Cutting'aesthetic teeth' : Flannery O'Connor's habit of art

Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Centro de Comunicação e ExpressãoEste trabalho foi sugerido pela afirmação de Flannery O'Connor que sua "dedicação estética" nasceu através do contato com Art and Scholasticism de Jacques Maritain. O propósito foi chegar a uma interpretação do sentido da frase. Uma investigação detalhada foi feita do conteúdo de Art and Scholasticism, posteriormente contrastada com os resultados de uma pesquisa feita em seus ensaios e suas cartas, o que revelou numerosos ecos de diversos trechos constando no texto de Maritain. Três pontos principais foram escolhidos como critérios na análise do hábito artístico de O'Connor: 1) a prática de arte implica uma luta; 2) a arte somente pode ser percebida pelos sentidos; e 3) a prática de arte exige do artista a dedicação indivisa à obra nascente. O estudo conclui que, para O'Connor, o brotar da dentição estética, através da leitura de Art and Scholasticism, significou que, ao perceber na análise da natureza da arte algo com que podia concordar, ela reconheceu tanto sua própria capacidade de tornar-se uma artista literária, quanto sua vontade de assumir a tarefa de desenvolver em sua pessoa o hábito de arte

Perinatal mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has influenced many aspects of life, including women's pregnancy, birth and postnatal period. Due to physically and immunologically adaptive perinatal changes, it is well known that pregnant women usually have an increased susceptibility to infection. Despite this, the majority of women affected by COVID-19 to date have exhibited mild symptoms and make a good recovery. However, there is no reliable evidence for transmission of COVID-19 from mother to infant during pregnancy. COVID-19 infection does not seem to increase likelihood of need for obstetric intervention at birth, with healthy infants born vaginally to mothers with the infection

What are the physical and psychological health effects of suicide bereavement on family members? Protocol for an observational and interview mixed-methods study in Ireland

Introduction: Research indicates that experiencing the suicide of a relative can have a significant impact on family members' emotional health. However, research incorporating the impact of suicide bereavement on family members' physical health is sparse. This paper details the protocol for a mixed-methods study of suicide-bereaved family members. The study will primarily examine the physical and mental health needs of those bereaved by suicide. A secondary objective of the study is to describe the support service needs of family members bereaved by suicide. Methods and analysis: A mixed-methods approach, using semistructured interviews and self-report questionnaires, will be used. Interviews will be conducted with a group of 15–20 relatives who experienced suicide bereavement. This protocol will follow the COREQ checklist criteria for the reporting of qualitative research interviews. Thematic analysis will be used to examine experiences and impact of bereavement on psychological and physical health. Self-report quantitative data on well-being will be analysed using descriptive statistics. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval to conduct this study has been granted from the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Cork Teaching Hospitals. Pseudonyms will be given to participants to protect anonymity. It will be explained to participants that participation in the study is voluntary and they have to right to withdraw at any time. The findings of this research will be disseminated to regional, national and international audiences through publication in peer-reviewed international journals and presentations at scientific conferences. This research also forms part of a PhD thesis

What are the physical and psychological health effects of suicide bereavement on family members? An observational and interview mixed-methods study in Ireland

OBJECTIVES: Research focussing on the impact of suicide bereavement on family members\u27 physical and psychological health is scarce. The aim of this study was to examine how family members have been physically and psychologically affected following suicide bereavement. A secondary objective of the study was to describe the needs of family members bereaved by suicide. DESIGN: A mixed-methods study was conducted, using qualitative semistructured interviews and additional quantitative self-report measures of depression, anxiety and stress (DASS-21). SETTING: Consecutive suicide cases and next-of-kin were identified by examining coroner\u27s records in Cork City and County, Ireland from October 2014 to May 2016. PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen family members bereaved by suicide took part in a qualitative interview. They were recruited from the Suicide Support and Information System: A Case-Control Study (SSIS-ACE), where family members bereaved by suicide (n=33) completed structured measures of their well-being. RESULTS: Qualitative findings indicated three superordinate themes in relation to experiences following suicide bereavement: (1) co-occurrence of grief and health reactions; (2) disparity in supports after suicide and (3) reconstructing life after deceased\u27s suicide. Initial feelings of guilt, blame, shame and anger often manifested in enduring physical, psychological and psychosomatic difficulties. Support needs were diverse and were often related to the availability or absence of informal support by family or friends. Quantitative results indicated that the proportion of respondents above the DASS-21 cut-offs respectively were 24% for depression, 18% for anxiety and 27% for stress. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare professionals\u27 awareness of the adverse physical and psychosomatic health difficulties experienced by family members bereaved by suicide is essential. Proactively facilitating support for this group could help to reduce the negative health sequelae. The effects of suicide bereavement are wide-ranging, including high levels of stress, depression, anxiety and physical health difficulties

