E-cigarette use among women of reproductive age: Impulsivity, cigarette smoking status, and other risk factors.

INTRODUCTION: The study aim was to examine impulsivity and other risk factors for e-cigarette use among women of reproductive age comparing current daily cigarette smokers to never cigarette smokers. Women of reproductive age are of special interest because of the additional risk that tobacco and nicotine use represents should they become pregnant. METHOD: Survey data were collected anonymously online using Amazon Mechanical Turk in 2014. Participants were 800 women ages 24-44years from the US. Half (n=400) reported current, daily smoking and half (n=400) reported smokingsociodemographics, tobacco/nicotine use, and impulsivity (i.e., delay discounting & Barratt Impulsiveness Scale). Predictors of smoking and e-cigarette use were examined using logistic regression. RESULTS: Daily cigarette smoking was associated with greater impulsivity, lower education, past illegal drug use, and White race/ethnicity. E-cigarette use in the overall sample was associated with being a cigarette smoker and greater education. E-cigarette use among current smokers was associated with increased nicotine dependence and quitting smoking; among never smokers it was associated with greater impulsivity and illegal drug use. E-cigarette use was associated with hookah use, and for never smokers only with use of cigars and other nicotine products. CONCLUSIONS: E-cigarette use among women of reproductive age varies by smoking status, with use among current smokers reflecting attempts to quit smoking whereas among non-smokers use may be a marker of a more impulsive repertoire that includes greater use of alternative tobacco products and illegal drugs

A framework to include the (inter)dependencies of Disaster Risk Reduction measures in coastal risk assessment

Effective coastal risk management often involves the selection and appraisal of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) measures. Such measures, however, are rarely implemented in isolation and their (inter)dependencies need to be considered to assess the overall contribution to risk reduction. This paper presents a framework that utilises a pathway-based approach to consider such (inter)dependencies. The framework identifies measures that have the potential to directly influence risk reduction (primary measures) at the individual/household level and how these relate to the implementation of other measures (non-primary). These two types of measures are linked using intermediate pathway factors, which aggregate to the effective uptake and/or operation of primary measure(s) and subsequently represent the direct influence on risk reduction when included in a risk assessment. The approach is demonstrated utilising two coastal risk examples. The case of Varna Bay, Bulgaria highlights a pathway, which explores how developing a coastal Early Warning System (EWS), can enable assets to be moved and saved prior to an event. The Praia de Faro, Portuguese application provides an example of how local risk awareness meetings can support the uptake of property raising to protect against erosion. Past experience, poor trust in authorities, house type/ feasibility, transient population and strong community networks are identified as key influencing variables across both cases. The process of considering the (inter)dependencies between measures has potential to lead to improved decision-making and strategy building. The framework developed is flexible in nature and can be applied in many different situations; however, it is one step towards accounting for these (inter)dependencies at the individual/household level. Ex-ante or ex-post survey data, expert judgement and literature have been used to estimate these factors. However, in many cases this good quality data is not available, and is something that national level monitoring strategies, along with the research community, must address

Observational evidence favors a resistive wave heating mechanism for coronal loops over a viscous phenomenon

Context. How coronal loops are heated to their observed temperatures is the subject of a long standing debate. Aims. Observational evidence exists that the heating in coronal loops mainly occurs near the loop footpoints. In this article, analytically and numerically obtained heating profiles produced by resonantly damped waves are compared to the observationally estimated profiles. Methods. To do that, the predicted heating profiles are fitted with an exponential heating function, which was also used to fit the observations. The results of both fits, the estimated heating scale heights, are compared to determine the viability of resonant absorption as a heating mechanism for coronal loops. Results. Two results are obtained. It is shown that any wave heating mechanism (i.e. not just resonant absorption) should be dominated by a resistive (and not a viscous) phenomenon in order to accomodate the constraint of footpoint heating. Additionally it is demonstrated that the analytically and numerically estimated heating scale heights for the resonant absorption damping mechanism fit the observations very well

Paraphrases and summaries: A means of clarification or a vehicle for articulating a preferred version of student accounts?

