Authority Work as Outreach

Authority control in libraries has always been a collaborative effort, but that collaboration has usually been among librarians. Librarians have considered themselves the experts on forming data strings that hewed to an exacting set of standards opaque to all but a small number of gatekeepers who have been through NACO training. In the process of creating personal name authority records, NACO participants usually do not attempt to contact people for whom authorized names are being established, even when the person is known to be alive and contact information is readily available. The exception is when additional information (such as year of birth or middle initial) is needed to differentiate that person from others with the same name. Sending such a query to a creator requires providing a basic explanation of authority control, so NACO participants often develop scripts or templates for this purpose. This chapter looks at existing practices of contacting creators and the outcomes of these practices, and argues that attempting to consult with individuals about their authorized name and data in their authority record should become a standard part of the name authority control process for personal names. The chapter goes on to explore contacting creators not only as a way to ensure the authenticity of the data in the authority file, but as a rare opportunity to highlight the efforts of technical services librarians. The act of explaining authority control principles and asking for creators’ assistance in ensuring accurate information should be viewed as outreach, demonstrating how the work of libraries benefits creators by representing them accurately and facilitating access to their work. Regarding authority work as a collaborative partnership, both in advocacy to creators and managing their identity along with them, will reframe our practice as one of a truly collective process. Approaching personal name authority work as a partnership in which libraries collaborate with creators to promote and implement sound identity management practices will help to us address one of the main ethical questions in name authority control

Best Practices for Cataloging Video Games Using RDA and MARC21

While a cataloger with experience handling different formats will find that many concepts extend to video games, there are a few ‘quirks’ to the format that those unfamiliar with video games should know about

Ethical Questions in Name Authority Control

"Catalogers hold very specific types of power when they describe people, families, and corporate bodies. When creating a personal name authority record, for example, catalogers determine the authorized name by which an individual will be known, then identify a few characteristics of the individual that distinguish them from others, while balancing their judgment with respect for the individual’s self-concept and management of their public identity. This is a powerful position, and that power must be exercised ethically. As name authority control moves toward an identity management model, catalogers are taking on new roles, authority data is used in innovative ways, and libraries increasingly interact with non-library datasets and name disambiguation algorithms. During this transition, it is imperative that the library community reflect on the ethical questions that arise from its historical and emerging practices." -- Publisher's website

Efficacy and safety of dolutegravir with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, and efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate HIV antiretroviral therapy regimens started in pregnancy (IMPAACT 2010/VESTED): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

BackgroundAntiretroviral therapy (ART) during pregnancy is important for both maternal health and prevention of perinatal HIV-1 transmission; however adequate data on the safety and efficacy of different ART regimens that are likely to be used by pregnant women are scarce. In this trial we compared the safety and efficacy of three antiretroviral regimens started in pregnancy: dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate; dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate; and efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.MethodsThis multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, phase 3 trial was done at 22 clinical research sites in nine countries (Botswana, Brazil, India, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, the USA, and Zimbabwe). Pregnant women (aged ≥18 years) with confirmed HIV-1 infection and at 14-28 weeks' gestation were eligible. Women who had previously taken antiretrovirals in the past were excluded (up to 14 days of ART during the current pregnancy was permitted), as were women known to be pregnant with multiple fetuses, or those with known fetal anomaly or a history of psychiatric illness. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using a central computerised randomisation system. Randomisation was done using permuted blocks (size six) stratified by gestational age (14-18, 19-23, and 24-28 weeks' gestation) and country. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either once-daily oral dolutegravir 50 mg, and once-daily oral fixed-dose combination emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate 25 mg; once-daily oral dolutegravir 50 mg, and once-daily oral fixed-dose combination emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg; or once-daily oral fixed-dose combination of efavirenz 600 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of participants with viral suppression, defined as an HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 200 copies per mL, at or within 14 days of delivery, assessed in all participants with an HIV-1 RNA result available from the delivery visit, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -10% in the combined dolutegravir-containing groups versus the efavirenz-containing group (superiority was tested in a pre-planned secondary analysis). Primary safety outcomes, compared pairwise among treatment groups, were the occurrence of a composite adverse pregnancy outcome (ie, either preterm delivery, the infant being born small for gestational age, stillbirth, or spontaneous abortion) in all participants with a pregnancy outcome, and the occurrence of grade 3 or higher maternal and infant adverse events in all randomised participants. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03048422.FindingsBetween Jan 19, 2018, and Feb 8, 2019, we enrolled and randomly assigned 643 pregnant women: 217 to the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate group, 215 to the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group, and 211 to the efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group. At enrolment, median gestational age was 21·9 weeks (IQR 18·3-25·3), the median HIV-1 RNA concentration among participants was 902·5 copies per mL (152·0-5182·5; 181 [28%] of 643 participants had HIV-1 RNA concentrations of <200 copies per mL), and the median CD4 count was 466 cells per μL (308-624). HIV-1 RNA concentrations at delivery were available for 605 (94%) participants. Of these, 395 (98%) of 405 participants in the combined dolutegravir-containing groups had viral suppression at delivery compared with 182 (91%) of 200 participants in the efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (estimated difference 6·5% [95% CI 2·0 to 10·7], p=0·0052; excluding the non-inferiority margin of -10%). Significantly fewer participants in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate group (52 [24%] of 216) had a composite adverse pregnancy outcome than those in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (70 [33%] of 213; estimated difference -8·8% [95% CI -17·3 to -0·3], p=0·043) or the efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (69 [33%] of 211; -8·6% [-17·1 to -0·1], p=0·047). The proportion of participants or infants with grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ among the three groups. The proportion of participants who had a preterm delivery was significantly lower in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate group (12 [6%] of 208) than in the efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (25 [12%] of 207; -6·3% [-11·8 to -0·9], p=0·023). Neonatal mortality was significantly higher in the efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (ten [5%] of 207 infants) than in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate group (two [1%] of 208; p=0·019) or the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (three [2%] of 202; p=0·050).InterpretationWhen started in pregnancy, dolutegravir-containing regimens had superior virological efficacy at delivery compared with the efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate regimen. The dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate regimen had the lowest frequency of composite adverse pregnancy outcomes and of neonatal deaths.FundingNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the National Institute of Mental Health