Глобальная шахматная игра Америки

Статья посвящена анализу источников геополитических замыслов политиков против славянских народов центральной и Восточной Европы и, в частности, России. Раскрыты идеи англосаксонской геополитики по недопущению образования Стратегического Континентального Союза вокруг "географической оси истории". Изложена последовательная агрессивная политика США против СССР, Югославии, народов Ближнего Востока. Отмечена нависшая угроза глобализаторов Запада в отношении суверенных России и Украины.Стаття присвячена аналізу джерел геополітичних задумів політиків проти слов'янських народів центральної та Східної Європи та Росії. Розкрити ідеї англосаксонської геополітики з недопущення утворення Стратегічного Континентального Союзу навколо "географічної вісі історії". Викладена послідовна агресивна політика ЗША проти СССР, Югославії, народів ближнього Сходу. Відмічена найвища погроза глобалізаторів Заходу у відношенні суверенних Росії та України.This article is devoted to the analysis of the sources of the geopolitical designs of politicians against Slavonic people of the Central and Eastern Europe and particularly against Russia. The ideas of the Anglo-Saxon geopolitics against creation of the Strategic Continental Union around 'geographical axis of the history" are revealed. Gradual aggressive politics of the USA against USSR, Yugoslavia and Near East is stated. Overhung threat of the western globalizators related to the sovereign Russia and Ukraine

Health Status of US Patients With One or More Health Conditions:Using a Novel Electronic Patient-reported Outcome Measure Producing Single Metric Measures

BACKGROUND: Most existing research studying health status impacted by morbidity has focused on a specific health condition, and most instruments used for measuring health status are neither patient-centered nor preference-based. This study aims to report on the health status of patients impacted by one or more health conditions, measured by a patient-centered and preference-based electronic patient-reported outcome measure.METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among patients with one or more health conditions in the United States. A novel generic, patient-centered, and preference-based electronic patient-reported outcome measure: Château Santé-Base, was used to measure health status. Individual health state was expressed as a single metric number (value). We compared these health-state values between sociodemographic subgroups, between separate conditions, between groups with or without comorbidity, and between different combinations of multimorbidity.RESULTS: The total sample comprised 3913 patients. Multimorbidity was present in 62% of the patients. The most prevalent health conditions were pain (50%), fatigue/sleep problems (40%), mental health problems (28%), respiratory diseases (22%), and diabetes (18%). The highest (best) and lowest health-state values were observed in patients with diabetes and mental health problems. Among combinations of multimorbidity, the lowest values were observed when mental health problems were involved, the second lowest values were observed when fatigue/sleep problems and respiratory diseases coexisted.CONCLUSIONS: This study compared health status across various single, and multiple (multimorbidity and comorbidity) health conditions directly, based on single metric health-state values. The insights are valuable in clinical practice and policy-making.</p

Health Status of US Patients With One or More Health Conditions:Using a Novel Electronic Patient-reported Outcome Measure Producing Single Metric Measures

BACKGROUND: Most existing research studying health status impacted by morbidity has focused on a specific health condition, and most instruments used for measuring health status are neither patient-centered nor preference-based. This study aims to report on the health status of patients impacted by one or more health conditions, measured by a patient-centered and preference-based electronic patient-reported outcome measure.METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among patients with one or more health conditions in the United States. A novel generic, patient-centered, and preference-based electronic patient-reported outcome measure: Château Santé-Base, was used to measure health status. Individual health state was expressed as a single metric number (value). We compared these health-state values between sociodemographic subgroups, between separate conditions, between groups with or without comorbidity, and between different combinations of multimorbidity.RESULTS: The total sample comprised 3913 patients. Multimorbidity was present in 62% of the patients. The most prevalent health conditions were pain (50%), fatigue/sleep problems (40%), mental health problems (28%), respiratory diseases (22%), and diabetes (18%). The highest (best) and lowest health-state values were observed in patients with diabetes and mental health problems. Among combinations of multimorbidity, the lowest values were observed when mental health problems were involved, the second lowest values were observed when fatigue/sleep problems and respiratory diseases coexisted.CONCLUSIONS: This study compared health status across various single, and multiple (multimorbidity and comorbidity) health conditions directly, based on single metric health-state values. The insights are valuable in clinical practice and policy-making.</p

Functional health state description and valuation by people aged 65 and over:a pilot study

Abstract Background Assessing quality of life among the elderly is a complex and multifaceted issue. Elderly people might find valuing and describing their personal experience of quality of life (QoL) demanding and cumbersome. This study therefore sought to determine the feasibility of administering two questionnaires in two samples of elderly people. Methods A preference-based instrument (EQ-5D + C) and a currently achieved functioning questionnaire (CAF) were utilized. Two pilot studies were performed. The first was performed in South Africa (n = 30), designed to test whether elderly respondents could complete and understand the two questionnaires and also to indicate which valuation method, visual analogue scale or time trade off they preferred. A second pilot study was performed in the Netherlands (n = 30), designed to investigate the use of both questionnaires in determining quality of life and health state valuations in a Dutch sample of elderly. Results Seventy percent of the South African respondents indicated that they preferred the visual analogue scale (VAS) method, when compared to the time trade-off (TTO). In both the South African and the Dutch pilot studies, the respondents, with different dependency levels, were able to use both questionnaires to determine health state descriptions and valuations. When ranking the profiles from fewer to more problems, the EQ-5D + C exhibits a gradual downwards trend, with a maximum of 100 and minimum VAS value of 41. The CAF also exhibits a gradual downwards trend, with a maximum of 1.00 and minimum VAS value of 36. Conclusions The results indicate that individuals from different parts of the world are able to complete, describe, and value the questionnaires. It is our recommendation that a comprehensive study should be done, which includes both the EQ-5D + C questionnaire and the CAF questionnaire, since the two questionnaires have proven to be feasible in providing information on quality of life and well-being of elderly people

Nature-versus-nurture considered harmful:Actionability as an alternative tool for understanding the exposome from an ethical perspective

Exposome research is put forward as a major tool for solving the nature-versus-nurture debate because the exposome is said to represent “the nature of nurture.” Against this influential idea, we argue that the adoption of the nature-versus-nurture debate into the exposome research program is a mistake that needs to be undone to allow for a proper bioethical assessment of exposome research. We first argue that this adoption is originally based on an equivocation between the traditional nature-versus-nurture debate and a debate about disease prediction/etiology. Second, due to this mistake, exposome research is pushed to adopt a limited conception of agential control that is harmful to one's thinking about the good that exposome research can do for human health and wellbeing. To fully excise the nature-versus-nurture debate from exposome research, we argue that exposome researchers and bioethicists need to think about the exposome afresh from the perspective of actionability. We define the concept of actionability and related concepts and show how these can be used to analyze the ethical aspects of the exposome. In particular, we focus on refuting the popular “gun analogy” in exposome research, returning results to study participants and risk-taking in the context of a well-lived life.</p

Nature-versus-nurture considered harmful:Actionability as an alternative tool for understanding the exposome from an ethical perspective

Exposome research is put forward as a major tool for solving the nature-versus-nurture debate because the exposome is said to represent “the nature of nurture.” Against this influential idea, we argue that the adoption of the nature-versus-nurture debate into the exposome research program is a mistake that needs to be undone to allow for a proper bioethical assessment of exposome research. We first argue that this adoption is originally based on an equivocation between the traditional nature-versus-nurture debate and a debate about disease prediction/etiology. Second, due to this mistake, exposome research is pushed to adopt a limited conception of agential control that is harmful to one's thinking about the good that exposome research can do for human health and wellbeing. To fully excise the nature-versus-nurture debate from exposome research, we argue that exposome researchers and bioethicists need to think about the exposome afresh from the perspective of actionability. We define the concept of actionability and related concepts and show how these can be used to analyze the ethical aspects of the exposome. In particular, we focus on refuting the popular “gun analogy” in exposome research, returning results to study participants and risk-taking in the context of a well-lived life.</p

Reconceptualizing and Defining Exposomics within Environmental Health: Expanding the Scope of Health Research

Background: Exposomics, the study of the exposome, is flourishing, but the field is not well defined. The term “exposome” refers to all environmental influences and associated biological responses throughout the lifespan. However, this definition is very similar to that of the term “environment”—the external elements and conditions that surround and affect the life and development of an organism. Consequently, the exposome seems to be nothing more than a synonym for the environment, and exposomics a synonym for environmental research. As a result, some have rebranded their “standard” environmental health research with the neologistic exposome term, whereas others ignore or seek to abandon the seemingly redundant concept of the exposome. Objectives: We argue that exposomics needs to sharpen its mission focus to counteract this apparent redundancy. Exposomics should be defined as a research program in environmental health aimed at enabling a comprehensive and discovery-driven approach to identifying environmental determinants of human health. Similar to the aim of the Human Genome Project, exposomics aims to analyze the complete complexity of exposures and their corresponding biological responses. Exposomics’ primary premise is that the existence of undiscovered, potentially interconnected, nongenetic (environmental) risk factors for health necessitates a comprehensive discovery-driven analysis approach. Discussion: We argue that exposomics researchers should adopt our reconceptualization of exposomics and focus on the productiveness and integrity of their research program: its purpose and principles. We suggest that exposomics researchers should coordinate the writing of reviews that assess the program’s productiveness and integrity, as well as provide a platform for exposomics researchers to define their vision for the field