Research Panel: Monetary Compensation of Full-Time Faculty at American Public Regional Universities: The Impact of Geography and the Existence of Collective Bargaining

This work builds upon an analysis of regional universities that began in 2009, to build a geographically-based, quantifiable definition of the nation\u27s regional universities. It builds on efforts begun by Katsinas (1993) to geographically map access oriented community colleges, which resulted in the geographic coding of Associate\u27s Colleges as part of the 2005 and 2010 Basic Classification of Institutions of Higher Education published by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (Katsinas, Lacey, & Hardy, 2005). Key findings 1. Wide variation in salaries and fringe benefits based upon geographic region served. 2. Wide variation in salaries and fringe benefits based if collective bargaining exists. 3. Access institutions need a 21st century classification scheme to reflect mission, workloa

Research Panel: Monetary Compensation of Full-Time Faculty at American Public Regional Universities: The Impact of Geography and the Existence of Collective Bargaining

This work builds upon an analysis of regional universities that began in 2009, to build a geographically-based, quantifiable definition of the nation\u27s regional universities. It builds on efforts begun by Katsinas (1993) to geographically map access oriented community colleges, which resulted in the geographic coding of Associate\u27s Colleges as part of the 2005 and 2010 Basic Classification of Institutions of Higher Education published by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (Katsinas, Lacey, & Hardy, 2005). Key findings 1. Wide variation in salaries and fringe benefits based upon geographic region served. 2. Wide variation in salaries and fringe benefits based if collective bargaining exists. 3. Access institutions need a 21st century classification scheme to reflect mission, workloa

Monetary Compensation of Full-Time Faculty at American Public Regional Universities: The Impact of Geography and the Existence of Collective Bargaining

This paper examines monetary compensation of 127,222 full-time faculty employed by the 390 regional universities in the United States who are members of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Compensation data published by the U.S. Department of Education and organizations concerned with faculty, including the American Association of University Professors and others, typically lump all four-year public university faculty together, ignoring well-known differences in teaching workloads at different types of public four-year universities (four instead of two courses taught each term, etc.). Further, many compensation studies do not examine fringe benefits, which are 30 percent of total monetary compensation. Regional universities serve nearly 4 million students nationwide, and are highly committed to be good stewards of place. They are worthy of study as a separate institutional type on their own. As large numbers of “baby boom” era faculty at regional universities approach retirement, an accurate base-line assessment of total monetary compensation (salaries and fringe benefits) is important. This study examines (1) salaries and fringe benefits, (2) includes the entire universe of U.S. regional universities, (3) examines differences by geographic peer institutional types, and (4) examines if the presence or lack of collective bargaining matters. The 2011 Human Resources Survey from the National Center for Education Statistics’ Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System is the most recent year for which both salary and fringe benefits data are available. The 390 regional universities were divided into seven sub-types: Rural-Small, Rural-Medium, Rural-Large, Suburban Smaller, Suburban Larger, Urban Smaller, and Urban Larger. Katsinas’ geographically-based classification scheme of regional universities (2016, forthcoming), similar to the geographically-based 2005 and 2010 Carnegie Basic Classification of Associate’s Colleges on which he was lead author, was used. The average total monetary compensation for the 127,222 full-time faculty employed by the 390 regional universities was $97,174, of which$71,348 came in the form of salaries and $25,828 in fringe benefits. The 15,872 full-time faculty employed by the 90 Rural-Medium regional universities received on average$84,720 in salaries and fringe benefits, while the 18,884 faculty employed by the 42 Suburban-Larger regional universities received $101,366. In general, full-time faculty at the 55 Suburban regional faculty were highest paid, closely followed by faculty at the 74 urban regional universities, with faculty at the 261 rural regional universities well behind. The range of monetary compensation across the seven sub-categories of regional universities was large--and this one-year difference of nearly$17,000 is magnified further when considered over an entire 30-plus year teaching career, adjusted for inflation. The differences are even wider when the presence or lack of collective bargaining is considered. Among the 127, 222 full-time faculty at regional universities, 74,468 or 63% worked at the 219 institutions in the 30 states that in 2011 had collective bargaining (as reported in the 2012 Directory of Collective Bargaining published by the National Center for Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions), while 52,754 or 37% were employed at the 171 regional universities in the 20 states that did not. Full-time faculty at rural, suburban, and urban regional universities with collective bargaining received on average $92,407,$116,353, and $108,399 in total monetary compensation in FY2011; this compared to averages of$82,722, $84,813, and$86,594 at rural, suburban, and urban regional universities without. This study revealed that regional universities, currently spread across many subcategories of doctoral, master’s, and baccalaureate universities within the Carnegie Basic Classification universe, deserve analysis in their own right

Adult and paediatric mortality patterns in a referral hospital in Liberia 1 year after the end of the war

The aim of this study was to describe and analyse hospital mortality patterns after the Liberian war. Data were collected retrospectively from January to July 2005 in a referral hospital in Monrovia, Liberia. The overall fatality rate was 17.2% (438/2543) of medical admissions. One-third of deaths occurred in the first 24h. The adult fatality rate was 23.3% (241/1034). Non-infectious diseases accounted for 56% of the adult deaths. The main causes of death were meningitis (16%), stroke (14%) and heart failure (10%). Associated fatality rates were 48%, 54% and 31% respectively. The paediatric fatality rate was 13.1% (197/1509). Infectious diseases caused 66% of paediatric deaths. In infants <1 month old, the fatality rate was 18% and main causes of death were neonatal sepsis (47%), respiratory distress (24%) and prematurity (18%). The main causes of death in infants > or =1 month old were respiratory infections (27%), malaria (23%) and severe malnutrition (16%). Associated fatality rates were 12%, 10% and 19%. Fatality rates were similar to those found in other sub-Saharan countries without a previous conflict. Early deaths could decrease through recognition and early referral of severe cases from health centres to the hospital and through assessment and priority treatment of these patients at arrival

Primary stroke prevention worldwide : translating evidence into action

Funding Information: The stroke services survey reported in this publication was partly supported by World Stroke Organization and Auckland University of Technology. VLF was partly supported by the grants received from the Health Research Council of New Zealand. MOO was supported by the US National Institutes of Health (SIREN U54 HG007479) under the H3Africa initiative and SIBS Genomics (R01NS107900, R01NS107900-02S1, R01NS115944-01, 3U24HG009780-03S5, and 1R01NS114045-01), Sub-Saharan Africa Conference on Stroke Conference (1R13NS115395-01A1), and Training Africans to Lead and Execute Neurological Trials & Studies (D43TW012030). AGT was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. SLG was supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship and an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council synergy grant. We thank Anita Arsovska (University Clinic of Neurology, Skopje, North Macedonia), Manoj Bohara (HAMS Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal), Denis ?erimagi? (Poliklinika Glavi?, Dubrovnik, Croatia), Manuel Correia (Hospital de Santo Ant?nio, Porto, Portugal), Daissy Liliana Mora Cuervo (Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil), Anna Cz?onkowska (Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warsaw, Poland), Gloria Ekeng (Stroke Care International, Dartford, UK), Jo?o Sargento-Freitas (Centro Hospitalar e Universit?rio de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal), Yuriy Flomin (MC Universal Clinic Oberig, Kyiv, Ukraine), Mehari Gebreyohanns (UT Southwestern Medical Centre, Dallas, TX, USA), Ivete Pillo Gon?alves (Hospital S?o Jos? do Avai, Itaperuna, Brazil), Claiborne Johnston (Dell Medical School, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA), Kristaps Jurj?ns (P Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia), Rizwan Kalani (University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA), Grzegorz Kozera (Medical University of Gda?sk, Gda?sk, Poland), Kursad Kutluk (Dokuz Eylul University, ?zmir, Turkey), Branko Malojcic (University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia), Micha? Maluchnik (Ministry of Health, Warsaw, Poland), Evija Migl?ne (P Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia), Cassandra Ocampo (University of Botswana, Princess Marina Hospital, Botswana), Louise Shaw (Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK), Lekhjung Thapa (Upendra Devkota Memorial-National Institute of Neurological and Allied Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal), Bogdan Wojtyniak (National Institute of Public Health, Warsaw, Poland), Jie Yang (First Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, China), and Tomasz Zdrojewski (Medical University of Gda?sk, Gda?sk, Poland) for their comments on early draft of the manuscript. The views expressed in this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and they do not necessarily reflect the views, decisions, or policies of the institution with which they are affiliated. We thank WSO for funding. The funder had no role in the design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of the study results, writing of the report, or the decision to submit the study results for publication. Funding Information: The stroke services survey reported in this publication was partly supported by World Stroke Organization and Auckland University of Technology. VLF was partly supported by the grants received from the Health Research Council of New Zealand. MOO was supported by the US National Institutes of Health (SIREN U54 HG007479) under the H3Africa initiative and SIBS Genomics (R01NS107900, R01NS107900-02S1, R01NS115944-01, 3U24HG009780-03S5, and 