating state services and a lack of control and agency over their own lives. Conclusion: Women in this study were at high risk of cancer, but it would be better to understand these risk factors as markers of distress and duress. Without appreciating the wider determinants of health and systemic disadvantage of marginalised groups, and addressing these with a structural rather than an individual response, we risk increasing cancer inequities by failing those who are in the greatest nee
- …