The Kindertransport : history and memory /

The Kindertransport, a British scheme to bring unaccompanied mostly Jewish refugee children threatened by Nazism to Great Britain, occupies a unique place in modern British history. In the months leading up to the Second World War, it brought over 10,000 children under the age of seventeen into the United Kingdom without their parents, to be fostered by British families and re-emigrated when they turned eighteen. Mostly forgotten in the post-war period, the Kindertransport was rediscovered in the late 1980s when a fiftieth anniversary reunion was organized. Celebrated as an unprecedented act of benevolent rescue by a generous British Parliament and people, the Kindertransport has been subjected to little academic scrutiny. The salvation construct assumes that the Kinder, who were mostly silent for fifty years, experienced little hardship and that their survival more than compensated for any trauma they suffered. This study challenges the prevailing triumphant narrative and its underlying assumptions by examining the government policies that allowed the children to come to England and the effects of these policies on the children's lives. The British government's decision to bring only children and not their parents left a majority of them orphans after their families were murdered in the Holocaust. Exacerbating the trauma of separation was the government decree that the program be entirely privately organized and funded and that the children's welfare be overseen by non-governmental agencies, which were ill-equipped for such a task. Relying upon Kinder testimony, the official documentation of the rescuers and parliamentary debate proceedings, this study analyzes and contests the redemptory narrative and examines how it has been shaped and reinforced by the government, the rescuers and the Kinder themselves in the seventy years since the program's inception.Thesis (M.A., History) -- California State University, Sacramento, 2010.Bibliography: leaves 195-203

Additional file 4 of Mapping age- and sex-specific HIV prevalence in adults in sub-Saharan Africa, 2000–2018

Additional file 4: Supplemental results.1. README. 2. Prevalence range across districts. 3. Prevalence range between sexes. 4. Prevalence range between ages. 5. Age-specific district ranges

CSES Module 3 Full Release

The module was administered as a post-election interview. The resulting data are provided along with voting, demographic, district and macro variables in a single dataset. CSES Variable List The list of variables is being provided on the CSES Website to help in understanding what content is available from CSES, and to compare the content available in each module. Themes: MICRO-LEVEL DATA: Identification and study administration variables: weighting factors; election type; date of election 1st and 2nd round; study timing (post election study, pre-election and post-election study, between rounds of majoritarian election); mode of interview; gender of interviewer; date questionnaire administered; primary electoral district of respondent; number of days the interview was conducted after the election Demography: age; gender; education; marital status; union membership; union membership of others in household; business association membership, farmers´ association membership; professional association membership; current employment status; main occupation; socio economic status; employment type - public or private; industrial sector; current employment status, occupation, socio economic status, employment type - public or private, and industrial sector of spouse; household income; number of persons in household; number of children in household under the age of 18; attendance at religious services; religiosity; religious denomination; language usually spoken at home; race; ethnicity; region of residence; rural or urban residence Survey variables: most important issues of election; candidates competencies to deal with most important issues; difference who is in power and who people vote for; evaluation of governments performance; party and leader that represent respondent´s view best; sympathy scale for selected parties and political leaders; assessment of parties and political leaders on a left-right-scale; self-assessment on a left-right-scale; differences of choice options; campaign involvement; satisfaction with democracy; party identification; intensity of party identification; respondent cast a ballot at the current and the previous election; vote choice (presidential, lower house and upper house elections) at the current and the previous election; respondent cast candidate preference vote at the current and the previous election; political information items DISTRICT-LEVEL DATA: number of seats contested in electoral district; number of candidates; number of party lists; percent vote of different parties; official voter turnout in electoral district MACRO-LEVEL DATA: election outcomes by parties in current (lower house/upper house) legislative election; percent of seats in lower house received by parties in current lower house/upper house election; percent of seats in upper house received by parties in current lower house/upper house election; percent of votes received by presidential candidate of parties in current elections; electoral turnout; party of the president and the prime minister before and after the election; number of portfolios held by each party in cabinet, prior to and after the most recent election; size of the cabinet after the most recent election; number of parties participating in election; ideological families of parties; left-right position of parties assigned by experts and alternative dimensions; most salient factors in the election; fairness of the election; formal complaints against national level results; election irregularities reported; scheduled and held date of election; irregularities of election date; extent of election violence and post election violence; geographic concentration of violence; post-election protest; electoral alliances permitted during the election campaign; existing electoral alliances; requirements for joint party lists; possibility of apparentement and types of apparentement agreements; multi-party endorsements on ballot; votes cast; voting procedure; voting rounds; party lists close, open, or flexible; transferable votes; cumulated votes if more than one can be cast; compulsory voting; party threshold; unit for the threshold; freedom house rating; democracy-autocracy polity IV rating; age of the current regime; regime: type of executive; number of months since last lower house and last presidential election; electoral formula for presidential elections; electoral formula in all electoral tiers (majoritarian, proportional or mixed); for lower and upper houses was coded: number of electoral segments; linked electoral segments; dependent formulae in mixed systems; subtypes of mixed electoral systems; district magnitude (number of members elected from each district); number of secondary and tertiary electoral districts; fused vote; size of the lower house; GDP growth (annual percent); GDP per capita; inflation, GDP Deflator (annual percent); Human development index; total population; total unemployment; constitutional federal structure; number of legislative chambers; electoral results data available; effective number of electoral and parliamentary partie

CSES Module 1 Full Release

The module was administered as a post-election interview. The resulting data are provided along with voting, demographic, district and macro variables in a single dataset. CSES Variable List The list of variables is being provided on the CSES Website to help in understanding what content is available from CSES, and to compare the content available in each module. Themes: MICRO-LEVEL DATA: Identification and study administration variables: weighting factors;election type; date of election 1st and 2nd round; study timing (post election study, pre-election and post-election study, between rounds of majoritarian election); mode of interview; gender of interviewer; date questionnaire administered; primary electoral district of respondent; number of days the interview was conducted after the election Demography: age; gender; education; marital status; union membership; union membership of others in household; current employment status; main occupation; employment type - public or private; industrial sector; occupation of chief wage earner and of spouse; household income; number of persons in household; number of children in household under the age of 18; attendance at religious services; religiosity; religious denomination; language usually spoken at home; race; ethnicity; region of residence; rural or urban residence Survey variables: respondent cast a ballot at the current and the previous election; respondent cast candidate preference vote at the previous election; satisfaction with the democratic process in the country; last election was conducted fairly; form of questionnaire (long or short); party identification; intensity of party identification; political parties care what people think; political parties are necessary; recall of candidates from the last election (name, gender and party); number of candidates correctly named; sympathy scale for selected parties and political leaders; assessment of the state of the economy in the country; assessment of economic development in the country; degree of improvement or deterioration of economy; politicians know what people think; contact with a member of parliament or congress during the past twelve months; attitude towards selected statements: it makes a difference who is in power and who people vote for; people express their political opinion; self-assessment on a left-right-scale; assessment of parties and political leaders on a left-right-scale; political information items DISTRICT-LEVEL DATA: number of seats contested in electoral district; number of candidates; number of party lists; percent vote of different parties; official voter turnout in electoral district MACRO-LEVEL DATA: founding year of parties; ideological families of parties; international organization the parties belong to; left-right position of parties assigned by experts; election outcomes by parties in current (lower house/upper house) legislative election; percent of seats in lower house received by parties in current lower house/upper house election; percent of seats in upper house received by parties in current lower house/upper house election; percent of votes received by presidential candidate of parties in current elections; electoral turnout; electoral alliances permitted during the election campaign; existing electoral alliances; most salient factors in the election; head of state (regime type); if multiple rounds: selection of head of state; direct election of head of state and process of direct election; threshold for first-round victory; procedure for candidate selection at final round; simple majority or absolute majority for 2nd round victory; year of presidential election (before or after this legislative election); process if indirect election of head of state; head of government (president or prime minister); selection of prime minister; number of elected legislative chambers; for lower and upper houses was coded: number of electoral segments; number of primary districts; number of seats; district magnitude (number of members elected from each district); number of secondary and tertiary electoral districts; compulsory voting; votes cast; voting procedure; electoral formula; party threshold; parties can run joint lists; requirements for joint party lists; possibility of apparentement; types of apparentement agreements; multi-party endorsements; multi-party endorsements on ballot; ally party support; constitutional prerogatives of the head of state; constitutional powers of prime minister; methods of cabinet dismissal; dissolution of legislatur