1R01NS114045-01), Sub-Saharan Africa Conference on Stroke Conference (1R13NS115395-01A1), and Training Africans to Lead and Execute Neurological Trials & Studies (D43TW012030). AGT was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. SLG was supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship and an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council synergy grant. We thank Anita Arsovska (University Clinic of Neurology, Skopje, North Macedonia), Manoj Bohara (HAMS Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal), Denis Čerimagić (Poliklinika Glavić, Dubrovnik, Croatia), Manuel Correia (Hospital de Santo António, Porto, Portugal), Daissy Liliana Mora Cuervo (Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil), Anna Członkowska (Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warsaw, Poland), Gloria Ekeng (Stroke Care International, Dartford, UK), João Sargento-Freitas (Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal), Yuriy Flomin (MC Universal Clinic Oberig, Kyiv, Ukraine), Mehari Gebreyohanns (UT Southwestern Medical Centre, Dallas, TX, USA), Ivete Pillo Gonçalves (Hospital São José do Avai, Itaperuna, Brazil), Claiborne Johnston (Dell Medical School, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA), Kristaps Jurjāns (P Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia), Rizwan Kalani (University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA), Grzegorz Kozera (Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland), Kursad Kutluk (Dokuz Eylul University, İzmir, Turkey), Branko Malojcic (University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia), Michał Maluchnik (Ministry of Health, Warsaw, Poland), Evija Miglāne (P Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia), Cassandra Ocampo (University of Botswana, Princess Marina Hospital, Botswana), Louise Shaw (Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK), Lekhjung Thapa (Upendra Devkota Memorial-National Institute of Neurological and Allied Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal), Bogdan Wojtyniak (National Institute of Public Health, Warsaw, Poland), Jie Yang (First Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, China), and Tomasz Zdrojewski (Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland) for their comments on early draft of the manuscript. The views expressed in this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and they do not necessarily reflect the views, decisions, or policies of the institution with which they are affiliated. We thank WSO for funding. The funder had no role in the design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of the study results, writing of the report, or the decision to submit the study results for publication. Funding Information: VLF declares that the PreventS web app and Stroke Riskometer app are owned and copyrighted by Auckland University of Technology; has received grants from the Brain Research New Zealand Centre of Research Excellence (16/STH/36), Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC; APP1182071), and World Stroke Organization (WSO); is an executive committee member of WSO, honorary medical director of Stroke Central New Zealand, and CEO of New Zealand Stroke Education charitable Trust. AGT declares funding from NHMRC (GNT1042600, GNT1122455, GNT1171966, GNT1143155, and GNT1182017), Stroke Foundation Australia (SG1807), and Heart Foundation Australia (VG102282); and board membership of the Stroke Foundation (Australia). SLG is funded by the National Health Foundation of Australia (Future Leader Fellowship 102061) and NHMRC (GNT1182071, GNT1143155, and GNT1128373). RM is supported by the Implementation Research Network in Stroke Care Quality of the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (project CA18118) and by the IRIS-TEPUS project from the inter-excellence inter-cost programme of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic (project LTC20051). BN declares receiving fees for data management committee work for SOCRATES and THALES trials for AstraZeneca and fees for data management committee work for NAVIGATE-ESUS trial from Bayer. All other authors declare no competing interests. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseStroke is the second leading cause of death and the third leading cause of disability worldwide and its burden is increasing rapidly in low-income and middle-income countries, many of which are unable to face the challenges it imposes. In this Health Policy paper on primary stroke prevention, we provide an overview of the current situation regarding primary prevention services, estimate the cost of stroke and stroke prevention, and identify deficiencies in existing guidelines and gaps in primary prevention. We also offer a set of pragmatic solutions for implementation of primary stroke prevention, with an emphasis on the role of governments and population-wide strategies, including task-shifting and sharing and health system re-engineering. Implementation of primary stroke prevention involves patients, health professionals, funders, policy makers, implementation partners, and the entire population along the life course.publishersversionPeer reviewe

