Development and psychometric testing of the gender misconceptions of men in nursing (GEMINI) scale among nursing students

Background Misconceptions about men in nursing may influence recruitment and retention, further perpetuating the gender diversity imbalance in the nursing workforce. Identifying misconceptions and implementing early intervention strategies to address these deep-rooted stereotypes remain challenging but is considered critical to support students who are commencing a nursing career. Objective To develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of the ‘Gender Misconceptions of meN in nursIng (GEMINI) Scale. Design Cross-sectional survey. Methods Pre-registration nursing students enrolled in undergraduate nursing programmes across 16 nursing institutions in Australia were surveyed from July to September 2021. The 17-item self-report GEMINI Scale measured the gender misconceptions of men in nursing. Results Of the 1410 completed surveys, data from 683 (45%) women were used for exploratory factor analysis showing a one factor structure, while data from 727 men (47%) were used for confirmatory factor analysis of the 17-item GEMINI Scale, which showed a good model fit. The scale demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.892). Men were found to have higher gender misconceptions (p < 0.001) while respondents who: (a) identified nursing as their first career choice (p = 0.002); (b) were in their final year of programme enrolment (p = 0.016); and (c) engaged in health-related paid work (p = 0.002) had lower gender misconceptions. Conclusion The GEMINI Scale is a robust, valid, reliable, and easy to administer tool to assess misconceptions about men in nursing, which may potentially influence academic performance and retention. Identifying and addressing specific elements of misconceptions could inform targeted strategies to support retention and decrease attrition among these students

História como alegoria

Neste artigo abordam-se as diferentes circunstâncias nas quais se tecem comentários sobre um evento (geralmente no passado) quando os comentadores estão, na verdade, preocupados com um outro evento (geralmente no presente). Nele, distingue-se a alegoria pragmática - que se encontra onde quer que haja restrições à liberdade de agilidade política - da alegoria mística - que pressupõe algum tipo de conexão oculta entre os dois acontecimentos. Este segundo tipo de alegoria entrou em declínio no fim do século xvii, mas poderá permanecer mais influente do que todos nós pensamos.<br>This article is concerned with the different circunstances in wich comments are made as one event (usually in the past) when the commentators are really preoccupied with another (usually in the present). It distinguishes pragmatic allegory, to be found whenever there are restrictions on freedom of political speed, from mystical allegory, which assumes some kind of occult connection between the two events. This second kind of allegory has been in decline since the end of the seventeenth century, but it may remain more influential on us all than we think

Global, regional, and national consumption of animal-source foods between 1990 and 2018: findings from the Global Dietary Database

Background: Diet is a major modifiable risk factor for human health and overall consumption patterns affect planetary health. We aimed to quantify global, regional, and national consumption levels of animal-source foods (ASF) to inform intervention, surveillance, and policy priorities. Methods: Individual-level dietary surveys across 185 countries conducted between 1990 and 2018 were identified, obtained, standardised, and assessed among children and adults, jointly stratified by age, sex, education level, and rural versus urban residence. We included 499 discrete surveys (91·2% nationally or subnationally representative) with data for ASF (unprocessed red meat, processed meat, eggs, seafood, milk, cheese, and yoghurt), comprising 3·8 million individuals from 134 countries representing 95·2% of the world population in 2018. We used Bayesian hierarchical models to account for differences in survey methods and representativeness, time trends, and input data and modelling uncertainty, with five-fold cross-validation. Findings: In 2018, mean global intake per person of unprocessed red meat was 51 g/day (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 48–54; region-specific range 7–114 g/day); 17 countries (23·9% of the world's population) had mean intakes of at least one serving (100 g) per day. Global mean intake of processed meat was 17 g/day (95% UI 15–21 g/day; region-specific range 3–54 g/day); seafood, 28 g/day (27–30 g/day; 12–44 g/day); eggs, 21 g/day (18–24 g/day; 6–35 g/day); milk 88 g/day (84–93 g/day; 45–185 g/day); cheese, 8 g/day (8–10 g/day; 1–34 g/day); and yoghurt, 20 g/day (17–23 g/day; 7–84 g/day). Mean national intakes were at least one serving per day for processed meat (≥50 g/day) in countries representing 6·9% of the global population; for cheese (≥42 g/day) in 2·3%; for eggs (≥55 g/day) in 0·7%; for milk (≥245 g/day) in 0·3%; for seafood (≥100 g/day) in 0·8%; and for yoghurt (≥245 g/day) in less than 0·1%. Among the 25 most populous countries in 2018, total ASF intake was highest in Russia (5·8 servings per day), Germany (3·8 servings per day), and the UK (3·7 servings per day), and lowest in Tanzania (0·9 servings per day) and India (0·7 servings per day). Global and regional intakes of ASF were generally similar by sex. Compared with children, adults generally consumed more unprocessed red meat, seafood and cheese, and less milk; energy-adjusted intakes of other ASF were more similar. Globally, ASF intakes (servings per week) were higher among more-educated versus less-educated adults, with greatest global differences for milk (0·79), eggs (0·47), unprocessed red meat (0·42), cheese (0·28), seafood (0·28), yoghurt (0·22), and processed meat (0·21). This was also true for urban compared to rural areas, with largest global differences (servings per week) for unprocessed red meat (0·47), milk (0·38), and eggs (0·20). Between 1990 and 2018, global intakes (servings per week) increased for unprocessed red meat (1·20), eggs (1·18), milk (0·63), processed meat (0·50), seafood (0·44), and cheese (0·14). Interpretation: Our estimates of ASF consumption identify populations with both lower and higher than optimal intakes. These estimates can inform the targeting of intervention, surveillance, and policy priorities relevant to both human and planetary health. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and American Heart Association. © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licens