CSES Module 1-3 Harmonized Trend File

Für weitere Informationen zur Variablenliste siehe die Dokumentation (Codebook) des CSES Module 1-3 Harmonized Trend File. Informationen zum Inhalt können den Studiennummern ZA5179 CSES Module 1 Full Release, ZA5180 CSES Module 2 Full Release, und ZA5181 CSES Module 3 Full Release entnommen werden

Joint EVS/WVS 2017-2021 Dataset (Joint EVS/WVS)

The European Values Study (EVS) and the World Values Survey (WVS) are two large-scale, cross-national and longitudinal survey research programmes. They include a large number of questions on moral, religious, social, political, occupational and family values which have been replicated since the early eighties. Both organizations agreed to cooperate in joint data collection from 2017. EVS has been responsible for planning and conducting surveys in European countries, using the EVS questionnaire and EVS methodological guidelines. WVSA has been responsible for planning and conducting surveys in countries in the world outside Europe, using the WVS questionnaire and WVS methodological guidelines. Both organisations developed their draft master questionnaires independently. The joint items define the Common Core of both questionnaires. The Joint EVS/WVS is constructed from the two EVS and WVS source datasets: - European Values Study 2017 Integrated Dataset (EVS 2017), ZA7500 Data file Version 4.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.13560 (https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13560). - European Values Study 2017: Ukraine (EVS 2017), ZA7539 Data file Version 1.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.13714 (https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13714). - World Values Survey: Round Seven–Country-Pooled Datafile. Version 2.0.0, doi: 10.14281/18241.13 (https://doi.org/10.14281/18241.13).The European Values Study (EVS) and the World Values Survey (WVS) are two large-scale, cross-national and longitudinal survey research programmes. They include a large number of questions on moral, religious, social, political, occupational and family values which have been replicated since the early eighties. Both organizations agreed to cooperate in joint data collection from 2017. EVS has been responsible for planning and conducting surveys in European countries, using the EVS questionnaire and EVS methodological guidelines. WVSA has been responsible for planning and conducting surveys in countries in the world outside Europe, using the WVS questionnaire and WVS methodological guidelines. Both organisations developed their draft master questionnaires independently. The joint items define the Common Core of both questionnaires. The Joint EVS/WVS is constructed from the two EVS and WVS source datasets: - European Values Study 2017 Integrated Dataset (EVS 2017), ZA7500 Data file Version 4.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.13560 (https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13560). - European Values Study 2017: Ukraine (EVS 2017), ZA7539 Data file Version 1.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.13714 (https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13714). - World Values Survey: Round Seven–Country-Pooled Datafile. Version 2.0.0, doi: 10.14281/18241.13 (https://doi.org/10.14281/18241.13)

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care

Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (2001-2006)

The module was administered as a post-election interview. The resulting data are provided along with voting, demographic, district and macro variables in a single dataset. CSES Variable List The list of variables is being provided on the CSES Website to help in understanding what content is available from CSES, and to compare the content available in each module. Themes: MICRO-LEVEL DATA: Identification and study administration variables: mode of interview; gender of interviewer; date questionnaire administered; election type; weighting factors; if multiple rounds: percent of vote selected parties received in first round; selection of head of state; direct election of head of state and process of direct election; threshold for first-round victory; selection of candidates for the final round; simple majority or absolute majority for 2nd round victory; primary electoral district of respondent; number of days the interview was conducted after the election Demography: age; gender; education; marital status; union membership; union membership of others in household; business association membership, farmers´ association membership; professional association membership; current employment status; main occupation; socio economic status; employment type - public or private; industrial sector; current employment status, occupation, socio economic status, employment type - public or private and industrial sector of spouse; household income; number of persons in household; number of children in household under the age of 18; attendance at religious services; race; ethnicity; religiosity; religious denomination; language usually spoken at home; region of residence; rural or urban residence Survey variables: political participation during the recent election campaign (persuade others, campaign activities) and frequency of political participation; contacted by candidate or party during the campaign; respondent cast a ballot at the current and the previous election; vote choice (presidential, lower house and upper house elections) at the current and the previous election; respondent cast candidate preference vote at the current election; most important issue; evaluation of governments performance concerning the most important issue and in general; satisfaction with the democratic process in the country; attitude towards selected statements: it makes a difference who is in power and who people vote for; democracy is better than any other form of government; respondent cast candidate preference vote at the previous election; judgement of the performance of the party the respondent voted for in the previous election; judgement how well voters´ views are represented in elections; party and leader that represent respondent´s view best; form of questionnaire (long or short); party identification; intensity of party identification; sympathy scale for selected parties; assessment of parties and political leaders on a left-right-scale; political participation during the last 5 years: contacted a politician or government, protest or demonstration, work with others who share the same concern; respect for individual freedom and human rights; assessment how much corruption is widespread in the country; self-placement on a left-right-scale; political information items DISTRICT-LEVEL DATA: number of seats contested in electoral district, number of candidates, number of party lists, percent vote of different parties, official voter turnout in electoral district MACRO-LEVEL DATA: percent of popular vote received by parties in current (lower house/upper house) legislative election; percent of seats in lower house received by parties in current lower house/upper house election; percentage of official voter turnout; number of portfolios held by each party in cabinet, prior to and after the most recent election; year of party foundation; ideological family the parties are closest to; European parliament political group and international organization the parties belong to; significant parties not represented before and after the election; left-right position of parties; general concensus on these left-right placements among informed observers in the country; alternative dimension placements; consensus on the alternative dimension placements; most salient factors in the election; consensus on the salience ranking; electoral alliances permitted during the election campaign; name of alliance and participant parties; number of elected legislative chambers; for lower house and upper house was asked: number of electoral segments; number of primary districts; number of seats; district magnitude (number of members elected from each district); number of secondary and tertiary electoral districts; compulsory voting; votes cast; voting procedure; transferrable votes; cumulated votes if more than one can be cast; party threshold; used electoral formula; party lists close, open, or flexible; parties can run joint lists; possibility of apparentement; multi-party endorsements; ally party support; requirements for joint party lists; types of apparentement agreements; multi-party endorsements on ballot; head of state (regime type); year of presidential election (before or after this legislative election); process if indirect election; if by electoral college: selection of electors, deliberates, and voting procedure; if by legislature: chambers of the legislature, voting procedure; power of the head of state (introduce legislation, expedited action, package veto, partial veto, legislate by decree, emergency powers, negotiate agreements, commander of forces, introduce referenda, refer legislation to judiciary, legislative sessions); head of government (elected independently, is the head of state, selection method if not elected independently); authorities of the head of government concerning the composition of the cabinet (name ministers, nominate ministers, review ministerial nominations, dismiss ministers); authorities of the head of government concerning the policy making process (chair cabinet meetings, legislature schedules, policy alternatives, refers policy to committee, votes of confidence); methods of cabinet dismissal (head of state acting alone, by head of government alone, majority of legislature, plurality of legislature, combination); dissolution of legislature prior to regularly scheduled elections; dissolution of legislature by: head of state, head of government, majority of legislature, combination; restrictions on dissolving legislature (on the timing, as a response to action/inaction by the legislature); second chamber of the legislature (method of election, composition, exclusive legislative powers, power over the cabinet); constitutional federal structure; central power over peripher

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care