Barriers and enablers to Caregivers Responsive feeding Behaviour (CRiB): A mixed method systematic review protocol

Background: Childhood overweight and obesity is a major public health issue. Responsive feeding has been identified as having a protective effect against child overweight and obesity, and is associated with healthy weight gain during infancy. Responsive feeding occurs when the caregiver recognises and responds in a timely and developmentally appropriate manner to infant hunger and satiety cues. Despite its benefits, responsive feeding is not ubiquitous. To better support caregivers to engage in responsive feeding behaviours, it is necessary to first systematically identify the barriers and enablers associated with this behaviour. This mixed-methods systematic review therefore aims to synthesise evidence on barriers and enablers to responsive feeding using the COM-B model of behavioural change. Methods: 7 electronic databases will be searched (Maternal and Infant Care, CINAHL, Cochrane, PubMed, Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE). Studies examining factors associated with parental responsive and non-responsive feeding of infants and children (<2 years) will be included. Papers collecting primary data, or analysing primary data through secondary analysis will be included. All titles, abstracts and full texts will be screened by two reviewers. Quantitative and qualitative data from all eligible papers will be independently extracted by at least two reviewers using pre-determined standardised data extraction forms. Two reviewers will independently assess the methodological quality of the studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). This review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA). Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval is not required for this review as no primary data will be collected, and no identifying personal information will be present. The review will be disseminated in a peer reviewed journal

Prenatal maternal stress and risk of neurodevelopmental disorders in the offspring: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

Background: Prenatal maternal stress (PNMS) is defined as the experience of significant levels of prenatal stress, depression or anxiety during pregnancy. PNMS has been associated with increased risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in exposed offspring. However, these findings are inconsistent and other studies found no association, meaning a clear consensus on the impact of PNMS on ASD and ADHD risk is required. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to summarize and critically review the existing literature on the effects of PNMS on ASD and ADHD risk. Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus and EMBASE) will be searched for articles following a detailed search strategy. We will include cohort and case-control studies that assessed maternal exposure to psychological and/or environmental stress and had ASD or ADHD as an outcome. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles, abstracts and full articles to identify eligible studies. We will use a standardised data extraction form for extracting data and a bias classification tool for assessing study quality. This systematic review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The generic inverse variance method will be used if possible to perform meta-analyses. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval is not required for this study because it will not involve the conduct or inclusion of any experimental or personal data that would require informed consent. The systematic review will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018084222

Corrigendum: Longitudinal relations between parenting stress and child internalizing and externalizing behaviors: testing within-person changes, bidirectionality and mediating mechanisms:(Front. Behav. Neurosci., (2023), 16, (942363), 10.3389/fnbeh.2022.942363)

