A Study Of Licensed Family Day Care Providers\u27 Views Regarding Regulations

PURPOSE: Licensed family day care providers in two northern California counties were surveyed to ascertain their views about current licensing regulations and four alternatives. The resulting data can be used by the legislature, the licensing agencies, and other groups involved in planning for improvement and expansion of child care services. PROCEDURES: Opinion statements were written which contained key elements of the present licensing system and four alternatives. Part I of a questionnaire was c·omposed of these statements. Part II consisted of five items which solicited demographic data which could be related to views on regulatory issues. The questionnaire was pilot tested in Stockton, California and item reliability was established by use of the test-retest technique. A sample population of 620 licensed providers from twO counties were asked to participate in this study, of which 343 usable questionnaires were returned. This represented a 57% response return. CONCLUSIONS: The data indicated the typical respondent to be between 30-39 with some college education. This person had been in business from 3-5 years and cared for 5 children. Day care fees contributed 26-50% to the total family income. The majority of providers favored a highly regulated system which attempted to protect the health and safety of children. The four alternatives were viewed as unacceptable by the providers. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The state should institute a responsive complaint process and organize a campaign to enlist the aid of parents in protecting their children. A survey of. parents should be undertaken to determine their knowledge of a)quality standards and b)available state resources to whom to turn for help. 3. The needs and purposes of inspections should be reassessed. 4. An examination of unlicensed providers\u27 views on current regulations and alternatives should be forthcoming. 5. A regulatory model is presented. This model offers incentives to those providers presently licensed and encourages those unlicensed to join the regulated network

No evidence for infection of UK prostate cancer patients with XMRV, BK virus, Trichomonas vaginalis or human papilloma viruses.

The prevalence of specific infections in UK prostate cancer patients was investigated. Serum from 84 patients and 62 controls was tested for neutralisation of xenotropic murine leukaemia virus-related virus (XMRV) Envelope. No reactivity was found in the patient samples. In addition, a further 100 prostate DNA samples were tested for XMRV, BK virus, Trichomonas vaginalis and human papilloma viruses by nucleic acid detection techniques. Despite demonstrating DNA integrity and assay sensitivity, we failed to detect the presence of any of these agents in DNA samples, bar one sample that was weakly positive for HPV16. Therefore we conclude that these infections are absent in this typical cohort of men with prostate cancer

Training future generations to deliver evidence‐based conservation and ecosystem management

1. To be effective, the next generation of conservation practitioners and managers need to be critical thinkers with a deep understanding of how to make evidence-based decisions and of the value of evidence synthesis. 2. If, as educators, we do not make these priorities a core part of what we teach, we are failing to prepare our students to make an effective contribution to conservation practice. 3. To help overcome this problem we have created open access online teaching materials in multiple languages that are stored in Applied Ecology Resources. So far, 117 educators from 23 countries have acknowledged the importance of this and are already teaching or about to teach skills in appraising or using evidence in conservation decision-making. This includes 145 undergraduate, postgraduate or professional development courses. 4. We call for wider teaching of the tools and skills that facilitate evidence-based conservation and also suggest that providing online teaching materials in multiple languages could be beneficial for improving global understanding of other subject areas

Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking study (YESS): a protocol for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effect of adding a personalised smoking cessation intervention to a lung cancer screening programme

Introduction:Integration of smoking cessation (SC) into lung cancer screening (LCS) is essential to optimise clinical and cost effectiveness. The most effective way to use this “teachable moment” is unclear. The Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking study (YESS) will measure the effectiveness of a SC service integrated within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST) and will test the efficacy of a personalised SC intervention, incorporating incidental findings detected on the low-dose computed tomography scan performed as part of YLST.Methods and analysis: Unless explicitly declined, all smokers enrolled in YLST will see a Smoking Cessation Practitioner (SCP) at baseline and receive smoking cessation support over 4-weeks comprising behavioural support, pharmacotherapy and/or a commercially available e-cigarette. Eligible smokers will be randomised (1:1 in permuted blocks of random size up to size 6) to receive either an enhanced, personalised smoking cessation support package, including CT scan images, or continued SBP. Anticipated recruitment is 1040 smokers (January 2019 – December 2020). The primary objective is to measure 7-day point prevalent carbon monoxide (CO) validated smoking cessation after 3-months. Secondary outcomes include CO validated cessation at 4-weeks and 12-months, self-reported continuous cessation at 4-weeks, 3-month and 12-months, attempts to quit smoking and changes in psychological variables, including perceived risk of lung cancer, motivation to quit smoking tobacco, confidence and efficacy beliefs (self and response) at all follow up points. A process evaluation will explore under which circumstances and on which groups the intervention works best, test intervention fidelity and theory test the mechanisms of intervention impact.Ethics and dissemination: This study has been approved by the East Midlands-Derby Research Ethics Committee (18/EM/0199) and the Health Research Authority/Health and Care Research Wales. Results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals, presentation at conferences and via the YLST website. Trial registration number: ISRCTN63825779; NIH ClinicalTrials.gov NCT0375011

Compressed Magnetic Field in the Magnetically Regulated Global Collapsing Clump of G9.62+0.19

