Les voix appris des citoyens européens: de subjectivation gouvernementale à subjectivation politique

The article focuses on the way in which voice operates within the current discourse of democracy, citizenship, and learning. Based on an analysis of «learning devices» and «citizenship devices» we will show that the individual is asked to articulate him or herself in particular ways as evidence of engagement, of inclusion, and of participatory democracy. It is someone’s «personhood» –issues related to identity, preferences, feelings of ownership– that comes to count as evidence of civic engagement and political involvement. This process of personalization –the inscription of the individual as a person that turns him or her into a European citizen– will be described as an important aspect of the current mode of governmental subjectivation. To address this we explore, in line with Jacques Rancière, the notion of «political subjectivation». While governmental subjectivation involves a process of identification with the order of society, political subjectivation is a paradoxical process of deidentification with the social order. It is about the articulation of one’s voice as equal within a social order in which one has no voice according to the ruling organisation of positions.El artículo se centra en estudiar la forma en que las voces operan dentro de los actuales discursos sobre democracia, ciudadanía y aprendizaje. Partiendo de un análisis de los «dispositivos de aprendizaje» y de los «dispositivos de ciudadanía», mostraremos cómo se pide al individuo que se articule de un modo particular, como prueba de su compromiso, inclusión y participación democráticos. Es la personalidad del sujeto –a través de la insistencia en cuestiones relacionadas con la identidad, las preferencias, los sentimientos de pertenencia– lo que se tiene en cuenta a la hora de valorar su nivel de compromiso cívico y participación política. Este proceso de personalización –que cataloga al individuo como una persona que torna en ciudadano europeo– será descrito como un aspecto importante de la actual subjetivación gubernamental. Para abordar esta cuestión exploraremos, en la línea de Jacques Rancière, el concepto de «subjetivación política». Mientras que la subjetivación gubernamental implica un proceso de identificación con el orden social, la subjetivación política es un paradójico proceso de desidentificación con el orden social. Se trata, por un lado, de articular la voz de uno como un igual dentro del orden social; un orden social en el que, por otro lado, ese mismo uno no tendrá voz dentro de la organización dominante de las posiciones.Dans cet article nous discutons comment la voix opère dans le discours contemporain de la démocratie, du citoyen et de l’éducation. Basé sur une analyse des «dispositifs d’apprentissage» et «dispositifs de citoyenneté» nous montrons que l’individu est demandé de s’articuler dans des manières spécifiques; notamment comme évidence d’engagement, d’inclusion, et d’une démocratie participative. C’est «l’être personne» de quelqu’un –les questions qui se rapportent aux identités, les préférences, les sentiments de possession– qui devienne l’évidence d’engagement civique et politique. Ce processus de personnalisation –cette inscription de l’individu comme une personne qui fait de lui un citoyen européen– sera décrit comme un aspect important de l’apparition de la subjectivation gouvernementale d’aujourd’hui. Pour confronter cette matière nous explorerons, en accord avec Jacques Rancière, la notion de «subjectivation politique». Bien que la subjectivation gouvernementale implique un procès d’identification avec l’ordre de la société, la subjectivation politique est un procès paradoxal de dé-identification avec l’ordre social; mais dans laquelle il y a aussi une possibilité d’articuler sa voix, néanmoins que selon l’organisation de positions on n’a pas de voix dans cet ordre

Engaging Patients for Clinical Trials in Africa: Patient-Centered Approaches

Clinical trials in oncology are an emergent field in sub-Saharan Africa. There is a long history of clinical trials in high-income countries (HICs), with increasing attempts to develop patient-centric approaches and to evaluate patient-centered outcomes. The challenge remains as to how these trends could be adopted in low-resource settings and adapted to best fit the different health ecosystems that coexist on the African continent. Models that evaluate patient-related outcomes and measures and that are used in HICs must be modified, adopted, and adapted to suit the diverse populations and the low-resource settings in most of the continent. Patient engagement in clinical trials in Africa must be well nuanced, and it demands innovation and application of models that consider established but tailored notions/principles of patient and community engagement and the unique sociocultural aspects of different populations. It also must be linked to strategies that aim to improve patient education, health literacy, and access to services and to encourage and protect patient autonomy

Waiting 2 minutes after sucrose administration-unnecessary?

