Alien Registration- Gregor, Mary (Portland, Cumberland County)

https://digitalmaine.com/alien_docs/24387/thumbnail.jp

Use of Technology for Note Taking and Therapeutic Alliance

Is psychotherapeutic alliance helped or harmed by using an iPad or computer during an intake session? Two studies are reported where psychotherapists use one of three different technologies in semistructured initial interviews: paper and pen, iPad, or a computer. The studies were conducted at a Primary Care Clinic and a Community Mental Health Clinic to provide a broader context to account for recent behavioral health integration into medical settings in addition to a traditional psychotherapy setting. The Primary Care Study consisted of 60 participants from a behavioral health service at a primary care clinic. The Community Mental Health Study involved 55 participants from a community mental health clinic in semirural Oregon. No differences were found for the three technologies in either study. Practice and training implications are offered

A Comparison of Data Sources for Motor Vehicle Crash Characteristic Accuracy

Objective: To determine the accuracy of police reports (PRs), ambulance reports (ARs), and emergency department records (EDRs) in describing motor vehicle crash (MVC) characteristics when compared with an investigation performed by an experienced crash investigator trained in impact biomechanics. Methods: This was a cross-sectional, observational study. Ninety-one patients transported by ambulance to a university emergency department (ED) directly from the scene of an MVC from August 1997 to April 1998 were enrolled. Potential patients were identified from the ED log and consent was obtained to investigate the crash vehicle. Data describing MVC characteristics were abstracted from the PR, AR, and medical record. Variables of interest included restraint use (RU), air bag deployment (AD), and type of impact (TI). Agreements between the variables and the independent crash investigation were compared using kappa. Interrater reliability was determined using kappa by comparing a random sample of 20 abstracted reports for each data source with the originally abstracted data. Results: Agreement using kappa between the crash investigation and each data source was 0.588 (95% CI = 0.508 to 0.667) for the PR, 0.330 (95% CI = 0.252 to 0.407) for the AR, and 0.492 (95% CI = 0.413 to 0.572) for the EDR. Variable agreement was 0.239 (95% CI = 0.164 to 0.314) for RU, 0.350 (95% CI = 0.268 to 0.432) for AD, and 0.631 (95%= 0.563 to 0.698) for TI. Interrater reliability was excellent (kappa > 0.8) for all data sources. Conclusions: The strength of the agreement between the independent crash investigation and the data sources that were measured by kappa was fair to moderate, indicating inaccuracies. This presents ramifications for researchers and necessitates consideration of the validity and accuracy of crash characteristics contained in these data sources.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/75653/1/j.1553-2712.2000.tb02067.x.pd

Author Correction: Probiotics and prebiotics in intestinal health and disease: from biology to the clinic (Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, (2019), 16, 10, (605-616), 10.1038/s41575-019-0173-3)

© 2019, Springer Nature Limited. In the original article published online, the Competing Interests statement was incorrect and should have stated the following: M.E.S. declares personal fees related to probiotics from the following entities: California Dairy Research Foundation, Clorox, Danone, Danone USA, Dutch Mill, General Mills, JHeimbach, Kelley Drye & Warren, Kellogg, Kerry, Medscape, Nestle, New Chapter, Pepsico, Pfizer, Pharmavite, Probi, Procter & Gamble, Trouw Nutrition, Visalia Dairy Company, Williams Mullen, Winclove Probiotics and Yakult. D.J.M. declares personal fees for consulting for Bayer and Pharmavite. G.R. declares that he helped develop and commercialize probiotic strains GR-1 and RC-14, but has had no financial interest in them for over 10 years. He is Chief Scientific Officer for Seed, a company producing probiotic products. Over the past 3 years, he has consulted on probiotics with Acerus Pharmaceuticals, Altmann, Chr. Hansen, Danone, KGK Science, Kimberly-Clark, Metagenics and Seed. G.R.G. and R.A.R. declare no competing interests. This error has been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article

Probiotics and prebiotics in intestinal health and disease: from biology to the clinic

Probiotics and prebiotics are microbiota-management tools for improving host health. They target gastrointestinal effects via the gut, although direct application to other sites such as the oral cavity, vaginal tract and skin is being explored. Here, we describe gut-derived effects in humans. In the past decade, research on the gut microbiome has rapidly accumulated and has been accompanied by increased interest in probiotics and prebiotics as a means to modulate the gut microbiota. Given the importance of these approaches for public health, it is timely to reiterate factual and supporting information on their clinical application and use. In this Review, we discuss scientific evidence on probiotics and prebiotics, including mechanistic insights into health effects. Strains of Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium and Saccharomyces have a long history of safe and effective use as probiotics, but Roseburia spp., Akkermansia spp., Propionibacterium spp. and Faecalibacterium spp. show promise for the future. For prebiotics, glucans and fructans are well proven, and evidence is building on the prebiotic effects of other substances (for example, oligomers of mannose, glucose, xylose, pectin, starches, human milk and polyphenols)

Improving Heart Failure Self-Management Support by Actively Engaging Out-of-Home Caregivers: Results of a Feasibility Study

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72336/1/j.1751-7133.2008.07474.x.pd

Rates of At-risk Drinking among Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department with Occupational and Nonoccupational Injury

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/71604/1/S1069-6563_03_00538-4.pd

The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of synbiotics

In May 2019, the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) convened a panel of nutritionists, physiologists and microbiologists to review the definition and scope of synbiotics. The panel updated the definition of a synbiotic to “a mixture comprising live microorganisms and substrate(s) selectively utilized by host microorganisms that confers a health benefit on the host”. The panel concluded that defining synbiotics as simply a mixture of probiotics and prebiotics could suppress the innovation of synbiotics that are designed to function cooperatively. Requiring that each component must meet the evidence and dose requirements for probiotics and prebiotics individually could also present an obstacle. Rather, the panel clarified that a complementary synbiotic, which has not been designed so that its component parts function cooperatively, must be composed of a probiotic plus a prebiotic, whereas a synergistic synbiotic does not need to be so. A synergistic synbiotic is a synbiotic for which the substrate is designed to be selectively utilized by the co-administered microorganisms. This Consensus Statement further explores the levels of evidence (existing and required), safety, effects upon targets and implications for stakeholders of the synbiotic concept

The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on fermented foods

An expert panel was convened in September 2019 by The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) to develop a definition for fermented foods and to describe their role in the human diet. Although these foods have been consumed for thousands of years, they are receiving increased attention among biologists, nutritionists, technologists, clinicians and consumers. Despite this interest, inconsistencies related to the use of the term ‘fermented’ led the panel to define fermented foods and beverages as “foods made through desired microbial growth and enzymatic conversions of food components”. This definition, encompassing the many varieties of fermented foods, is intended to clarify what is (and is not) a fermented food. The distinction between fermented foods and probiotics is further clarified. The panel also addressed the current state of knowledge on the safety, risks and health benefits, including an assessment of the nutritional attributes and a mechanistic rationale for how fermented foods could improve gastrointestinal and general health. The latest advancements in our understanding of the microbial ecology and systems biology of these foods were discussed. Finally, the panel reviewed how fermented foods are regulated and discussed efforts to include them as a separate category in national dietary guidelines