38 research outputs found

    Being Working Poor or Feeling Working Poor? The Role of Work Intensity and Job Stability for Subjective Poverty

    Full text link
    Low work intensity and high job instability are crucial micro-determinants of in-work poverty. Importantly, they might also affect subjective poverty in households that are above the poverty threshold. We contribute to the literature by studying the relationship between subjective and objective in-work poverty and how this relationship is affected by household members' job characteristics. We use data from the 2014 wave of the Italian module of the EU-SILC survey. Italy is an interesting case as - similarly to other Southern European countries - the share of individuals and households reporting subjective hardship is strikingly high compared to the levels reported in other EU areas. We find no statistically significant differences in the association between subjective poverty and different degrees of objective poverty by different levels of work intensity. Conversely, subjective poverty is positively associated with the instability of household members' job contracts. We argue that policies aimed at increasing work intensity rather than work stability might not help to reduce subjective poverty as well as its (negative) spillover effects on other life domains - such as well-being, adequate levels of consumption, and social integration

    Redshift identification of X-ray selected active galactic nuclei in the J1030 field: searching for large-scale structures and high-redshift sources

    Get PDF
    We publicly release the spectroscopic and photometric redshift catalog of the sources detected with Chandra in the field of the zz=6.3 quasar SDSS J1030+0525. This is currently the fifth deepest X-ray field, and reaches a 0.5-2 keV flux limit f0.5−2f_{\rm 0.5-2}=6×\times10−17^{-17} erg s−1^{-1} cm−2^{-2}. By using two independent methods, we measure a photometric redshift for 243 objects, while 123 (51%) sources also have a spectroscopic redshift, 110 of which coming from an INAF-Large Binocular Telescope (LBT) Strategic Program. We use the spectroscopic redshifts to determine the quality of the photometric ones, and find it in agreement with that of other X-ray surveys which used a similar number of photometric data-points. In particular, we measure a sample normalized median absolute deviation σNMAD\sigma_{NMAD}=1.48||zphotz_{phot}-zspecz_{spec}||/(1+zspecz_{spec})=0.065. We use these new spectroscopic and photometric redshifts to study the properties of the Chandra J1030 field. We observe several peaks in our spectroscopic redshift distribution between zz=0.15 and zz=1.5, and find that the sources in each peak are often distributed across the whole Chandra field of view. This evidence confirms that X-ray selected AGN can efficiently track large-scale structures over physical scales of several Mpc. Finally, we computed the Chandra J1030 z>z>3 number counts: while the spectroscopic completeness at high-redshift of our sample is limited, our results point towards a potential source excess at z≥z\geq4, which we plan to either confirm or reject in the near future with dedicated spectroscopic campaigns

    Off-label long acting injectable antipsychotics in real-world clinical practice: a cross-sectional analysis of prescriptive patterns from the STAR Network DEPOT study

    Get PDF
    Introduction Information on the off-label use of Long-Acting Injectable (LAI) antipsychotics in the real world is lacking. In this study, we aimed to identify the sociodemographic and clinical features of patients treated with on- vs off-label LAIs and predictors of off-label First- or Second-Generation Antipsychotic (FGA vs. SGA) LAI choice in everyday clinical practice. Method In a naturalistic national cohort of 449 patients who initiated LAI treatment in the STAR Network Depot Study, two groups were identified based on off- or on-label prescriptions. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to test several clinically relevant variables and identify those associated with the choice of FGA vs SGA prescription in the off-label group. Results SGA LAIs were more commonly prescribed in everyday practice, without significant differences in their on- and off-label use. Approximately 1 in 4 patients received an off-label prescription. In the off-label group, the most frequent diagnoses were bipolar disorder (67.5%) or any personality disorder (23.7%). FGA vs SGA LAI choice was significantly associated with BPRS thought disorder (OR = 1.22, CI95% 1.04 to 1.43, p = 0.015) and hostility/suspiciousness (OR = 0.83, CI95% 0.71 to 0.97, p = 0.017) dimensions. The likelihood of receiving an SGA LAI grew steadily with the increase of the BPRS thought disturbance score. Conversely, a preference towards prescribing an FGA was observed with higher scores at the BPRS hostility/suspiciousness subscale. Conclusion Our study is the first to identify predictors of FGA vs SGA choice in patients treated with off-label LAI antipsychotics. Demographic characteristics, i.e. age, sex, and substance/alcohol use co-morbidities did not appear to influence the choice towards FGAs or SGAs. Despite a lack of evidence, clinicians tend to favour FGA over SGA LAIs in bipolar or personality disorder patients with relevant hostility. Further research is needed to evaluate treatment adherence and clinical effectiveness of these prescriptive patterns