The use of group discussions as a means to facilitate learning from experiences is well documented in adventure education literature. Priest and Naismith (1993) assert that the use of the circular discussion method, where the leader poses questions to the participants, is the most common form of facilitation in adventure education. This paper draws on transcripts of facilitation sessions to argue that the widely advocated practice of leader summaries or paraphrases of student responses in these sessions functions as a potential mechanism to control and sponsor particular knowledge(s). Using transcripts from recorded facilitation sessions the analysis focuses on how the leader paraphrases the students’ responses and how these paraphrases or ‘formulations’ function to modify or exclude particular aspects of the students’ responses. I assert that paraphrasing is not simply a neutral activity that merely functions to clarify a student response, it is a subtle means by which the leader of the session can, often inadvertently or unknowingly, alter the student’s reply with the consequence of favouring particular knowledge(s). Revealing the subtle work that leader paraphrases perform is of importance for educators who claim to provide genuine opportunities for students to learn from their experience

Selecting coastal hotspots to storm impacts at the regional scale: a Coastal Risk Assessment Framework

Managing coastal risk at the regional scale requires a prioritization of resources along the shoreline. A transparent and rigorous risk assessment should inform managers and stakeholders in their choices. This requires advances in modelling assessment (e.g., consideration of source and pathway conditions to define the probability of occurrence, nonlinear dynamics of the physical processes, better recognition of systemic impacts and non-economic losses) and open-source tools facilitating stakeholders’ engagement in the process. This paper discusses how the Coastal Risk Assessment Framework (CRAF) has been developed as part of the Resilience Increasing Strategies for Coasts Toolkit (RISC-KIT). The framework provides two levels of analysis. A coastal index approach is first recommended to narrow down the risk analysis to a reduced number of sectors which are subsequently geographically grouped into potential hotspots. For the second level of analysis an integrated modelling approach improves the regional risk assessment of the identified hotspots by increasing the spatial resolution of the hazard modelling by using innovative process-based multi-hazard models, by including generic vulnerability indicators in the impact assessment, and by calculating regional systemic impact indicators. A multi-criteria analysis of these indicators is performed to rank the hotspots and support the stakeholders in their selection. The CRAF has been applied and validated on ten European case studies with only small deviation to areas already recognised as high risk. The flexibility of the framework is essential to adapt the assessment to the specific region characteristics. The involvement of stakeholders is crucial not only to select the hotpots and validate the results, but also to support the collection of information and the valuation of assets at risk. As such, the CRAF permits a comprehensive and systemic risk analysis of the regional coast in order to identify and to select higher risk areas. Yet efforts still need to be amplified in the data collection process, in particular for socio-economic and environmental impacts

Coastal risk assessment framework guidance document

The Resilience-Increasing Strategies for Coasts – Toolkit (RISC-KIT) FP7 EU project (2013-2017) aims to produce a set of three innovative and EU-coherent open-source and open-access methods, tools and management approaches (the RISC-KIT) in support of coastal managers, decision-makers and policy makers to reduce risk and increase resilience to low-frequency, high impact hydro-meteorological events. The Coastal Risk Assessment Framework (CRAF) is the first element of the risk assessment suite applied at a regional scale and permits a comprehensive and systematic approach to undertaking risk assessment at a variety of levels of detail. In particular, the approach reveals potential hotspots along the coasts. Hotspots are defined in the Toolkit as specific locations where high-resolution modelling and risk assessment are required to assess the coastal risk and to design and compare disaster risk reduction measures. As such, hotspots, or groups of hotspots, should be indicative of those areas where risk is highest. To do so the CRAF consists of a 2-phase approach, Phase 1 is a coastal-index approach to identifying potential hotspots, whereas Phase 2 utilises a suite of more complex modelling processes to rank these hotpots. The coastal INtegrated DisRuption Assessment model (INDRA) has specifically been developed as an open-source and open-access model for this purpose. This document provides guidance to CRAF users on both approaches, as well as explanations on the proposed methodologies. The CRAF is a prototype and will be trialled on the RISC-KIT case studies (WP5). Limitations in its application, the potential for a full application and the needs for further development will be discussed in Deliverable 5.1