An analysis of differences in faculty compensation by geographic region, state, and the existence of collective bargaining at AASCU institutions in the United States

This study detailed full-time faculty salary and fringe benefits in U.S. AASCU institutions by geographic type. The modified version of the 2010 Carnegie Basic Classification of Master’s Colleges and Universities was used to reclassify the three classifications: larger, medium, and smaller programs into seven geographic types. The National Center for Education Statistic Integrated Postsecondary Education System (IPEDS) for the 2010-2011 academic year was the source of the data used. Also, analysis of salaries and fringe benefits grouped states by the presence and non-presence of collective bargaining. There is a revelation of significant differences in the compensation for full-time faculty based on geographic type of a public access university. The national salary average was $93,269 while the salary average of faculty at rural medium public access university was$77,844. Average salary earned by faculty at institutions with presence of collective bargaining is higher than in institutions without the presence of collective bargaining. Included in this study are recommendations for further research that include the following: 1) adoption of Katsinas’ 2015 Modified Carnegie Basic Classification for Master’s Colleges and Universities; 2) study the faculty contribution to fringe benefits and how they have changed over the years; and 3) study geographically based differences in faculty compensation based on the differences in cost of living. Strategies for recruitment and retain faculty was also recommended

Monetary Compensation of Full-Time Faculty at American Public Regional Universities: The Impact of Geography and the Existence of Collective Bargaining

This paper examines monetary compensation of 127,222 full-time faculty employed by the 390 regional universities in the United States who are members of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Compensation data published by the U.S. Department of Education and organizations concerned with faculty, including the American Association of University Professors and others, typically lump all four-year public university faculty together, ignoring well-known differences in teaching workloads at different types of public four-year universities (four instead of two courses taught each term, etc.). Further, many compensation studies do not examine fringe benefits, which are 30 percent of total monetary compensation. Regional universities serve nearly 4 million students nationwide, and are highly committed to be good stewards of place. They are worthy of study as a separate institutional type on their own. As large numbers of “baby boom” era faculty at regional universities approach retirement, an accurate base-line assessment of total monetary compensation (salaries and fringe benefits) is important. This study examines (1) salaries and fringe benefits, (2) includes the entire universe of U.S. regional universities, (3) examines differences by geographic peer institutional types, and (4) examines if the presence or lack of collective bargaining matters. The 2011 Human Resources Survey from the National Center for Education Statistics’ Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System is the most recent year for which both salary and fringe benefits data are available. The 390 regional universities were divided into seven sub-types: Rural-Small, Rural-Medium, Rural-Large, Suburban Smaller, Suburban Larger, Urban Smaller, and Urban Larger. Katsinas’ geographically-based classification scheme of regional universities (2016, forthcoming), similar to the geographically-based 2005 and 2010 Carnegie Basic Classification of Associate’s Colleges on which he was lead author, was used. The average total monetary compensation for the 127,222 full-time faculty employed by the 390 regional universities was $97,174, of which$71,348 came in the form of salaries and $25,828 in fringe benefits. The 15,872 full-time faculty employed by the 90 Rural-Medium regional universities received on average$84,720 in salaries and fringe benefits, while the 18,884 faculty employed by the 42 Suburban-Larger regional universities received $101,366. In general, full-time faculty at the 55 Suburban regional faculty were highest paid, closely followed by faculty at the 74 urban regional universities, with faculty at the 261 rural regional universities well behind. The range of monetary compensation across the seven sub-categories of regional universities was large--and this one-year difference of nearly$17,000 is magnified further when considered over an entire 30-plus year teaching career, adjusted for inflation. The differences are even wider when the presence or lack of collective bargaining is considered. Among the 127, 222 full-time faculty at regional universities, 74,468 or 63% worked at the 219 institutions in the 30 states that in 2011 had collective bargaining (as reported in the 2012 Directory of Collective Bargaining published by the National Center for Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions), while 52,754 or 37% were employed at the 171 regional universities in the 20 states that did not. Full-time faculty at rural, suburban, and urban regional universities with collective bargaining received on average $92,407,$116,353, and $108,399 in total monetary compensation in FY2011; this compared to averages of$82,722, $84,813, and$86,594 at rural, suburban, and urban regional universities without. This study revealed that regional universities, currently spread across many subcategories of doctoral, master’s, and baccalaureate universities within the Carnegie Basic Classification universe, deserve analysis in their own right