    The Role of Attitudes Toward Medication and Treatment Adherence in the Clinical Response to LAIs: Findings From the STAR Network Depot Study

    Get PDF
    Background: Long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics are efficacious in managing psychotic symptoms in people affected by severe mental disorders, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The present study aimed to investigate whether attitude toward treatment and treatment adherence represent predictors of symptoms changes over time. Methods: The STAR Network \u201cDepot Study\u201d was a naturalistic, multicenter, observational, prospective study that enrolled people initiating a LAI without restrictions on diagnosis, clinical severity or setting. Participants from 32 Italian centers were assessed at three time points: baseline, 6-month, and 12-month follow-up. Psychopathological symptoms, attitude toward medication and treatment adherence were measured using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Drug Attitude Inventory (DAI-10) and the Kemp's 7-point scale, respectively. Linear mixed-effects models were used to evaluate whether attitude toward medication and treatment adherence independently predicted symptoms changes over time. Analyses were conducted on the overall sample and then stratified according to the baseline severity (BPRS < 41 or BPRS 65 41). Results: We included 461 participants of which 276 were males. The majority of participants had received a primary diagnosis of a schizophrenia spectrum disorder (71.80%) and initiated a treatment with a second-generation LAI (69.63%). BPRS, DAI-10, and Kemp's scale scores improved over time. Six linear regressions\u2014conducted considering the outcome and predictors at baseline, 6-month, and 12-month follow-up independently\u2014showed that both DAI-10 and Kemp's scale negatively associated with BPRS scores at the three considered time points. Linear mixed-effects models conducted on the overall sample did not show any significant association between attitude toward medication or treatment adherence and changes in psychiatric symptoms over time. However, after stratification according to baseline severity, we found that both DAI-10 and Kemp's scale negatively predicted changes in BPRS scores at 12-month follow-up regardless of baseline severity. The association at 6-month follow-up was confirmed only in the group with moderate or severe symptoms at baseline. Conclusion: Our findings corroborate the importance of improving the quality of relationship between clinicians and patients. Shared decision making and thorough discussions about benefits and side effects may improve the outcome in patients with severe mental disorders

    Insight from an Italian Delphi Consensus on EVAR feasibility outside the instruction for use: the SAFE EVAR Study

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: The SAfety and FEasibility of standard EVAR outside the instruction for use (SAFE-EVAR) Study was designed to define the attitude of Italian vascular surgeons towards the use of standard endovascular repair (EVAR) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) outside the instruction for use (IFU) through a Delphi consensus endorsed by the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (Societa Italiana di Chirurgia Vascolare ed Endovascolare - SICVE). METHODS: A questionnaire consisting of 26 statements was developed, validated by an 18 -member Advisory Board, and then sent to 600 Italian vascular surgeons. The Delphi process was structured in three subsequent rounds which took place between April and June 2023. In the first two rounds, respondents could indicate one of the following five degrees of agreement: 1) strongly agree; 2) partially agree; 3) neither agree nor disagree; 4) partially disagree; 5) strongly disagree; while in the third round only three different choices were proposed: 1) agree; 2) neither agree nor disagree; 3) disagree. We considered the consensus reached when >70% of respondents agreed on one of the options. After the conclusion of each round, a report describing the percentage distribution of the answers was sent to all the participants. RESULTS: Two -hundred -forty-four (40.6%) Italian Vascular Surgeons agreed to participate the first round of the Delphi Consensus; the second and the third rounds of the Delphi collected 230 responders (94.3% of the first -round responders). Four statements (15.4%) reached a consensus in the first rounds. Among the 22 remaining statements, one more consensus (3.8%) was achieved in the second round. Finally, seven more statements (26.9%) reached a consensus in the simplified last round. Globally, a consensus was reached for almost half of the proposed statements (46.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The relatively low consensus rate obtained in this Delphi seems to confirm the discrepancy between Guideline recommendations and daily clinical practice. The data collected could represent the source for a possible guidelines' revision and the proposal of specific Good Practice Points in all those aspects with only little evidence available
    corecore