In the published article, the citation for an author name was incorrectly written as Dijk et al. (2022). The correct spelling is Van Dijk et al. (2022). In the published article, the contributions of the author was reported using the initials WD. The correct use of the initials is WVD. In the published article, the reference for “Parenting stress can be assessed using a variety of measures, with some scales consisting only of items asking about parent domains, such as the Parenting Stress Scale (PSS)” was incorrectly written as (Crnic et al., 2002). It should be (Berry and Jones, 1995). In the published article, the reference for “and others comprising child domains as well, including the Parenting Stress Index (PSI)” was incorrectly written as (Deater-Deckard and Panneton, 2017). It should be (Abidin, 1995). In the published article, the reference for “And the Parenting Daily Hassles scale (PDH);” was incorrectly written as (Patterson, 1992). It should be (Crnic and Greenberg, 1990). The full citation for this reference is: Crnic, K. A., and Greenberg, M. T. (1990). Minor parenting stresses with young children. Child Dev. 61, 1628–1637. In the published article, the reference for [“…in their systematic review that parental warmth was negatively associated with behavioral outcomes in preterm children, as displayed by fewer internalizing and externalizing problems.] was incorrectly written as Baumrind (1971). It should be Neel et al. (2018). In the published article, the reference for “Families with children registered on the Child Benefit Register born between December 1st 2007 and June 30th 2008 could be included, with a total of 41,185 eligible children” was incorrectly written as (Rogosa, 1980). It should be (Quail et al., 2011). In the published article, the reference for “Children's emotional and behavioral problems were assessed by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ);” was incorrectly written as (Hamaker et al., 2015). It should be (Goodman, 1997). In the published article, the reference for “For the current study, the scores on the subscale Emotional Symptoms and Peer Problems were combined by summarizing the scores to create an “Internalizing” subscale, and the Conduct Problems and Hyperactivity subscale were combined by summarizing the scores to create an “Externalizing” subscale” was incorrectly written as (Quail et al., 2011). It should be (Goodman et al., 2010). In the published article, the reference for “The subscales demonstrated acceptable reliability (Internalizing Cronbach's a = 0.73, Externalizing Cronbach's a = 0.78;” was incorrectly written as (Goodman, 1997). It should be (Goodman et al., 2010). In the published article, the reference for “Parenting behavior was measured using an instrument from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC);” was incorrectly written as (Anthony et al., 2005). It should be (Zubrick et al., 2014). In the published article, the reference for “To investigate the within-person associations of parenting stress and child internalizing and externalizing behavior problems over time, random-intercept crossed lagged panel modeling (RI-CLPM) were used in R using the Rstudio software v.1.2.5019 and the Lavaan package” was incorrectly written as (Goodman, 1997). It should be (Rosseel, 2012). In the published article, the reference for “Primary caregiver's cultural background and child's gender were included in the model as TIC's, and primary caregiver's age, partner status, household income, occupational status, and educational level were included in the model as TVC's” was incorrectly written as (Goodman et al., 2010). It should be (Mund et al., 2021). In the published article, the reference for “the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI;” was incorrectly written as Rosseel, 2012. It should be (Tucker and Lewis, 1973). In the published article, the reference for “A maximum likelihood estimator (ML) with robust standard errors was used to handle missing values and adjust for any deviations from normality” was incorrectly written as (Hu and Bentler, 1998). It should be (Enders, 2001). In the published article, the reference for “As opposed to externalizing behaviors, internalizing behaviors could easily go unnoticed by parents, and maybe also because at very young ages children's verbal skills are less well-developed yet, which makes them less competent in expressing their internal feelings” was incorrectly written as (Kline, 2015). It should be (Tandon et al., 2009). In the published article, the reference for “This idea is also supported by studies examining correspondence between different informants, with often larger correspondence found in reports of children's externalizing problems when compared to internalizing problems] was incorrectly written as (Enders, 2001; Tandon et al., 2009”. It should be (van der Ende et al., 2012; De Los Reyes et al., 2015). In the published article, the reference for [“… investigated the specificity of parenting stressors and disentangled the associations between various parenting stressors and internalizing and externalizing behaviors,…] was incorrectly written as van der Ende et al. (2012). It should be Costa et al. (2006). In the published article, the reference for “(PSI-SF;” was incorrectly written as (Abidin, 1995). It should be (Abidin, 1990). In the published article, the reference for “found that parent-child dysfunctional interactions in particular were associated with child internalizing symptoms” was incorrectly written as van der Ende et al. (2012). It should be Costa et al. (2006). In the published article, the reference for “Children with difficult temperament and challenging behavioral characteristics can make it difficult for parents to care and manage] was incorrectly written as (De Los Reyes et al., 2015)”. It should be (Abidin, 1995). In the published article, the reference for “Although not supported by” was incorrectly written as van der Ende et al. (2012). It should be Costa et al. (2006). In the published article, the reference for “Thus, the total time interval of 6 years as used in the current study could have been too long to measure an actual mediation effect” was incorrectly written as (Costa et al., 2006). It should be (Boele et al., 2020). In the published article, the reference for “our study corrected for covariates that have widely been associated with parenting stress, including household income, educational status and occupational status” was incorrectly written as (Abidin, 1990, 1995). It should be (Abidin, 1990, 1992). In the published article, the reference for “Parental reports on child's internalizing behaviors are commonly found to be underreported, for instance as a consequence of internalizing symptoms being less visible to parents” was incorrectly written as (Kline, 2015). It should be (Tandon et al., 2009). In the published article, the reference for “Even though they studied an older sample than we did in our study, a large longitudinal study by” was incorrectly written as Boele et al. (2020). It should be Robinson et al. (2019). In the published article, the reference for “Secondary caregivers and teachers may have a different experience about the child's behavior than the primary caregiver” was incorrectly written as (Bradley and Corwyn, 2002; de Maat et al., 2021). It should be (Kraemer et al., 2003; de Maat et al., 2021). In the published article, the reference for “A multimethod approach could be applied, by combining both questionnaires and observational data to obtain a more objective measure of parental and child behavior” was incorrectly written as (Tandon et al., 2009). It should be (de Maat et al., 2021). In the published article, the reference for “Thus, future studies may investigate parenting and child outcomes from a more family systems perspective by including other family members, including other children in the household” was incorrectly written as (Richmond et al., 2005; Robinson et al., 2019). It should be (Richmond et al., 2005). In the published article, the reference for “However, future research should further investigate mediation by including more proximal time points, or even including highly frequent longitudinal data collection using Experienced Based Sampling” was incorrectly written as (Kraemer et al., 2003; Bolger and Laurenceau, 2013). It should be (Bolger and Laurenceau, 2013). The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.</p

Study within a trial (SWAT) protocol. Participants' perspectives and preferences on clinical trial result dissemination: The TRUST Thyroid Trial experience.

