Eu(rope): (re)assembling, (re)casting and (re)aligning lines of de- and re-territorialisation of early childhood

The aim of this paper is to (re)(e)value(ate) current micro-and macropolicies and politics that shape – and are shaped by – conceptualisations of and, in consequence, practices towards young children in a range of institutions/figurations. The 'geopolitical' location for our investigation is Europe, understood as conceptual space(s) as well as (geographical) territory. Whilst we begin by focusing attention on events within an English context, we nevertheless move beyond geographical boundaries. We argue that movements that are currently being undertaken in England are not individual activities. Rather, England is infected and affected by European and global histories, practices, policies, philosophies and epistemologies. We argue that it is the oscillations between different components within a broad European assemblage (human and nonhuman) that makes something happen. Subsequently, we detail and question whether 'happenings' that are occurring in England can be considered as possible creative openings where early childhood education/care could be reassembled 'differently'. Once one steps outside what's been thought before . . . once one ventures outside what's familiar and reassuring, once one has to invent new concepts for unknown lands, then methods and moral systems break down and thinking becomes, as Foucault puts it, a ''perilous act'', a violence, whose first victim is oneself

An exploratory study of community pharmacist diagnosis and management of dermatitis and acne.

BACKGROUND: Dermatitis and acne account for a large number of general practitioner appointments yet are amenable to treatment with products available to purchase from community pharmacies. OBJECTIVES: 1. The clinical appropriateness of community pharmacy interventions for these conditions 2. Patient reported measures of the effectiveness of the pharmacist's management of their condition. METHODS: Nine community pharmacies opportunistically recruited patients presenting with suspected cases of both conditions, taking digital images and audio-recording the consultation. These files were uploaded to a secure site and independently reviewed by three dermatology specialists. Following their consultation, patients received a questionnaire to assess their views on the effectiveness of the treatment provided and their level of satisfaction with pharmacy management. RESULTS: Forty patients (36 dermatitis and 4 acne) were recruited. Of 113 assessments (7 not rated due to missing data) reviewed, specialists agreed with pharmacist's diagnosis in 33.6% of cases, disagreed in 38.9% but were unable to determine the diagnosis in 27% of cases. Treatment was deemed appropriate in 42% of cases, inappropriate in 27% and indeterminate in 31% of cases. Twenty-three patients (58%) returned a questionnaire and 12 of these (54.5%, 1 missing) stated that their condition had cleared completely following pharmacist advised treatment. Almost all (91.3%) were very satisfied or satisfied with the advice and/or treatment provided. CONCLUSION: Specialists judged the clinical appropriateness of pharmacist diagnosis and management as suboptimal yet patients were more positive. This study indicates a possible need for greater assessment-related training in dermatology for study pharmacists and further work to determine the generalisability of findings

A comparison of pharmacoepidemiological study designs in medication use and traffic safety research

