What does violence tell us about gay male couple relationships?

Research on intimate partner violence and abuse in same-sex couple’s relationships is still a relatively new area of interest. Given the silence surrounding this form of abuse within the field, there is much to be learned by research focusing on its meaning. This research study examined violence and abuse in the couple’s relationships of gay men from a British perspective. The study is located within a phenomenological approach, designed to capture the essence of the individual’s experience. The choice of a grounded theory approach for the analysis of the data rested on it being particularly helpful in generating theory in areas where this is lacking. However, the challenge of recruiting participants to the study limited the utility of the method, highlighting the ongoing difficulty of gaining access to sexual minority participants for studies involving sensitive issues. Eight participants, all gay men, were recruited and semi-structured interviews administered as a basis for generating data. A focus group discussion also formed part of the study and considered the question of whether same-sex partner abuse is the same or different from that seen in heterosexual couple’s relationships. Findings suggest that love for one’s partner, hope for change and quality of sex, accounted for the ongoing investment made by these men in their violent and abusive relationships. The emphasis on physical abuse diminished the importance of other forms of abuse, i.e. emotional, psychological and financial abuse. The direction of the abuse was in contrast to that seen in heterosexual relationships, i.e. the partner with most instrumental power, was the one most at risk of abuse. There was little recognition of the impact of homophobia or internalized homophobia as possible contributory factors in the development of violence and abuse. Participants tended to rely on their own resources rather than seeking outside help and the clinical implications of this were considered

What does violence tell us about gay male couple relationships?

Research on intimate partner violence and abuse in same-sex couple’s relationships is still a relatively new area of interest. Given the silence surrounding this form of abuse within the field, there is much to be learned by research focusing on its meaning. This research study examined violence and abuse in the couple’s relationships of gay men from a British perspective. The study is located within a phenomenological approach, designed to capture the essence of the individual’s experience. The choice of a grounded theory approach for the analysis of the data rested on it being particularly helpful in generating theory in areas where this is lacking. However, the challenge of recruiting participants to the study limited the utility of the method, highlighting the ongoing difficulty of gaining access to sexual minority participants for studies involving sensitive issues. Eight participants, all gay men, were recruited and semi-structured interviews administered as a basis for generating data. A focus group discussion also formed part of the study and considered the question of whether same-sex partner abuse is the same or different from that seen in heterosexual couple’s relationships. Findings suggest that love for one’s partner, hope for change and quality of sex, accounted for the ongoing investment made by these men in their violent and abusive relationships. The emphasis on physical abuse diminished the importance of other forms of abuse, i.e. emotional, psychological and financial abuse. The direction of the abuse was in contrast to that seen in heterosexual relationships, i.e. the partner with most instrumental power, was the one most at risk of abuse. There was little 5 recognition of the impact of homophobia or internalized homophobia as possible contributory factors in the development of violence and abuse. Participants tended to rely on their own resources rather than seeking outside help and the clinical implications of this were considered

Alterations in Team Physical Performance and Possession in Elite Gaelic Football Competition

Differences in performance between winning and losing were examined in 1 elite Gaelic football team in 20 games across 2 complete competitive seasons. Possession was codified using Dartfish TeamPro software and distance covered; walking, jogging, running, and running at high and maximum speeds, was evaluated using Catapult Optimeye S5 player tracking devices. Distance covered in low intensity activity (LIA, ˂4.0 m.s-1 ), high intensity running (HIR, ≥4.0 m·s-1 ) and very high intensity running (VHIR, ≥5.5 m·s-1 ) was also examined along with PlayerLoad™, which represented a composite of all accelerations. Data from 53 players (n=405 files) was collated into specific match periods to facilitate a temporal analysis between the first and second halves and from quarter 1 (Q1) to quarter 4 (Q4), with significance accepted at p ≤ 0.05. Total distance and running was higher in games lost, whereas total distance, walking and LIA was higher in halves lost. Only walking was higher in quarters lost. The percentage of possession declined in halves and quarters lost. In games lost, high speed running declined in the second half. From Q1 to Q4; PlayerLoad™, total distance, jogging, high speed running, HIR and VHIR, decreased in all games combined and in games lost. Possession frequency declined in Q4 in all games and in games won. Overall, total distance was higher in games lost and physical performance declines were more pronounced when examined by match quarter compared to half and were only apparent in games lost. Similarly, reductions in possession frequency and percentage were more evident when examined by quarter or period lost, respectively. These findings can inform the prescription of conditioning and field-training strategies to mitigate the reductions in performance observed in losing and towards the end of games

Ischemia and Infarction in STEMI Patients With Multivessel Disease : Insights From the CvLPRIT Nuclear Substudy

