Women In the weighing room: gender discrimination on the thoroughbred racetrack

Women jockeys are a small minority on the thoroughbred racetrack and securesignificantly fewer racing mounts than their male counterparts. This suggests female jockeys are facing discriminatory barriers, in one of the only major professional sportswhere men and women compete against each other on equal terms. This exploratorystudy considers discriminatory barriers that exist and the effects they have on women’scomparative profile and participation in the flat racing industry. Six participants wererecruited for the study from different areas within the industry, and with at least threeyears experience. Information was derived from semi structured individual interviews. The data was analysed using discourse analysis techniques. Five main themes wereevident: a culture of sexism, including the sense that women are more nurturing;opportunities, including for women to become trainers; body shape and strength; riskand danger; industry fashion and trends. The results from this study suggest women face discrimination in horseracing onaccount of a number of factors, the three main perceived reasons are due to theirphysical strength, body shape and the tradition and history embedded within theindustry. Whilst there is a shift starting to occur where more women are coming throughin flat racing, this is slow. Participants consider that women may find these barriers andperceptions held by others difficult to overcome, which may result in their inability toachieve equality in this sport. Given the exploratory character of the study, conclusionsare tentative and we propose a number of areas for further research

Competition and Combative Advertising: An Historical Analysis

Fred K. Beard (PhD, University of Oklahoma) is a professor of advertising in the Gaylord College of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Oklahoma. His research interests include comparative advertising, advertising humor, and advertising history. His work has appeared in the Journal of Advertising, the Journal of Advertising Research, the Journal of Business Ethics, the Journal of Business Research, Journalism History, the Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, the Journal of Macromarketing, and the Journal of Marketing Communications, among others.Yeshttps://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/manuscript-submission-guideline

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Peer Review and Evaluation of Digital Resources for the Arts and Humanities Final Report

This is the final report produced by the AHRC-funded 'Peer review of digital resources for the arts and humanities' ICT strategy project

Diversities in an organisational context

The purpose of this paper is to report on a research day on the theme of diversity, held at the Centre for Employment Studies Research, University of the West of England. The report is based upon observations, notes and discussions of papers presented that represent work in progress on a range of diversity issues, specifically ethnicity, gender, age and disability. The presentations highlighted the mixed outcomes of anti-discrimination legislation in the context of organisational objectives and practices and individual worker attitudes