Speaking the unspeakable: an autoethnography exploring unintended sexism in important personal relationships

This research explores how feminist women respond to male allies’ unintended sexism. I use a feminist autoethnographic method to document and analyze vignettes that explore interpersonal conflicts about unintended sexism. Autoethnography provides the methodology that allows me to link the personal challenges of responding to sexism in caring relationships within the broader cultural context. Three case vignettes demonstrate the processes I undertook. As a social worker, I draw upon process-oriented psychology and feminism to examine the vignettes and analyze key concepts in the experience of responding to unintended sexism. I discuss the importance of communication between social workers who are feminist and male allies when unintended sexism occurs. Finally, I examine the issue of feminists doing the majority of the work challenging sexism. In sharing my personal experiences of responding to male allies’ unintended sexism, I anticipate these stories and explorations can be helpful for social workers who are feminist or male allies concerned with communicating about unintended sexism in caring relationships

Screening and brief intervention for obesity in primary care: a parallel, two-arm, randomised trial

Background Obesity is a common cause of non-communicable disease. Guidelines recommend that physicians screen and offer brief advice to motivate weight loss through referral to behavioural weight loss programmes. However, physicians rarely intervene and no trials have been done on the subject. We did this trial to establish whether physician brief intervention is acceptable and effective for reducing bodyweight in patients with obesity. Methods In this parallel, two-arm, randomised trial, patients who consulted 137 primary care physicians in England were screened for obesity. Individuals could be enrolled if they were aged at least 18 years, had a body-mass index of at least 30 kg/m² (or at least 25 kg/m² if of Asian ethnicity), and had a raised body fat percentage. At the end of the consultation, the physician randomly assigned participants (1:1) to one of two 30 s interventions. Randomisation was done via preprepared randomisation cards labelled with a code representing the allocation, which were placed in opaque sealed envelopes and given to physicians to open at the time of treatment assignment. In the active intervention, the physician offered referral to a weight management group (12 sessions of 1 h each, once per week) and, if the referral was accepted, the physician ensured the patient made an appointment and offered follow-up. In the control intervention, the physician advised the patient that their health would benefit from weight loss. The primary outcome was weight change at 12 months in the intention-to-treat population, which was assessed blinded to treatment allocation. We also assessed asked patients’ about their feelings on discussing their weight when they have visited their general practitioner for other reasons. Given the nature of the intervention, we did not anticipate any adverse events in the usual sense, so safety outcomes were not assessed. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN26563137. Findings Between June 4, 2013, and Dec 23, 2014, we screened 8403 patients, of whom 2728 (32%) were obese. Of these obese patients, 2256 (83%) agreed to participate and 1882 were eligible, enrolled, and included in the intention-to-treat analysis, with 940 individuals in the support group and 942 individuals in the advice group. 722 (77%) individuals assigned to the support intervention agreed to attend the weight management group and 379 (40%) of these individuals attended, compared with 82 (9%) participants who were allocated the advice intervention. In the entire study population, mean weight change at 12 months was 2·43 kg with the support intervention and 1·04 kg with the advice intervention, giving an adjusted difference of 1·43 kg (95% CI 0·89–1·97). The reactions of the patients to the general practitioners’ brief interventions did not differ significantly between the study groups in terms of appropriateness (adjusted odds ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·75–1·07, p=0·21) or helpfulness (1·05, 0·89–1·26, p=0·54); overall, four ( Interpretation A behaviourally-informed, very brief, physician-delivered opportunistic intervention is acceptable to patients and an effective way to reduce population mean weight.</p

Bisphenol A and its analogues: A comprehensive review to identify and prioritize effect biomarkers for human biomonitoring

Human biomonitoring (HBM) studies have demonstrated widespread and daily exposure to bisphenol A (BPA). Moreover, BPA structural analogues (e.g. BPS, BPF, BPAF), used as BPA replacements, are being increasingly detected in human biological matrices. BPA and some of its analogues are classified as endocrine disruptors suspected of contributing to adverse health outcomes such as altered reproduction and neurodevelopment, obesity, and metabolic disorders among other developmental and chronic impairments. One of the aims of the H2020 European Human Biomonitoring Initiative (HBM4EU) is the implementation of effect biomarkers at large scales in future HBM studies in a systematic and standardized way, in order to complement exposure data with mechanistically-based biomarkers of early adverse effects. This review aimed to identify and prioritize existing biomarkers of effect for BPA, as well as to provide relevant mechanistic and adverse outcome pathway (AOP) information in order to cover knowledge gaps and better interpret effect biomarker data. A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed to identify all the epidemiologic studies published in the last 10 years addressing the potential relationship between bisphenols exposure and alterations in biological parameters. A total of 5716 references were screened, out of which, 119 full-text articles were analyzed and tabulated in detail. This work provides first an overview of all epigenetics, gene transcription, oxidative stress, reproductive, glucocorticoid and thyroid hormones, metabolic and allergy/immune biomarkers previously studied. Then, promising effect biomarkers related to altered neurodevelopmental and reproductive outcomes including brainderived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), kisspeptin (KiSS), and gene expression of nuclear receptors are prioritized, providing mechanistic insights based on in vitro, animal studies and AOP information. Finally, the potential of omics technologies for biomarker discovery and its implications for risk assessment are discussed. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first effort to comprehensively identify bisphenol-related biomarkers of effect for HBM purposes.European Union Commission H2020-EJP-HBM4EU 733032HBM4EU Initiativ

Abstracts from the NIHR INVOLVE Conference 2017

n/

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Retrospective evaluation of whole exome and genome mutation calls in 746 cancer samples

Funder: NCI U24CA211006Abstract: The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) curated consensus somatic mutation calls using whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS), respectively. Here, as part of the ICGC/TCGA Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium, which aggregated whole genome sequencing data from 2,658 cancers across 38 tumour types, we compare WES and WGS side-by-side from 746 TCGA samples, finding that ~80% of mutations overlap in covered exonic regions. We estimate that low variant allele fraction (VAF < 15%) and clonal heterogeneity contribute up to 68% of private WGS mutations and 71% of private WES mutations. We observe that ~30% of private WGS mutations trace to mutations identified by a single variant caller in WES consensus efforts. WGS captures both ~50% more variation in exonic regions and un-observed mutations in loci with variable GC-content. Together, our analysis highlights technological divergences between two reproducible somatic variant detection efforts

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

A qualitative interpretivemeta-synthesis of social workers’ experience in end-of-life care

Summary: Social workers are an integral part of end-of-life (EOL) care interdisciplinary services and provide comprehensive psychosocial support to dying people. However, despite the rewards, EOL care social work is wrought with challenges. There is currently limited research into the experience of EOL care social workers. Therefore, this qualitative interpretive meta-synthesis (QIMS) study examines the experience of EOL care social workers as revealed in existing literature. The QIMS methodology was used to synthesize and interpret findings from four original qualitative studies to elicit an in-depth response to the research question: What is the experience of social workers who work in EOL care? Findings: The theme “EOL care social work is a privilege and a struggle” emerged, with six associated contributing factors: Privilege—(1) death is sacrosanct, (2) death is an opportunity for growth and healing, and (3) the religious/spiritual element of EOL care. Struggle—(1) ongoing pain and heightened emotions, (2) conflict of values, and (3) contextual challenges. This QIMS study serves as a preliminary phase to a subsequent, larger study. Applications: This QIMS study provides a foundation for further narrative research into the experience of EOL care social workers. In addition, findings from this QIMS study highlights areas for further attention to foster the well-being of EOL care social workers. Finally, findings from this QIMS study could augment relevant EOL care content in undergraduate social work education