The CvLPRIT (Complete versus Lesion-only PRimary PCI Trial) trial was undertaken in 7 UK centers (1,2). Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary stenoses were randomized to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) to the infarct-related artery (IRA) only, or complete revascularization. At 12-month follow-up, the rate of the combined primary endpoint (all-cause mortality, recurrent MI, heart failure, ischemia-driven revascularization) was lower after complete revascularization. All surviving patients were asked to undergo myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) 6 to 8 weeks post-admission. It was expected that this a priori nuclear substudy would provide mechanistic insights into the outcome of the main trial, and help to define the clinical role of MPS in the PPCI era

Randomized trial of complete versus lesion-only revascularization in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI and Multivessel Disease

BACKGROUND: The optimal management of patients found to have multivessel disease while undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (P-PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is uncertain.   OBJECTIVES: CvLPRIT (Complete versus Lesion-only Primary PCI trial) is a U.K. open-label randomized study comparing complete revascularization at index admission with treatment of the infarct-related artery (IRA) only.   METHODS: After they provided verbal assent and underwent coronary angiography, 296 patients in 7 U.K. centers were randomized through an interactive voice-response program to either in-hospital complete revascularization (n = 150) or IRA-only revascularization (n = 146). Complete revascularization was performed either at the time of P-PCI or before hospital discharge. Randomization was stratified by infarct location (anterior/nonanterior) and symptom onset (≤3 h or >3 h). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, and ischemia-driven revascularization within 12 months.   RESULTS: Patient groups were well matched for baseline clinical characteristics. The primary endpoint occurred in 10.0% of the complete revascularization group versus 21.2% in the IRA-only revascularization group (hazard ratio: 0.45; 95% confidence interval: 0.24 to 0.84; p = 0.009). A trend toward benefit was seen early after complete revascularization (p = 0.055 at 30 days). Although there was no significant reduction in death or MI, a nonsignificant reduction in all primary endpoint components was seen. There was no reduction in ischemic burden on myocardial perfusion scintigraphy or in the safety endpoints of major bleeding, contrast-induced nephropathy, or stroke between the groups.   CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting for P-PCI with multivessel disease, index admission complete revascularization significantly lowered the rate of the composite primary endpoint at 12 months compared with treating only the IRA. In such patients, inpatient total revascularization may be considered, but larger clinical trials are required to confirm this result and specifically address whether this strategy is associated with improved survival. (Complete Versus Lesion-only Primary PCI Pilot Study [CvLPRIT]; ISRCTN70913605)

Risk factors for 1-year mortality after thoracic endovascular aortic repair

ObjectiveThoracic endovascular aortic repair, although physiologically well tolerated, may fail to confer significant survival benefit in some high-risk patients. In an effort to identify patients most likely to benefit from intervention, the present study sought to determine the risk factors for 1-year mortality after thoracic endovascular aortic repair.MethodsA retrospective review was performed on prospectively collected data from all patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair from 2002 to 2010 at a single institution. Univariate analysis and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis were used to identify risk factors associated with mortality within 1 year after thoracic endovascular aortic repair.ResultsDuring the study period, 282 patients underwent at least 1 thoracic endovascular aortic repair; index procedures included descending aortic repair (n = 189), hybrid arch repair (n = 55), and hybrid thoracoabdominal repair (n = 38). The 30-day/in-hospital mortality was 7.4% (n = 21) and the overall 1-year mortality was 19% (n = 54). Cardiopulmonary pathologies were the most common cause of nonperioperative 1-year mortality (22%, n = 12). Multivariate modeling demonstrated 3 variables independently associated with 1-year mortality: age older than 75 years (hazard ratio, 2.26; P = .005), aortic diameter greater than 6.5 cm (hazard ratio, 2.20; P = .007), and American Society of Anesthesiologists class 4 (hazard ratio, 1.85; P = .049). A baseline creatinine greater than 1.5 mg/dL (hazard ratio, 1.79; P = .05) and congestive heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.87; P = .08) were also retained in the final model. These 5 variables explained a large proportion of the risk of 1-year mortality (C statistic = 0.74).ConclusionsAge older than 75 years, aortic diameter greater than 6.5 cm, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class 4 are independently associated with 1-year mortality after thoracic endovascular aortic repair. These clinical characteristics may help risk-stratify patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair and identify those unlikely to derive a long-term survival benefit from the procedure

Power and Authority in Eastern Christian Experience: Papers of the Sophia Institute Academic Conference New York, December 2010

The essays in this volume were delivered at the Third Annual Conference of the Sophia Institute in December 2010 at Union Theological Seminary in New York City. The theme of that conference, “Power and Authority in Eastern Christian Experience,” brought forth a diverse group of scholars who contributed their perspectives on the ways the Eastern Orthodox Church, in its broadest sense, has negotiated the notions of power, authority, (dis)obedience, and resistance over time and space. These insightful essays promise to draw the Orthodox world into a dynamic and productive discourse

Myocardial Perfusion Reserve but not fibrosis predicts outcomes in initially asymptomatic patients with moderate to severe aortic stenosis : the PRognostic Importance of MIcrovascular Dysfunction in AS study- PRIMID AS

Peer reviewedPublisher PD