Supersymmetry for integrable hierarchies on loop superalgebras

The algebraic approach is employed to formulate N=2 supersymmetry transformations in the context of integrable systems based on loop superalgebras $\hat{\rm sl}(p+1,p), p \ge 1$ with homogeneous gradation. We work with extended integrable hierarchies, which contain supersymmetric AKNS and Lund-Regge sectors. We derive the one-soliton solution for $p=1$ which solves positive and negative evolution equations of the N=2 supersymmetric model.Comment: Latex, 21 page

Australians’ views on carbon pricing before and after the 2013 federal election

As climate policies change through the legislative process, public attitudes towards them may change as well. Therefore, it is important to assess how people accept and support controversial climate policies as the policies change over time. Policy acceptance is a positive evaluation of, or attitude towards, an existing policy; policy support adds an active behavioural component1, 3. Acceptance does not necessarily lead to support. We conducted a national survey of Australian residents to investigate acceptance of, and support for, the Australian carbon pricing policy before and after the 2013 federal election, and how perceptions of the policy, economic ideology, and voting behaviour affect acceptance and support. We found acceptance and support were stable across the election period, which was surprising given that climate policy was highly contentious during the election. Policy acceptance was higher than policy support at both times and acceptance was a necessary but insufficient condition of support. We conclude that acceptance is an important process through which perceptions of the policy and economic ideology influence support. Therefore, future climate policy research needs to distinguish between acceptance and support to better understand this process, and to better measure these concepts

Methodology of a diabetes prevention translational research project utilizing a community-academic partnership for implementation in an underserved Latino community

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Latinos comprise the largest racial/ethnic group in the United States and have 2–3 times the prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus as Caucasians.</p> <p>Methods and design</p> <p>The Lawrence Latino Diabetes Prevention Project (LLDPP) is a community-based translational research study which aims to reduce the risk of diabetes among Latinos who have a ≥ 30% probability of developing diabetes in the next 7.5 years per a predictive equation. The project was conducted in Lawrence, Massachusetts, a predominantly Caribbean-origin urban Latino community. Individuals were identified primarily from a community health center's patient panel, screened for study eligibility, randomized to either a usual care or a lifestyle intervention condition, and followed for one year. Like the efficacious Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), the LLDPP intervention targeted weight loss through dietary change and increased physical activity. However, unlike the DPP, the LLDPP intervention was less intensive, tailored to literacy needs and cultural preferences, and delivered in Spanish. The group format of the intervention (13 group sessions over 1 year) was complemented by 3 individual home visits and was implemented by individuals from the community with training and supervision by a clinical research nutritionist and a behavioral psychologist. Study measures included demographics, Stern predictive equation components (age, gender, ethnicity, fasting glucose, systolic blood pressure, HDL-cholesterol, body mass index, and family history of diabetes), glycosylated hemoglobin, dietary intake, physical activity, depressive symptoms, social support, quality of life, and medication use. Body weight was measured at baseline, 6-months, and one-year; all other measures were assessed at baseline and one-year. All surveys were orally administered in Spanish.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A community-academic partnership enabled the successful recruitment, intervention, and assessment of Latinos at risk of diabetes with a one-year study retention rate of 93%.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>NCT00810290</p

Healthcare Barriers of Refugees Post-resettlement

The majority of refugees spend the greater part of their lives in refugee camps before repatriation or resettlement to a host country. Limited resources and stress during residence in refugee camps can lead to a variety of acute and chronic diseases which often persist upon resettlement. However, for most resettled refugees little is known about their health needs beyond a health assessment completed upon entry. We conducted a qualitative pilot-study in San Diego County, the third largest area in California, USA for resettling refugees, to explore health care access issues of refugees after governmental assistance has ended. A total of 40 guided in-depth interviews were conducted with a targeted sample of informants (health care practitioners, employees of refugee serving organizations, and recent refugee arrivals) familiar with the health needs of refugees. Interviews revealed that the majority of refugees do not regularly access health services. Beyond individual issues, emerging themes indicated that language and communication affect all stages of health care access—from making an appointment to filling out a prescription. Acculturation presented increased stress, isolation, and new responsibilities. Additionally, cultural beliefs about health care directly affected refugees’ expectation of care. These barriers contribute to delayed care and may directly influence refugee short- and long-term health. Our findings suggest the need for additional research into contextual factors surrounding health care access barriers, and the best avenues to reduce such barriers and facilitate access to existing services

Developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). Endorsed by the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS).

AbstractIn view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients

ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 Guideline Update for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices: Summary article. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/NASPE Committee to update the 1998 pacemaker guidelines)

The current update of the ACC/AHA/NASPE Guidelines for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices includes several significant changes in the recommendations and in the supporting narrative portion. In this summary, we list the updated recommendations along with the respective 1998 recommendations, each one accompanied by a brief comment outlining the rationale for the changes, additions, or deletions. All new or revised recommendations are listed in the second column and appear in boldface type. References that support either the 1998 recommendations that have not changed or the new or revised recommendations are noted in parentheses at the end of each recommendation. The reader is referred to the full-text version of the guidelines posted on the American College of Cardiology (ACC), American Heart Association (AHA), and North American Society for Pacing and Electrophysiology (NASPE) World Wide Web sites for a more detailed exposition of the rationale for these changes. In addition to the recommendation changes listed here, this update includes an expanded section on the selection of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) that reflects the technical advances that have taken place since 1998. A brief expanded summary of pacemaker follow-up procedures is also new to these guidelines. For both of these expanded sections, the reader is referred to the online full-text version

ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 guidelines for device-based therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (Writing Committee to revise the ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 guideline update for implantation of cardiac pacemakers and antiarrhythmia devices)

This revision of the “ACC/AHA/NASPE Guidelines for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices” updates the previous versions published in 1984, 1991, 1998, and 2002. Revision of the statement was deemed necessary for multiple reasons: 1) Major studies have been reported that have advanced our knowledge of the natural history of bradyarrhythmias and tachyarrhythmias, which may be treated optimally with device therapy; 2) there have been tremendous changes in the management of heart failure that involve both drug and device therapy; and 3) major advances in the technology of devices to treat, delay, and even prevent morbidity and mortality from bradyarrhythmias, tachyarrhythmias, and heart failure have occurred

ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 guidelines for management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines

Several excellent guidelines already exist on treating patients who have ventricular arrhythmias (Table 1). The purpose of this document is to update and combine the previously published recommendations into one source approved by the major cardiology organizations in the United States and Europe. We have consciously attempted to create a streamlined document, not a textbook, that would be useful specifically to locate recommendations on the evaluation and treatment of patients who have or may be at risk for ventricular arrhythmias. Thus, sections on epidemiology, mechanisms and substrates, and clinical presentations are brief, because there are no recommendations for those sections. For the other sections, the wording has been kept to a minimum, and clinical presentations have been confined to those aspects relevant to forming recommendations