In order to explore how the choice of different study designs could influence the risk estimates, a case–crossover and case–time–control study were carried out and their outcomes were compared with those of a traditional case–control study design that evaluated the association between the exposure to psychotropic medications and the risk of having a motor vehicle accident (MVA). A record-linkage database availing data for 3,786 cases and 18,089 controls during the period 2000–2007 was used. The study designs (i.e., case–crossover and case–time–control) were derived from published literature, and the following psychotropic medicines were examined: antipsychotics, anxiolytics, hypnotics and sedatives, and antidepressants, stratified in the two groups selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and other antidepressants. Moreover, in order to further investigate the effects of frequency of psychoactive medication exposure on the outcomes of the case–crossover analysis, the data were also stratified by the number of defined daily doses (DDDs) and days of medication use in the 12 months before the motor vehicle accident. Three-thousand seven-hundred fifty-two cases were included in this second part of the case–crossover analysis. The case–crossover design did not show any statistically significant association between psychotropic medication exposure and MVA risk [e.g., SSRIs—Adj. OR = 1.00 (95 % CI: 0.69–1.46); Anxiolytics—Adj. OR = 0.95 (95 % CI: 0.68–1.31)]. The case–time–control design only showed a borderline statistically significant increased traffic accident risk in SSRI users [Adj. OR = 1.16 (95 % CI: 1.01–1.34)]. With respect to the stratifications by the number of DDDs and days of medication use, the analyses showed no increased traffic accident risk associated with the exposure to the selected medication groups [e.g., SSRIs, <20 DDDs—Adj. OR = 0.65 (95 % CI: 0.11–3.87); SSRIs, 16–150 days—Adj. OR = 0.55 (95 % CI: 0.24–1.24)]. In contrast to the above-mentioned results, our recent case–control study found a statistically significant association between traffic accident risk and exposure to anxiolytics [Adj. OR = 1.54 (95 % CI: 1.11–2.15)], and SSRIs [Adj. OR = 2.03 (95 % CI: 1.31–3.14)]. Case–crossover and case–time–control analyses produced different results than those of our recent case–control study (i.e., case–crossover and case–time–control analyses did not show any statistically significant association whereas the case–control analysis showed an increased traffic accident risk in anxiolytic and SSRI users). These divergent results can probably be explained by the differences in the study designs. Given that the case–crossover design is only appropriate for short-term exposures and the case–time–control design is an elaboration of this latter, it can be concluded that, probably, these two approaches are not the most suitable ones to investigate the relation between MVA risk and psychotropic medications, which, on the contrary, are often use chronically

Use of a Prescribed Ephedrine/Caffeine Combination and the Risk of Serious Cardiovascular Events: A Registry-based Case-Crossover Study

Ephedrine and herbal ephedra preparations have been shown to induce a small-to-moderate weight loss. Owing to reports on serious cardiovascular events, they were banned from the US market in 2004. There have been no large controlled studies on the possible association between prescribed ephedrine/caffeine and cardiovascular events in general. The authors linked data from four different sources within Statistics Denmark, using data on 257,364 users of prescribed ephedrine/caffeine for the period 1995–2002. The data were analyzed using a case-crossover technique with a composite endpoint: death outside of a hospital, myocardial infarction, or stroke. To account for effects of chronic exposure and effects in naïve users, the authors performed a secondary case-control study nested within the cohort of ephedrine/caffeine ever users. Among 2,316 case subjects, 282 (12.2%) were current users of ephedrine/caffeine. The case-crossover analysis yielded an odds ratio of 0.84 (95% confidence interval: 0.71, 1.00); after adjustment for trends in ephedrine/caffeine use, it was 0.95 (95% confidence interval: 0.79, 1.16). Subgroup analyses revealed no strata with significantly elevated risk. In the case-control substudy, there was no increased risk among naïve users or users with large cumulative doses. Prescribed ephedrine/caffeine was not associated with a substantially increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in this study

Troubling "understanding mathematics-in-depth": Its role in the identity work of student-teachers in England

Copyright @ The Author(s) 2013. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.comThis article has been made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund.In this paper, we focus on an initiative in England devised to prepare non-mathematics graduates to train as secondary mathematics teachers through a 6-month Mathematics Enhancement Course (MEC) to boost their subject knowledge. The course documentation focuses on the need to develop “understanding mathematics in-depth” in students in order for them to become successful mathematics teachers. We take a poststructural approach, so we are not interested in asking what such an understanding is, about the value of this approach or about the effectiveness of the MECs in developing this understanding in their participants. Instead we explore what positions this discourse of “understanding mathematics in-depth” makes available to MEC students. We do this by looking in detail at the “identity work” of two students, analysing how they use and are used by this discourse to position themselves as future mathematics teachers. In doing so, we show how even benign-looking social practices such as “understanding mathematics in-depth” are implicated in practices of inclusion and exclusion. We show this through detailed readings of interviews with two participants, one of whom fits with the dominant discourses in the MEC and the other who, despite passing the MEC, experiences tensions between her national identity work and MEC discourses. We argue that it is vital to explore “identity work” within teacher education contexts to ensure that becoming a successful mathematics teacher is equally available to all.King’s College Londo

Parental experience of potential adverse drug reactions related to their oral administration of antipyretic analgesics in children in Saudi Arabia.

Background: Oral antipyretic analgesic medicines are commonly used in children and have the potential for adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Objective: The aim of this study was to explore parental experiences of potential ADRs related to their oral administration of antipyretic analgesics in children in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Methods: For this cross-sectional survey, a paper-based questionnaire, consent form and information sheet were handed out to 1000 parents who had administered an oral antipyretic analgesic medicine to their children during the previous 3 months. Data were entered and analyzed using SPSS version 21.0 (IBM-SPSS Inc, Armonk, NY). Simple descriptive and inferential statistics were used. Management and ethical approvals were attained. Results: During March to April 2017, 661 parents agreed to participate, giving a response rate of 66.1%. Of the surveyed sample, 208 parents had observed 1 or more potential ADRs (31.5%, n = 208 out of 661). Parents’ (n = 208) most commonly reported potential ADRs (n = 523) were loss of appetite (23%, n = 120 out of 523), stomachache (20.3%, n = 106 out of 523), abdominal colic (13%, n = 68 out of 523), and diarrhea (10.3%, n = 54 out of 523). Parents described severity of the ADRs as slight (71.8%, n = 342 out of 476), annoying to the child (7.9%, n = 85 to of 476), significant and affecting daily tasks (3.6%, n = 17 out of 476) and significant and led to the hospital (6.7%, n = 32 out of 476). Fever was the top-ranked reason for using antipyretic analgesic medicines (41.0%, n = 271 out of 661), followed by toothache (25.0%, n = 165 out of 661) and tonsillitis/laryngitis (24.7%, n = 163 out of 661). Among parents, 34.7% (n = 165 out of 476) did not seek medical attention when a potential ADR occurred, whereas 26.3% (n = 125 out of 476) of parents took their children to hospital clinics. Conclusions: Although the majority of parentally reported (but not proven) ADRs were mild, a number of significant ADRs were reported. Future research should consider whether there is a role for physicians and pharmacists in educating parents in Saudi Arabia, and perhaps more widely, about the optimal use of oral antipyretic and analgesic medicines in children. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2020; 81:XXX–XXX) © 2020 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc

Rosiglitazone and Myocardial Infarction in Patients Previously Prescribed Metformin

Objective: Rosiglitazone was found associated with approximately a 43% increase in risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in a two meta-analyses of clinical trials. Our objective is to estimate the magnitude of the association in real-world patients previously treated with metformin. Research Design and Methods: We conducted a nested case control study in British Columbia using health care databases on 4.3 million people. Our cohort consisted of 158,578 patients with Type 2 diabetes who used metformin as first-line drug treatment. We matched 2,244 cases of myocardial infarction (AMI) with up to 4 controls. Conditional logistic regression models were used to estimate matched odds ratios for AMI associated with treatment with rosiglitazone, pioglitazone and sulfonylureas. Results: In our cohort of prior metformin users, adding rosiglitazone for up to 6 months was not associated with an increased risk of AMI compared to adding a sulfonylurea (odds ratio [OR] 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91–2.10), or compared to adding pioglitazone (OR for rosi versus pio 1.41; 95% CI, 0.74–2.66). There were also no significant differences between rosiglitazone, pioglitazone and sulfonylureas for longer durations of treatment. Though not significantly different from sulfonylureas, there was a transient increase in AMI risk associated with the first 6 months of treatment with a glitazone compared to not using the treatment (OR 1.53; 95% CI, 1.13–2.07) Conclusions: In our British Columbia cohort of patients who received metformin as first-line pharmacotherapy for Type 2 diabetes mellitus, further treatment with rosiglitazone did not increase the risk of AMI compared to patients who were treated with pioglitazone or a sulfonylurea. Though not statistically significantly different compared from each other, an increased risk of AMI observed after starting rosiglitazone or sulfonylureas is a matter of concern that requires more research