Conjunction and Disjunction in Infectious Logics

In this paper we discuss the extent to which conjunction and disjunction can be rightfully regarded as such, in the context of infectious logics. Infectious logics are peculiar many-valued logics whose underlying algebra has an absorbing or infectious element, which is assigned to a compound formula whenever it is assigned to one of its components. To discuss these matters, we review the philosophical motivations for infectious logics due to Bochvar, Halldén, Fitting, Ferguson and Beall, noticing that none of them discusses our main question. This is why we finally turn to the analysis of the truth-conditions for conjunction and disjunction in infectious logics, employing the framework of plurivalent logics, as discussed by Priest. In doing so, we arrive at the interesting conclusion that —in the context of infectious logics— conjunction is conjunction, whereas disjunction is not disjunction

Interaction of intermediate energy protons with light nuclei

Interaction of intermediate energy protons with light nucle

Test evaluation trials present different challenges for trial managers compared to Intervention trials

Introduction Test evaluation trials present different challenges for trial managers compared to intervention trials. There has been very little research on the management of test evaluation trials and how this impacts on trial success, in comparison with intervention trials. Evaluations of medical tests present specific challenges, because they are a pivot point bridging the complexities of pathways prompting testing with treatment decision-making. We systematically explored key differences in the trial design and management of test evaluation trials compared to intervention trials at the different stages of study design and delivery. We identified challenges in test evaluation trials that were more pronounced than in intervention trials, based on experience from 10 test evaluation trials. Methods We formed a focus group of 7 trial managers and a statistician who had been involved in the day-to-day management of both test evaluation trials and intervention trials. We used discussion and content analysis to group challenges from 10 trials into a structured thematic format. The trials covered a range of medical conditions, diagnostic tests, clinical pathways and conditions including chronic kidney disease, chronic pelvic pain, colitis, detrusor over-activity, group B streptococcal colonisation, tuberculosis and colorectal, lung, ovarian and thyroid cancers. Results We identified 10 common themes underlying challenges that are more pronounced in test evaluation compared to intervention trials. We illustrate these themes with examples from 10 trials, including with 31 specific challenges we experienced. The themes were ethics/governance; accessing patient populations; recruitment; patient preference; test processes, clinical pathways and samples storage; uncertainty of diagnostic results; verifying diagnosis (reference standard); follow-up; adverse effects; and diagnostic impact. Conclusion We present 10 common themes, including 31 challenges, in test evaluation trials that will be helpful to others designing and managing future test evaluation trials. Proactive identification of potential challenges at the design and planning stages of test evaluation trials will enable strategies to improve trial design and management that may be different from standard strategies used for intervention trials. Future work could extend this topic to include challenges for other trial stakeholders including participants, clinicians, statisticians and funders

Recognition of differences in the capacity to deal with floods—A cross-country comparison of flood risk management

Flood risks worldwide are increasing due to climate change. Managing these risks is ever more necessary. Although flood risk management (FRM) is often understood as a technical challenge, it also involves decisions about the distribution of resources and risks in floods, which can be inherently unfair. People are disparately affected by floods due to their location. Because of their various socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, they also differ in their capacity to deal with floods. These differences need to be recognised in FRM to prevent disproportionate impacts on vulnerable communities. However, at present, a knowledge gap exists on how to make FRM more inclusive and just, and discussions on recognition justice in the context of FRM are scarce. This article therefore examines recognition of differences in the capacity of people to deal with floods in FRM in England (United Kingdom), Finland, Flanders (Belgium) and France. We analyse if, and how, these differences are recognised in FRM policy and practice and through decision-making procedures, drawing on examples from the implementation of five FRM strategies in each country (flood risk prevention, flood defence, flood risk mitigation, flood preparation and flood recovery). Furthermore, we aim to highlight opportunity spaces to strengthen recognition justice in future FRM