Background Worldwide, oral sucrose is standard of care in many neonatal intensive care units to relieve procedural pain in neonates. This study aims to determine if time interval between sucrose administration and heelstick correlates with pain scores. Methods Neonates were prospectively studied with variable time intervals and assessed with the Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised (PIPP-R). Results 150 neonates were included with a median gestational age of 30+6 (IQR 27+6-33+2) weeks and a median time interval of 72 (IQR 39-115) seconds between sucrose administration and heelstick. In multiple regression analysis, this time interval was not significantly related to the PIPP-R (B=0.004, 95% CI -0.005 to 0.013, p=0.37). Providing non-nutritive sucking combined with sucrose was significantly related to lower PIPP-R scores (B=-3.50, 95% CI -4.7 to -2.3, p<0.001). Conclusions Our study suggests that there is no need to wait 2 min after sucrose administration before a painful procedure. Sucrose-induced non-nutritive sucking shows a fast pain-relieving effect in neonates

Biomarkers for assessing pain and pain relief in the neonatal intensive care unit

Newborns admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) regularly undergo painful procedures and may face various painful conditions such as postoperative pain. Optimal management of pain in these vulnerable preterm and term born neonates is crucial to ensure their comfort and prevent negative consequences of neonatal pain. This entails accurate and timely identification of pain, non-pharmacological pain treatment and if needed administration of analgesic therapy, evaluation of treatment effectiveness, and monitoring of adverse effects. Despite the widely recognized importance of pain management, pain assessment in neonates has thus far proven to be a challenge. As self-report, the gold standard for pain assessment, is not possible in neonates, other methods are needed. Several observational pain scales have been developed, but these often rely on snapshot and largely subjective observations and may fail to capture pain in certain conditions. Incorporation of biomarkers alongside observational pain scores holds promise in enhancing pain assessment and, by extension, optimizing pain treatment and neonatal outcomes. This review explores the possibilities of integrating biomarkers in pain assessment in the NICU.</p

Current pain management practices for preterm infants with necrotizing enterocolitis:a European survey

Background: Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is a highly painful intestinal complication in preterm infants that requires adequate pain management to prevent short- and long-term effects of neonatal pain. There is a lack of international guidelines for pain management in NEC patients. Therefore, this study aims to describe current pain management for NEC patients in European neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). Methods: An online survey was designed and conducted to assess current practices in pain management for NEC patients in European NICUs. The survey was distributed via neonatal societies, digital platforms, and professional contacts. Results: Out of the 259 responding unique European NICUs from 36 countries, 61% had a standard protocol for analgesic therapy, 73% assessed pain during NEC, and 92% treated NEC patients with intravenous analgosedatives. There was strong heterogeneity in the used pain scales and initial analgesic therapy, which mainly included acetaminophen (70%), fentanyl (56%), and/or morphine (49%). A third of NICU representatives considered their pain assessment adequate, and half considered their analgesic therapy adequate for NEC patients. Conclusions: Various pain scales and analgesics are used to treat NEC patients in European NICUs. Our results provide the first step towards an international guideline to improve pain management for NEC patients. Impact: This study provides an overview of current pain management practices for infants with necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in European neonatal intensive care units.Choice of pain assessment tools, analgosedatives, and dosages vary considerably among NICUs and countries.A third of NICU representatives were satisfied with their current pain assessment practices and half of NICU representatives with their analgesic therapy practices in NEC patients in their NICU.The results of this survey may provide a first step towards developing a European pain management consensus guideline for patients with NEC.</p

Twelve-year outcomes of watchful waiting versus surgery of mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic inguinal hernia in men aged 50 years and older:a randomised controlled trial

Background: Inguinal hernia belongs to the most common surgical pathology worldwide. Approximately, one third is asymptomatic. The value of watchful waiting (WW) in patients with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic inguinal hernia has been established in a few randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this study was to assess long-term outcomes of a RCT comparing WW and elective surgery.Methods: In the original study, men aged ≥50 years with an asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic inguinal hernia were randomly assigned to WW or elective repair. In the present study, the primary outcome was the 12-year crossover rate to surgery, secondary outcomes were time-to-crossover, patient regret, pain, quality of life and incarceration. Dutch Trial Registry: NTR629. Findings: Out of 496 originally analysed patients, 488 (98.4%) were evaluable for chart review (WW: n = 258, surgery: n = 230), and 200 (41.0%) for telephone contact (WW: n = 106, surgery: n = 94) between November 2021 and March 2022 with a median 12 years follow-up (IQR 9–14). After 12 years, the estimated cumulative crossover rate to surgery was 64.2%, which was higher in mildly symptomatic than in asymptomatic patients (71.7% versus 60.4%, HR 1.451, 95% CI: 1.064–1.979). Time-to-crossover was longer in asymptomatic patients (50% after 6.0 years versus 2.0 years, p = 0.019). Patient regret was higher in the WW group (37.7 versus 18.0%, p = 0.002), as well as pain/discomfort (p = 0.031). Quality of life did not differ (p = 0.737). In the WW group, incarceration occurred in 10/255 patients (3.9%). Interpretation: During 12-year follow-up, most WW patients crossed over to surgery, significantly earlier with mildly symptomatic hernia. Considering the relatively low incarceration rate, WW might still be an option in asymptomatic patients with a clear preference and being well-informed about pros and cons.</p

Twelve-year outcomes of watchful waiting versus surgery of mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic inguinal hernia in men aged 50 years and older:a randomised controlled trial

Background: Inguinal hernia belongs to the most common surgical pathology worldwide. Approximately, one third is asymptomatic. The value of watchful waiting (WW) in patients with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic inguinal hernia has been established in a few randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this study was to assess long-term outcomes of a RCT comparing WW and elective surgery. Methods: In the original study, men aged ≥50 years with an asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic inguinal hernia were randomly assigned to WW or elective repair. In the present study, the primary outcome was the 12-year crossover rate to surgery, secondary outcomes were time-to-crossover, patient regret, pain, quality of life and incarceration. Dutch Trial Registry: NTR629. Findings: Out of 496 originally analysed patients, 488 (98.4%) were evaluable for chart review (WW: n = 258, surgery: n = 230), and 200 (41.0%) for telephone contact (WW: n = 106, surgery: n = 94) between November 2021 and March 2022 with a median 12 years follow-up (IQR 9–14). After 12 years, the estimated cumulative crossover rate to surgery was 64.2%, which was higher in mildly symptomatic than in asymptomatic patients (71.7% versus 60.4%, HR 1.451, 95% CI: 1.064–1.979). Time-to-crossover was longer in asymptomatic patients (50% after 6.0 years versus 2.0 years, p = 0.019). Patient regret was higher in the WW group (37.7 versus 18.0%, p = 0.002), as well as pain/discomfort (p = 0.031). Quality of life did not differ (p = 0.737). In the WW group, incarceration occurred in 10/255 patients (3.9%). Interpretation: During 12-year follow-up, most WW patients crossed over to surgery, significantly earlier with mildly symptomatic hernia. Considering the relatively low incarceration rate, WW might still be an option in asymptomatic patients with a clear preference and being well-informed about pros and cons. Funding: The initial trial was funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW). This long-term study did not receive funding.</p

The National Lung Matrix Trial: translating the biology of stratification in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

© The Author 2015.Background: The management of NSCLC has been transformed by stratified medicine. The National Lung Matrix Trial (NLMT) is a UK-wide study exploring the activity of rationally selected biomarker/targeted therapy combinations. Patients and methods: The Cancer Research UK (CRUK) Stratified Medicine Programme 2 is undertaking the large volume national molecular pre-screening which integrates with the NLMT. At study initiation, there are eight drugs being used to target 18 molecular cohorts. The aim is to determine whether there is sufficient signal of activity in any drug-biomarker combination to warrant further investigation. A Bayesian adaptive design that gives a more realistic approach to decision making and flexibility to make conclusions without fixing the sample size was chosen. The screening platform is an adaptable 28-gene Nextera next-generation sequencing platform designed by Illumina, covering the range of molecular abnormalities being targeted. The adaptive design allows new biomarker-drug combination cohorts to be incorporated by substantial amendment. The pre-clinical justification for each biomarker-drug combination has been rigorously assessed creating molecular exclusion rules and a trumping strategy in patients harbouring concomitant actionable genetic abnormalities. Discrete routes of pathway activation or inactivation determined by cancer genome aberrations are treated as separate cohorts. Key translational analyses include the deep genomic analysis of pre- and post-treatment biopsies, the establishment of patient-derived xenograft models and longitudinal ctDNA collection, in order to define predictive biomarkers, mechanisms of resistance and early markers of response and relapse. Conclusion: The SMP2 platform will provide large scale genetic screening to inform entry into the NLMT, a trial explicitly aimed at discovering novel actionable cohorts in NSCLC