INTRODUCTION: Dissemination of results of randomised controlled trials is traditionally limited to academic and professional groups rather than clinical trial participants. While there is increasing consensus that results should be communicated to trial participants, there is a lack of evidence on the most appropriate methods of dissemination. This study within a trial (SWAT) aims to address this gap by using a public and patient involvement (PPI) approach to identify, develop and evaluate a patient-preferred method of receiving trial results of the Thyroid Hormone Replacement for Subclinical Hypothyroidism Trial (TRUST). METHODS: An experimental (intervention) study will be conducted using mixed methods to inform the development of and evaluation of a patient-preferred method of communication of trial results. The study will involve three consecutive phases. In the first phase, focus groups of trial participants will be conducted to identify a patient-preferred method of receiving trial results. The method will be developed and then assessed and refined by a patient and public expert group. In the second phase participants will be randomly assigned to the intervention (patient-preferred method) and comparison groups (standard dissemination method as developed by the lead study site in Glasgow, Scotland). In the third phase, a quantitative questionnaire will be used to measure and compare patient understanding of trial results between the two groups. DISCUSSION: This protocol provides a template for other trialists who wish to enhance patient and public involvement and additionally, will provide empirical evidence on how trialists should best disseminate study results to their participants

Methods used in the selection of instruments for outcomes included in core outcome sets have improved since the publication of the COSMIN/COMET guideline

Objectives: Once a core outcome set (COS) has been defined, it is important to achieve consensus on how these outcomes should be measured. The aims of this systematic review were to gain insight into the methods used to select outcome measurement instruments and to determine whether methods have improved following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN)/Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) guideline publication. Study Design and Setting: Eligible articles, which were identified from the annual COMET systematic review, concerned any COS development studies that provided a recommendation on how to measure the outcomes included in the COS. Data were extracted on the methods used to select outcome measurement instruments in accordance with the COSMIN/COMET guideline. Results: Of the 118 studies included in the review, 48% used more than one source of information when finding outcome measurement instruments, and 74% performed some form of quality assessment of the measurement instruments. Twenty-three studies recommended one single instrument for each core outcome included in the COS. Clinical experts and public representatives were involved in selecting instruments in 62% and 28% of studies, respectively. Conclusion: Methods used to select outcome measurement instruments have improved since the publication of the COSMIN/COMET guideline. Going forward, COS developers should ensure that recommended outcome measurement instruments have sufficient content validity. In addition, COS developers should recommend one instrument for each core outcome to contribute to the overarching goal of uniformity in outcome reporting

Barriers and enablers to Caregivers Responsive feeding Behaviour (CRiB): A mixed method systematic review protocol [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]

Background: Childhood overweight and obesity is a major public health issue. Responsive feeding has been identified as having a protective effect against child overweight and obesity, and is associated with healthy weight gain during infancy. Responsive feeding occurs when the caregiver recognises and responds in a timely and developmentally appropriate manner to infant hunger and satiety cues. Despite its benefits, responsive feeding is not ubiquitous. To better support caregivers to engage in responsive feeding behaviours, it is necessary to first systematically identify the barriers and enablers associated with this behaviour. This mixed-methods systematic review therefore aims to synthesise evidence on barriers and enablers to responsive feeding using the COM-B model of behavioural change. Methods: 7 electronic databases will be searched (Maternal and Infant Care, CINAHL, Cochrane, PubMed, Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE). Studies examining factors associated with parental responsive and non-responsive feeding of infants and children (<2 years) will be included. Papers collecting primary data, or analysing primary data through secondary analysis will be included. All titles, abstracts and full texts will be screened by two reviewers. Quantitative and qualitative data from all eligible papers will be independently extracted by at least two reviewers using pre-determined standardised data extraction forms. Two reviewers will independently assess the methodological quality of the studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). This review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA). Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval is not required for this review as no primary data will be collected, and no identifying personal information will be present. The review will be disseminated in a peer reviewed journal