7 research outputs found

    Biomarkers of Nutrition for Development (BOND)—Iron Review

    Get PDF
    This is the fifth in the series of reviews developed as part of the Biomarkers of Nutrition for Development (BOND) program. The BOND Iron Expert Panel (I-EP) reviewed the extant knowledge regarding iron biology, public health implications, and the relative usefulness of currently available biomarkers of iron status from deficiency to overload. Approaches to assessing intake, including bioavailability, are also covered. The report also covers technical and laboratory considerations for the use of available biomarkers of iron status, and concludes with a description of research priorities along with a brief discussion of new biomarkers with potential for use across the spectrum of activities related to the study of iron in human health. The I-EP concluded that current iron biomarkers are reliable for accurately assessing many aspects of iron nutrition. However, a clear distinction is made between the relative strengths of biomarkers to assess hematological consequences of iron deficiency versus other putative functional outcomes, particularly the relationship between maternal and fetal iron status during pregnancy, birth outcomes, and infant cognitive, motor and emotional development. The I-EP also highlighted the importance of considering the confounding effects of inflammation and infection on the interpretation of iron biomarker results, as well as the impact of life stage. Finally, alternative approaches to the evaluation of the risk for nutritional iron overload at the population level are presented, because the currently designated upper limits for the biomarker generally employed (serum ferritin) may not differentiate between true iron overload and the effects of subclinical inflammation

    The Digital Divide: Worldwide Challenges for Communication Across the Life Span in the Digital Age

    No full text
    Certainly one of the most fundamental and significant worldwide challenges to communication across the life span in the digital age is the digital divide. For more than 20 years now since the recognition of the digital divide through social scientific research in 1994,large percentages of the populations of countries around the would have been disconnected from the most important technological advancement in communication in a generation and the myriad opportunities it facilitates, thus setting the life paths of those excluded on a course divergent from the trajectory of mainstream civilization.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

    Digital inequalities 2.0: Legacy inequalities in the information age

    Get PDF
    2020 marks the 25th anniversary of the “digital divide.” Although a quarter century has passed, legacy digital inequalities continue, and emergent digital inequalities are proliferating. Many of the initial schisms identified in 1995 are still relevant today. Twenty-five years later, foundational access inequalities continue to separate the digital haves and the digital have-nots within and across countries. In addition, even ubiquitous-access populations are riven with skill inequalities and differentiated usage. Indeed, legacy digital inequalities persist vis-à-vis economic class, gender, sexuality, race and ethnicity, aging, disability, healthcare, education, rural residency, networks, and global geographies. At the same time, emergent forms of inequality now appear alongside legacy inequalities such that notions of digital inequalities must be continually expanded to become more nuanced. We capture the increasingly complex and interrelated nature of digital inequalities by introducing the concept of the “digital inequality stack.” The concept of the digital inequality stack encompasses access to connectivity networks, devices, and software, as well as collective access to network infrastructure. Other layers of the digital inequality stack include differentiated use and consumption, literacies and skills, production and programming, etc. When inequality exists at foundational layers of the digital inequality stack, this often translates into inequalities at higher levels. As we show across these many thematic foci, layers in the digital inequality stack may move in tandem with one another such that all layers of the digital inequality stack reinforce disadvantage

    Digital inequalities 3.0: Emergent inequalities in the information age

    Get PDF
    Marking the 25th anniversary of the “digital divide,” we continue our metaphor of the digital inequality stack by mapping out the rapidly evolving nature of digital inequality using a broad lens. We tackle complex, and often unseen, inequalities spawned by the platform economy, automation, big data, algorithms, cybercrime, cybersafety, gaming, emotional well-being, assistive technologies, civic engagement, and mobility. These inequalities are woven throughout the digital inequality stack in many ways including differentiated access, use, consumption, literacies, skills, and production. While many users are competent prosumers who nimbly work within different layers of the stack, very few individuals are “full stack engineers” able to create or recreate digital devices, networks, and software platforms as pure producers. This new frontier of digital inequalities further differentiates digitally skilled creators from mere users. Therefore, we document emergent forms of inequality that radically diminish individuals’ agency and augment the power of technology creators, big tech, and other already powerful social actors whose dominance is increasing
    corecore