A study of predictors of environmental behaviour using U.S. samples

The purpose of this research was to detennine the relative contribution of eight viriables in predicting responsible environmental behaviour. Scores on the Behaviour Inventory of Environmental Action served as the criterion variable. Multilinear regression analyses were used to determine the performance of each predictor variable and to ascertain the most parsimonious set of variables that predicts environmental behaviour. The following conclusions were drawn: (1) All variables, except belief in/ attitude  toward technology, were significant individual predictors of environmental  behaviour, (2) Stepwise regression showed that the best predictors for all  respondents were skill in using environmental action strategies, level of  environmental sensitivity and perceived knowledge of environmental action  strategies. Profiles of high and low environmentally active groups are  described. Results imply that the three major behaviour predictors (perceived  skill and knowledge of environmental action strategies and level of environmental sensitivity) need to be addressed in curriculum development and instructional practice

SIR HELMET (Safety In Radiology HEalthcare Localised Metrological EnviromenT): a low-cost negative-pressure isolation barrier for shielding MRI frontline workers from COVID-19 exposure

10.1016/j.crad.2020.06.015Clinical Radiology7597110 - 7110000CLRA

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used