„Doing disability differently - we change the world!". Review of good practices based on selected public buildings in Warsaw.

W ciągu ostatniej dekady obserwujemy politykę rozwoju miast opartą na projektowaniu uniwersalnym. Zmiany w odniesieniu do przepisów budowlanych nie są już tak dynamiczne i skuteczne, jak byśmy tego wszyscy oczekiwali. Co do zasady na projektowanie uniwersalne składają się: dostępność (accessibility), użyteczność (usability) i inkluzowość (inclusive design). Takie podejście bywa niejednoznaczne, często sprzeczne, obalające mity o niepełnosprawności, a równocześnie wskazujące na różnorodności i złożoności osób z niepełnosprawnościami. Jako architekci mamy tendencję do redukowania niepełnosprawności do medycznego pojęcia. „Doing disability differently”, czyli, tłumacząc to luźno: nowe, innowacyjne połączenie niepełnej sprawności i architektury - takie hasło niosła książka Jos Boys wydana w 2014 roku [1]. Jos Boys zauważa, że przepisy budowlane pojmują niepełnosprawność jako coś, czemu należy sprostać, uciekając się do normatywnych, gotowych rozwiązań. Podejście do problemu jest decydujące dla sposobów jego rozwiązania. Eldridge Cleaver, działacz amerykańskich Czarnych Panter, zasłynął powiedzeniem: „Nie ma neutralności na świecie. Albo jesteś częścią rozwiązania, albo stajesz się częścią problemu” [2]. Prezentowane w artykule przykłady to budynki publiczne, uniwersyteckie i komercyjne nagrodzone w konkursach architektonicznych za dostępność. Zaprojektowane przez świadomych projektantów, kierujących się wiedzą, umiejętnością oceny, uwzględniając możliwości fizyczne, percepcyjne, orientacje, rozumienie i odczuwanie przestrzeni.Over the last decade, we have observed a policy of urban development based on universal design. As a rule, universal design consists of: accessibility, usability and inclusive design. Such an approach is sometimes ambiguous, often contradictory, dispelling myths about disability, and at the same time pointing to the diversity and complexity of people with disabilities. As architects, we tend to reduce disability to a medical term. “Doing disability differently” or, to loosely translate it: a new, innovative combination of disability and architecture - this was the motto of Jos Boys' book published in 2014 [1]. Jos Boys notes that building codes understand disability as something to be met by resorting to prescriptive, off-theshelf solutions. The approach to the problem is decisive for the ways to solve it. Eldridge Cleaver, an American Black Panther activist, famously said: “There is no neutrality in the world. Either you are part of the solution or you become part of the problem” [2]. The examples presented in the article are public, university and commercial buildings, awarded in architectural competitions for accessibility. Designed by conscious designers, guided by knowledge, the ability to assess, taking into account physical and perceptual capabilities, orientation, understanding and feeling space. What does it actually make these buildings accessible and open to everyone

The Clinical Presentation of Endometriosis and Its Association to Current Surgical Staging

(1) Despite its high prevalence, the diagnostic delay of endometriosis is still estimated to be about 7 years. The objective of the present study is to understand the symptomatology of endometriosis in patients across various countries and to assess whether the severity of symptoms correlates with the diagnosed stage of disease. (2) An international online survey collected self-reported responses from 2964 participants from 59 countries. Finalization of the questionnaire and its distribution was achieved by cooperation with various organizations and centers around the globe. (3) Chronic pain presentation remarkably increased between Stage 1 and 2 (16.2% and 32.2%, respectively). The prevalence of pain only around and during menstruation was negatively correlated to the stage, presenting with 15.4% and 6.9% in Stages 1 and 4, respectively. Atypical presentation of pain was most commonly reported in stage 4 (11.4%). Pain related solely to triggering factors was the most uncommon presentation of pain (3.2%). (4) Characteristics of pain and quality of life tend to differ depending on the reported stage of the endometriosis. Further research may allow a better stage estimation and identification of patients with alarming symptomatic presentation indicative of a progressive stage, even those that are not yet laparoscopically diagnosed

The clinical benefits of antiretroviral therapy in severely immunocompromised HIV-1-infected patients with and without complete viral suppression

BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to determine whether there is a protective effect of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) on the development of clinical events in patients with ongoing severe immunosuppression. METHODS A total of 3,780 patients from the EuroSIDA study under follow-up after 2001 with a current CD4(+) T-cell count ≤200 cells/mm(3) were stratified into five groups: group 1, viral load (VL)<50 copies/ml on cART; group 2, VL 50-99,999 copies/ml on cART; group 3, VL 50-99,999 copies/ml off cART; group 4, VL≥100,000 copies/ml on cART; and group 5, VL≥100,000 copies/ml off cART. Poisson regression was used to identify the risk of (non-fatal or fatal) AIDS- and non-AIDS-related events considered together (AIDS/non-AIDS) or separately as AIDS or non-AIDS events within each group. RESULTS There were 428 AIDS/non-AIDS events during 3,780 person-years of follow-up. Compared with group 1, those in group 2 had a similar incidence of AIDS/non-AIDS events (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.04; 95% CI 0.79-1.36). Groups 3, 4 and 5 had significantly higher incidence rates of AIDS/non-AIDS events compared with group 1; incidence rates increased from group 3 (IRR 1.78; 95% CI 1.25-2.55) to group 5 (IRR 2.36; 95% CI 1.66-3.40), demonstrating the increased incidence of AIDS/non-AIDS events associated with increasing viraemia. After adjustment, the use of cART was associated with a 40% reduction in the incidence of AIDS/non-AIDS events in patients with VL 50-99,999 copies/ml (IRR 0.59; 95% CI 0.41-0.85) and in those with a VL>100,000 copies/ml (IRR 0.66; 95% CI 0.44-1.00). Similar relationships were seen for non-AIDS events and AIDS events when considered separately. CONCLUSIONS In patients with ongoing severe immunosuppression, cART was associated with significant clinical benefits in patients with suboptimal virological control or virological failure

Comparison of single and boosted protease inhibitor versus nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-containing cART regimens in antiretroviral-naïve patients starting cART after January 1, 2000

SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Trastuzumab resistance: Bringing tailored therapy to the clinic

SCOPUS: re.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe