H. W. Purnell to Unknown (25 July 1885)

Concerning mortality and religionhttps://egrove.olemiss.edu/ciwar_corresp/1718/thumbnail.jp

Large Area Crop Inventory Experiment (LACIE). User requirements

There are no author-identified significant results in this report

Can Symptoms Differentiate Between Chronic Adenoiditis and Chronic Rhinosinusitis in Pediatric Patients

The purpose of this article is to differentiate pediatric patients with chronic adenoiditis from those with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) based on presenting symptoms. A chart review from a tertiary care facility with pediatric patients who presented with suspected CRS from 2006 to 2014 was identified. We compared patient characteristics, clinical symptoms, duration of symptoms, and past medial history using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. Based on recent literature, utilizing the computed tomography (CT) score, we identified those children with CRS versus those with chronic adenoiditis. Of the 99 pediatric patients included, 22 patients had diagnosis of adenoiditis and 77 had diagnosis of CRS. When purulent rhinorrhea was present with facial pain, CRS was statistically more prevalent than chronic adenoiditis (P = .017). Symptoms including cough (P = .022), rhinorrhea (P = .27), and facial pressure (P = .98) were not predictive of one diagnosis over the other. Past medical history of asthma or allergy was similar in both groups. Smoke exposure was associated with CT scores \u3e5 (odds ratio 2.4, 95% confidence interval, 0.799-7.182). We conclude that purulent rhinorrhea in the presence of facial pain is more indicative of CRS versus chronic adenoiditis. For all other children, an adenoidectomy without the need for a CT scan can be entertained

Translating Research into Action: A Framework for Research That Supports Advances In Population Health

The research community faces a growing need to deliver useful data and actionable evidence to support health systems and policymakers on ways to optimize the health of populations. Translating science into policy has not been the traditional strong suit of investigators, who typically view a journal publication as the endpoint of their work. They are less accustomed to seeing their data as an input to the work of communities and policymakers to improve population health. This article offers four suggestions as potential solutions: (1) shaping a research portfolio around user needs, (2) understanding the decision-making environment, (3) engaging stakeholders, and (4) strategic communication

The experience of trial participation, treatment approaches and perceptions of change among participants with dissociative seizures within the CODES randomized controlled trial: A qualitative study

Background Nested within a large, multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) for people with dissociative seizures (DS), the study used purposive sampling to explore participants' experience of participating in an RCT, their experience of DS-specific cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and another component of the RCT, Standardized Medical Care (SMC) and their perceptions of and reflections on seizure management and change. Methods A qualitative study using semistructured interviews was conducted with 30 participants in an RCT (the COgnitive behavioral therapy vs standardized medical care for adults with Dissociative non-Epileptic Seizures (CODES) Trial) investigating the effectiveness of two treatments for DS. Key themes and subthemes were identified using thematic framework analysis (TFA). Results Analysis yielded three overarching themes: taking part in a treatment trial — “the only thing out there”, the experience of treatment techniques that were perceived to help with seizure management, and reflections on an “unpredictable recovery”. Conclusions People with DS are amenable to participating in a psychotherapy RCT and described a largely positive experience. They also described the applicability of aspects of DS-specific CBT and SMC in the management of their DS, received within the confines of the CODES trial. Factors that appeared to account for the variability in response to treatment delivery included individual preferences for the nature of sessions, the nature of therapeutic relationships, readiness to discuss trauma, other aspects of emotional avoidance, and whether therapy provided something new