Identifying Elements of \u3cem\u3eKinder- und Jugendliteratur\u3c/em\u3e

Kinder- und Jugendliteratur, children’s literature written for the purpose of teaching or entertaining young people, has been present in German literature since the Middle Ages. This genre has changed as German literature progressed, reflecting the developments of each era, including such periods as the Romantic, the Biedermeier, Realism, Modernism and Postmodernism. As such, we examined individual works of German Kinder- und Jugendliteratur for the purpose of identifying distinctive features which situate them within children’s literature as well as in the respective historical genre. The works examined were Nußknacker und Mausekönig (1816) by E. T. A. Hoffmann, Emil und die Detektive (1929) by Erich Kästner, Försters Pucki (1935) by Madge Trott, Jan und das Wildpferd (1957) by Heinrich Denneborg, Die Wolke (1987) by Gudrun Pausewang, and Tintenherz (2003) by Cornelia Funke. We present our findings in the form of a Wimmelbuch, a typical form of German Kinder- und Jugendliteratur made popular during the Biedermeier period of the mid-1800s

Minimal information for studies of extracellular vesicles (MISEV2023): From basic to advanced approaches

Extracellular vesicles (EVs), through their complex cargo, can reflect the state of their cell of origin and change the functions and phenotypes of other cells. These features indicate strong biomarker and therapeutic potential and have generated broad interest, as evidenced by the steady year-on-year increase in the numbers of scientific publications about EVs. Important advances have been made in EV metrology and in understanding and applying EV biology. However, hurdles remain to realising the potential of EVs in domains ranging from basic biology to clinical applications due to challenges in EV nomenclature, separation from non-vesicular extracellular particles, characterisation and functional studies. To address the challenges and opportunities in this rapidly evolving field, the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles (ISEV) updates its 'Minimal Information for Studies of Extracellular Vesicles', which was first published in 2014 and then in 2018 as MISEV2014 and MISEV2018, respectively. The goal of the current document, MISEV2023, is to provide researchers with an updated snapshot of available approaches and their advantages and limitations for production, separation and characterisation of EVs from multiple sources, including cell culture, body fluids and solid tissues. In addition to presenting the latest state of the art in basic principles of EV research, this document also covers advanced techniques and approaches that are currently expanding the boundaries of the field. MISEV2023 also includes new sections on EV release and uptake and a brief discussion of in vivo approaches to study EVs. Compiling feedback from ISEV expert task forces and more than 1000 researchers, this document conveys the current state of EV research to facilitate robust scientific discoveries and move the field forward even more rapidly

“I’m Not Superstitious, but I am a Little Stitious”: The Flouting and Violating of Gricean Maxims in the Sitcom The Office

This study addresses the ways non-observances of the Cooperative Principle (Grice, 1975) create verbal humor in NBC’s The Office (2005). Every instance of violating and flouting Gricean maxims in Season 4 of The Office is documented. The frequency of the non-observances in The Office is then compared to previous studies (Rundquist, 1992; Brumark, 2006) which document the frequency of non-observances in authentic human speech, and the ratio of male and female non-observances. The results show that The Office closely mimics authentic speech in terms of frequency of non-observances of Gricean maxims and the male and female ratio of non-observances. This study then analyzes the realistic dialogue of The Office through the lens of verbal humor theory, to examine how its use of violating and flouting the maxims is so successful at creating humor

Overweight and obesity prevention for and with adolescents: The “Confronting obesity: Co-creating policy with youth” (CO-CREATE) project

