Information professionals and copyright literacy: a multinational study

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to present findings from a multinational survey on copyright literacy of specialists from libraries and other cultural institutions. Design/methodology/approach: This paper is based on a multinational survey of copyright literacy competencies of Library and Information Science (LIS) professionals and those who work in the cultural heritage sector (archives and museums), conducted in 13 countries, namely Bulgaria (BG), Croatia (CR), Finland (FI), France (FR), Hungary (HU), Lithuania (LT), Mexico (MX), Norway (NO), Portugal (PT), Romania (RO), Turkey (TR), UK and USA in the period July 2013-March 2015. An online survey instrument was developed in order to collect data from professionals regarding their familiarity with, knowledge and awareness of, and opinions on copyright-related issues. Findings: Findings of this study highlight gaps in existing knowledge of copyright, and information about the level of copyright literacy of LIS and cultural sector professionals. Also attitudes toward copyright learning content in academic education and continuing professional development training programs are investigated. Originality/value: This study aimed to address a gap in the literature by encompassing specialists from the cultural institutions in an international comparative context. The paper offers guidance for further understanding of copyright in a wider framework of digital and information literacy; and for the implementation of copyright policy, and the establishment of copyright advisor positions in cultural institutions. The recommendations support a revision of academic and continuing education programs learning curriculum and methods

The Conundrum of Order: The Concept of Governance from an Interdisciplinary Perspective

The term governance has made an impressive career in a number of disciplines concerned with regulation, order and law. This chapter draws on insights from legal studies, sociology, political science, anthropology, history and geography to paint a multifaceted picture of existing, competing and complementing approaches to the concept of governance. For reasons of space, the chapter can but point to the different variations on a theme, as governance occupies an ambivalent place in past and present discourses on political (or, legal or economic) order and society. It is argued that beyond pointing to crucial phases of methodological and theoretical transformation within different disciplines such as the often perceived transition ‘from government to governance’, governance is itself a deeply interdisciplinary concept

Role of Mutagenicity in Asbestos Fiber-Induced Carcinogenicity and Other Diseases

The cellular and molecular mechanisms of how asbestos fibers induce cancers and other diseases are not well understood. Both serpentine and amphibole asbestos fibers have been shown to induce oxidative stress, inflammatory responses, cellular toxicity and tissue injuries, genetic changes, and epigenetic alterations in target cells in vitro and tissues in vivo. Most of these mechanisms are believe to be shared by both fiber-induced cancers and noncancerous diseases. This article summarizes the findings from existing literature with a focus on genetic changes, specifically, mutagenicity of asbestos fibers. Thus far, experimental evidence suggesting the involvement of mutagenesis in asbestos carcinogenicity is more convincing than asbestos-induced fibrotic diseases. The potential contributions of mutagenicity to asbestos-induced diseases, with an emphasis on carcinogenicity, are reviewed from five aspects: (1) whether there is a mutagenic mode of action (MOA) in fiber-induced carcinogenesis; (2) mutagenicity/carcinogenicity at low dose; (3) biological activities that contribute to mutagenicity and impact of target tissue/cell type; (4) health endpoints with or without mutagenicity as a key event; and finally, (5) determinant factors of toxicity in mutagenicity. At the end of this review, a consensus statement of what is known, what is believed to be factual but requires confirmation, and existing data gaps, as well as future research needs and directions, is provided

Effect on treatment adherence of distributing essential medicines at no charge : the CLEAN Meds randomized clinical trial

This work is supported by grant 381409 from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, the Ontario SPOR Support Unit that is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Province of Ontario, the Canada Research Chairs program, and the St Michael’s Hospital Foundation.Importance: Nonadherence to treatment with medicines is common globally, even for life-saving treatments. Cost is one important barrier to access, and only some jurisdictions provide medicines at no charge to patients. Objective: To determine whether providing essential medicines at no charge to outpatients who reported not being able to afford medicines improves adherence. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter, unblinded, parallel, 2-group, superiority, outcomes assessor-blinded, individually randomized clinical trial conducted at 9 primary care sites in Ontario, Canada, enrolled 786 patients between June 1, 2016, and April 28, 2017, who reported cost-related nonadherence. Follow-up occurred at 12 months. The primary analysis was performed using an intention-to-treat principle. Interventions: Patients were randomly allocated to receive free medicines on a list of essential medicines in addition to otherwise usual care (n = 395) or usual medicine access and usual care (n = 391). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was adherence to treatment with all medicines that were appropriately prescribed for 1 year. Secondary outcomes were hemoglobin A1c level, blood pressure, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels 1 year after randomization in participants taking corresponding medicines. Results: Among the 786 participants analyzed (439 women and 347 men; mean [SD] age, 51.7 [14.3] years), 764 completed the trial. Adherence to treatment with all medicines was higher in those randomized to receive free distribution (151 of 395 [38.2%]) compared with usual access (104 of 391 [26.6%]; difference, 11.6%; 95% CI, 4.9%-18.4%). Control of type 1 and 2 diabetes was not significantly improved by free distribution (hemoglobin A1c, -0.38%; 95% CI, -0.76% to 0.00%), systolic blood pressure was reduced (-7.2 mm Hg; 95% CI, -11.7 to -2.8 mm Hg), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were not affected (-2.3 mg/dL; 95% CI, -14.7 to 10.0 mg/dL). Conclusions and Relevance: The distribution of essential medicines at no charge for 1 year increased adherence to treatment with medicines and improved some, but not other, disease-specific surrogate health outcomes. These findings could help inform changes to medicine access policies such as publicly funding essential medicines. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02744963.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe