What the word ‘partnership’ conjoins, and what it does

This essay proposes that ‘global health partnership’ might usefully be conceived as a boundary object, in that the term’s capacity to encompass widely divergent and incompatible understandings, and to facilitate mutual misunderstandings, is a crucial part of how it ‘works’ in the world to help bring together assemblages of people and organizations across great distances and steep gradients of inequality

Institutionalized Barriers and Supports of Female Athletic Directors: A Multilevel Perspective

Despite an increase in participation rates among girls and women across all levels of sport, women are still underrepresented in leadership positions. Less than 10% of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I Athletic Directors (ADs) are female. The current study examined the supports and barriers of 10 NCAA Division I female ADs. Using institutional theory to frame the research, through semistructured interviews barriers and supports were categorized using a multilevel approach model (i.e., macro, meso, and micro). The multilevel approach allows readers to see how factors shape and are shaped by one another. Results revealed macro factors such as power, hegemonic masculinity, inclusive environments, stakeholder expectations, and institutional gender discrimination. Meso factors included occupational segregation, family-work life, organizational demography and culture. Micro factors included self-efficacy, gender socialization, career intentions, self-limiting behaviors, human and social capital. Overall, three factors emerged as support-only factors: inclusive environments, human and social capital, while seven factors materialized as barrier-only factors. These results have both theoretical and practical application opportunities for individuals, organizations, and society

Access to systemic anti-cancer therapies for women with secondary breast cancer-protocol for a mixed methods systematic review.

From Europe PMC via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: ppub 2021-07-01, epub 2021-07-23Publication status: PublishedBackgroundIt is well recognised that access and receipt of appropriate guideline recommended treatment with systemic anti-cancer therapies for secondary breast cancer is a key determinant in overall survival. Where there is disparity in access this may result in unwarranted variation and disparity in outcomes. Individual, clinical and wider contextual factors have been associated with these disparities, however this remains poorly understood for women with secondary breast cancer. The purpose of the review is to examine individual, clinical and contextual factors which influence access to evidence-based systemic anti-cancer therapies for women with secondary breast cancer. This will include barriers and facilitators for access and receipt of treatment and an exploration of women and clinicians experience and perspectives on access.MethodsA mixed methods approach with a segregated design will be used to examine and explore factors which influence access to systemic anti-cancer therapies for women with secondary breast cancer. Electronic databases to be searched from January 2000 onwards will be EBSCO CINAHL Plus, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, PsychINFO and the Cochrane Library and JBI database. This will include NHS Evidence which will be searched for unpublished studies and gray literature. Title and abstract citations and full-text articles will be screened by the author and second reviewer. Data will be extracted by the author and validated by the second reviewer. An overarching synthesis will be produced which brings together quantitative and qualitative findings. Methodological quality and risk of bias will be assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.DiscussionUnderstanding individual, clinical and wider contextual factors associated with access and receipt of systemic anti-cancer therapies for secondary breast cancer is a complex phenomenon. These will be examined to determine any association with access. Review findings will be used to guide future research in this area and the development of an evidence-based service level intervention designed to address unwarranted variation in access based upon the Medical Research Council (MRC) approach to the development, implementation and evaluation of complex interventions.Systematic review registrationThe review protocol has been registered in PROSPERO CRD42020196490

Protecting The Oral Health Of Those Who Protected Us

Research poster addressing the question: What oral health programs in long-term care facilities improve oral health outcomes? The need for effective oral hygiene programs in long-term care (LTC) veterans facilities is crucial due to the rise in the elderly population, as well as untreated caries in older adults. As a state, Maine has 15% of older adults with untreated caries, 41% with gingivitis, 14% with periodontal diseases, and 2.7% with oral and pharyngeal cancer death rates. It would serve the residents and team of caregivers well to have an interprofessional approach to the overall care of their patients. It is essential for LTC residents to receive proper oral hygiene care and dental professionals are not often staffed by these facilities. Of the literature reviewed, one study indicated 48% of the LTC staff were very satisfied with the quality of oral care provided to the residents and 77% reported considering on-site oral care services. Another study indicated care conferences conducted in LTC facilities (LTCF) influenced the staff\u27s awareness of oral health. While studies have shown that improving the oral health in the older adult population is of great importance, additional research is needed to determine the most effective interventions to improve the oral health of LTC residents. Although interdisciplinary teams are often used in LTCF, the teams often lack a dental professionals. As a result, there is a lack of oral health care within LTCF and further research needs to be conducted in order to bring further awareness to this issue.https://dune.une.edu/dh_studpost/1008/thumbnail.jp

Advancing Equity In The Pandemic Treaty

There is a broad consensus around equity’s importance. Even countries that hoarded supplies during the acute phase of COVID-19 seem to understand that the international community must find a means to ensure fairer allocation of medical resources when the next health crisis hits. But there has been little agreement about the concrete steps needed to operationalize fairer access and benefit sharing. That is, what are the workable mechanisms that could reduce the divide between richer and poorer populations? The World Health Assembly, the governing body of the World Health Organization, has appointed an Intergovernmental Negotiating Body to develop a pandemic convention, agreement, or other instrument under the WHO constitution. The February 2023 draft is designed “to achieve greater equity … through the fullest national and international cooperation.” It is important that the negotiators develop specific, measurable metrics that directly impact equity. The mechanisms and metrics agreed upon should allow the public to evaluate whether a more equitable system is emerging through this new regime. Equity won’t just happen. We need to plan and prepare for equity, and we need international norms with which nations must comply to achieve the fairness we strive for

Survey of the Health of Urban Residents: a Community-Driven Assessment of Conditions Salient to the Health of Historically Excluded Populations in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Data from the Survey of the Health of Urban Residents (SHUR) identified connections between police brutality and medical mistrust, generating significant media, policy, and research attention. Amidst intersecting crises of COVID-19, racism, and police brutality, this report describes survey development and data collection procedures for the SHUR. BASIC PROCEDURES: We conducted focus groups with Black men, Latinxs, and immigrants in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Findings were used to develop and refine measures of conditions salient to the health of urban residents across the country. Quota sampling was employed; oversampling people of color and persons whose usual source of care was not a doctor\u27s office. MAIN FINDINGS: Non-Hispanic Whites made up just under two thirds of the sample (63.65%, n = 2793). Black/African American respondents accounted for 14.2% of the sample (n = 623), while 11.62% (n = 510) were Latinx. Only 43.46% of respondents reported a doctor\u27s office as their usual source of care. Novel measures of population-specific stressors include a range of negative encounters with the police, frequency of these encounters, and respondents\u27 assessments of whether the encounters were necessary. SHUR assessed the likelihood of calling the police if there is a problem, worries about incarceration, and cause-specific stressors such as race-related impression management. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: SHUR (n = 4389) is a useful resource for researchers seeking to address the health implications of experiences not frequently measured by national health surveillance surveys. It includes respondents\u27 zip codes, presenting the opportunity to connect these data with zip code-level health system, social and economic characteristics that shape health beyond individual factors