The CO-CREATE project focuses on the need for research on obesity prevention in adolescents to move away from studies of single interventions, toward the investigation of systems-based research incorporating youth involvement. This paper provides an overview of the project, presenting the objectives, design, and novel methodologies applied, as well as findings to date and anticipated outcomes. Adolescents (16–18 years old) in five European countries participated. Methods applied in the project include monitoring and benchmarking of policies, systematic literature reviews, epidemiological surveillance, linking observed overweight and obesity trends to observed policy landscapes, group model building to identify perceived drivers of obesity, alliance building with adolescents, dialog with stakeholders, and system dynamics modelling to explore the potential impact of policy options. Outcomes include tools for developing policy ideas and investigation of prevention strategies with adolescents, including policy databases, system maps of drivers of obesity, protocols for organizing youth alliances, an intergenerational policy dialog tool, and system dynamic models exploring the impacts of cocreated policy ideas. These outcomes make an important contribution to building a pan-European infrastructure for designing and evaluating policies and for providing youth with the opportunity to make their voices heard in the development and implementation of obesity prevention measures.publishedVersio

Patient-reported outcome measures for monitoring primary care patients with depression: the PROMDEP cluster RCT and economic evaluation

Background: guidelines on the management of depression recommend that practitioners use patient-reported outcome measures for the follow-up monitoring of symptoms, but there is a lack of evidence of benefit in terms of patient outcomes.Objective: to test using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 questionnaire as a patient-reported outcome measure for monitoring depression, training practitioners in interpreting scores and giving patients feedback.Design: parallel-group, cluster-randomised superiority trial; 1 : 1 allocation to intervention and control.Setting: UK primary care (141 group general practices in England and Wales).Inclusion criteria: patients aged ≥ 18 years with a new episode of depressive disorder or symptoms, recruited mainly through medical record searches, plus opportunistically in consultations.Exclusions: current depression treatment, dementia, psychosis, substance misuse and risk of suicide.Intervention: administration of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 questionnaire with patient feedback soon after diagnosis, and at follow-up 10-35 days later, compared with usual care.Primary outcome: Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, symptom scores at 12 weeks.Secondary outcomes: Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, scores at 26 weeks; antidepressant drug treatment and mental health service contacts; social functioning (Work and Social Adjustment Scale) and quality of life (EuroQol 5-Dimension, five-level) at 12 and 26 weeks; service use over 26 weeks to calculate NHS costs; patient satisfaction at 26 weeks (Medical Informant Satisfaction Scale); and adverse events.Sample size: the original target sample of 676 patients recruited was reduced to 554 due to finding a significant correlation between baseline and follow-up values for the primary outcome measure.Randomisation: remote computerised randomisation with minimisation by recruiting university, small/large practice and urban/rural location.Blinding: blinding of participants was impossible given the open cluster design, but self-report outcome measures prevented observer bias. Analysis was blind to allocation.Analysis: linear mixed models were used, adjusted for baseline depression, baseline anxiety, sociodemographic factors, and clustering including practice as random effect. Quality of life and costs were analysed over 26 weeks.Qualitative interviews: practitioner and patient interviews were conducted to reflect on trial processes and use of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 using the Normalization Process Theory framework.Results: three hundred and two patients were recruited in intervention arm practices and 227 patients were recruited in control practices. Primary outcome data were collected for 252 (83.4%) and 195 (85.9%), respectively. No significant difference in Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, score was found at 12 weeks (adjusted mean difference -0.46, 95% confidence interval -2.16 to 1.26). Nor were significant differences found in Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd Edition, score at 26 weeks, social functioning, patient satisfaction or adverse events. EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, quality-of-life scores favoured the intervention arm at 26 weeks (adjusted mean difference 0.053, 95% confidence interval 0.013 to 0.093). However, quality-adjusted life-years over 26 weeks were not significantly greater (difference 0.0013, 95% confidence interval -0.0157 to 0.0182). Costs were lower in the intervention arm but, again, not significantly (-£163, 95% confidence interval -£349 to £28). Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, therefore, suggested that the intervention was dominant over usual care, but with considerable uncertainty around the point estimates. Patients valued using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 to compare scores at baseline and follow-up, whereas practitioner views were more mixed, with some considering it too time-consuming.Conlusions: we found no evidence of improved depression management or outcome at 12 weeks from using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, but patients' quality of life was better at 26 weeks, perhaps because feedback of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores increased their awareness of improvement in their depression and reduced their anxiety. Further research in primary care should evaluate patient-reported outcome measures including anxiety symptoms, administered remotely, with algorithms delivering clear recommendations for changes in treatment.Study registration: this study is registered as IRAS250225 and ISRCTN17299295.Funding: this award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/42/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 17. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. </p

Patient-reported outcome measures for monitoring primary care patients with depression: the PROMDEP cluster RCT and economic evaluation.

BackgroundGuidelines on the management of depression recommend that practitioners use patient-reported outcome measures for the follow-up monitoring of symptoms, but there is a lack of evidence of benefit in terms of patient outcomes.ObjectiveTo test using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 questionnaire as a patient-reported outcome measure for monitoring depression, training practitioners in interpreting scores and giving patients feedback.DesignParallel-group, cluster-randomised superiority trial; 1 : 1 allocation to intervention and control.SettingUK primary care (141 group general practices in England and Wales).Inclusion criteriaPatients aged ≥ 18 years with a new episode of depressive disorder or symptoms, recruited mainly through medical record searches, plus opportunistically in consultations.ExclusionsCurrent depression treatment, dementia, psychosis, substance misuse and risk of suicide.InterventionAdministration of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 questionnaire with patient feedback soon after diagnosis, and at follow-up 10-35 days later, compared with usual care.Primary outcomeBeck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, symptom scores at 12 weeks.Secondary outcomesBeck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, scores at 26 weeks; antidepressant drug treatment and mental health service contacts; social functioning (Work and Social Adjustment Scale) and quality of life (EuroQol 5-Dimension, five-level) at 12 and 26 weeks; service use over 26 weeks to calculate NHS costs; patient satisfaction at 26 weeks (Medical Informant Satisfaction Scale); and adverse events.Sample sizeThe original target sample of 676 patients recruited was reduced to 554 due to finding a significant correlation between baseline and follow-up values for the primary outcome measure.RandomisationRemote computerised randomisation with minimisation by recruiting university, small/large practice and urban/rural location.BlindingBlinding of participants was impossible given the open cluster design, but self-report outcome measures prevented observer bias. Analysis was blind to allocation.AnalysisLinear mixed models were used, adjusted for baseline depression, baseline anxiety, sociodemographic factors, and clustering including practice as random effect. Quality of life and costs were analysed over 26 weeks.Qualitative interviewsPractitioner and patient interviews were conducted to reflect on trial processes and use of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 using the Normalization Process Theory framework.ResultsThree hundred and two patients were recruited in intervention arm practices and 227 patients were recruited in control practices. Primary outcome data were collected for 252 (83.4%) and 195 (85.9%), respectively. No significant difference in Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, score was found at 12 weeks (adjusted mean difference -0.46, 95% confidence interval -2.16 to 1.26). Nor were significant differences found in Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd Edition, score at 26 weeks, social functioning, patient satisfaction or adverse events. EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, quality-of-life scores favoured the intervention arm at 26 weeks (adjusted mean difference 0.053, 95% confidence interval 0.013 to 0.093). However, quality-adjusted life-years over 26 weeks were not significantly greater (difference 0.0013, 95% confidence interval -0.0157 to 0.0182). Costs were lower in the intervention arm but, again, not significantly (-£163, 95% confidence interval -£349 to £28). Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, therefore, suggested that the intervention was dominant over usual care, but with considerable uncertainty around the point estimates. Patients valued using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 to compare scores at baseline and follow-up, whereas practitioner views were more mixed, with some considering it too time-consuming.ConclusionsWe found no evidence of improved depression management or outcome at 12 weeks from using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, but patients' quality of life was better at 26 weeks, perhaps because feedback of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores increased their awareness of improvement in their depression and reduced their anxiety. Further research in primary care should evaluate patient-reported outcome measures including anxiety symptoms, administered remotely, with algorithms delivering clear recommendations for changes in treatment.Study registrationThis study is registered as IRAS250225 and ISRCTN17299295.FundingThis award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/42/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 17. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information