How stellar feedback from high-mass stars (e.g., H II regions) influences the surrounding interstellar medium and regulates new star formation is still unclear. To address this question, we observed the G9.62+0.19 complex in 850 mu m continuum with the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope/POL-2 polarimeter. An ordered magnetic field has been discovered in its youngest clump, the G9.62 clump. The magnetic field strength is determined to be similar to 1 mG. Magnetic field plays a larger role than turbulence in supporting the clump. However, the G9.62 clump is still unstable against gravitational collapse even if thermal, turbulent, and magnetic field support are taken into account together. The magnetic field segments in the outskirts of the G9.62 clump seem to point toward the clump center, resembling a dragged-in morphology, indicating that the clump is likely undergoing magnetically regulated global collapse. However, the magnetic field in its central region is aligned with the shells of the photodissociation regions and is approximately parallel to the ionization (or shock) front, indicating that the magnetic field therein is likely compressed by the expanding H II regions that formed in the same complex.Peer reviewe

The association of cancer survival with four socioeconomic indicators: a longitudinal study of the older population of England and Wales 1981–2000

BACKGROUND: Many studies have found socioeconomic differentials in cancer survival. Previous studies have generally demonstrated poorer cancer survival with decreasing socioeconomic status but mostly used only ecological measures of status and analytical methods estimating simple survival. This study investigate socio-economic differentials in cancer survival using four indicators of socioeconomic status; three individual and one ecological. It uses a relative survival method which gives a measure of excess mortality due to cancer. METHODS: This study uses prospective record linkage data from The Office for National Statistics Longitudinal Study for England and Wales. The participants are Longitudinal Study members, recorded at census in 1971 and 1981 and with a primary malignant cancer diagnosed at age 45 or above, between 1981 and 1997, with follow-up until end 2000. The outcome measure is relative survival/excess mortality, compared with age and sex adjusted survival of the general population. Relative survival and Poisson regression analyses are presented, giving models of relative excess mortality, adjusted for covariates. RESULTS: Different socioeconomic indicators detect survival differentials of varying magnitude and definition. For all cancers combined, the four indicators show similar effects. For individual cancers there are differences between indicators. Where there is an association, all indicators show poorer survival with lower socioeconomic status. CONCLUSION: Cancer survival differs markedly by socio-economic status. The commonly used ecological measure, the Carstairs Index, is adequate at demonstrating socioeconomic differentials in survival for combined cancers and some individual cancers. A combination of car access and housing tenure is more sensitive than the ecological Carstairs measure at detecting socioeconomic effects on survival – confirming Carstairs effects where they occur but additionally identifying effects for other cancers. Social class is a relatively weak indicator of survival differentials

IPBES Invasive Alien Species Assessment: Chapter 1. Introducing biological invasions and the IPBES thematic assessment of invasive alien species and their control

Chapter 1: Introducing biological invasions and the IPBES thematic assessment of invasive alien species and their control of the Thematic Assessment Report on Invasive Alien Species and their Control of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking (YESS) study: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effect of adding a personalised smoking cessation intervention to a lung cancer screening programme

Introduction:Integration of smoking cessation (SC) into lung cancer screening (LCS) is essential to optimise clinical and cost effectiveness. The most effective way to use this “teachable moment” is unclear. The Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking study (YESS) will measure the effectiveness of a SC service integrated within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST) and will test the efficacy of a personalised SC intervention, incorporating incidental findings detected on the low-dose computed tomography scan performed as part of YLST.Methods and analysis: Unless explicitly declined, all smokers enrolled in YLST will see a Smoking Cessation Practitioner (SCP) at baseline and receive smoking cessation support over 4-weeks comprising behavioural support, pharmacotherapy and/or a commercially available e-cigarette. Eligible smokers will be randomised (1:1 in permuted blocks of random size up to size 6) to receive either an enhanced, personalised smoking cessation support package, including CT scan images, or continued SBP. Anticipated recruitment is 1040 smokers (January 2019 – December 2020). The primary objective is to measure 7-day point prevalent carbon monoxide (CO) validated smoking cessation after 3-months. Secondary outcomes include CO validated cessation at 4-weeks and 12-months, self-reported continuous cessation at 4-weeks, 3-month and 12-months, attempts to quit smoking and changes in psychological variables, including perceived risk of lung cancer, motivation to quit smoking tobacco, confidence and efficacy beliefs (self and response) at all follow up points. A process evaluation will explore under which circumstances and on which groups the intervention works best, test intervention fidelity and theory test the mechanisms of intervention impact.Ethics and dissemination: This study has been approved by the East Midlands-Derby Research Ethics Committee (18/EM/0199) and the Health Research Authority/Health and Care Research Wales. Results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals, presentation at conferences and via the YLST website. Trial registration number: ISRCTN63825779; NIH ClinicalTrials.gov NCT0375011

Randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a targeted cancer awareness intervention for adults living in deprived areas of the UK

Background: Cancer outcomes are poor in socioeconomically deprived communities, with low symptom awareness contributing to prolonged help-seeking and advanced disease. Targeted cancer awareness interventions require evaluation. Methods: Randomised controlled trial involving adults aged 40+ recruited in community and healthcare settings in deprived areas of South Yorkshire and South-East Wales. Intervention: personalised behavioural advice facilitated by a trained lay advisor. Control: usual care. Follow-up at 2-weeks and 6-months post-randomisation. Primary outcome: total cancer symptom recognition score 2-weeks post-randomisation. Results: 234 participants were randomised. The difference in total symptom recognition at 2-weeks [adjusted mean difference (AMD) 0.6, 95% CI:-0.03, 1.17, p=0.06] was not statistically significant. Intervention participants reported increased symptom recognition (AMD 0.8, 95% CI:0.18, 1.37, p=0.01) and earlier intended presentation (AMD -2.0, 95% CI:-3.02, -0.91, p<0.001) at 6-months. “Lesser known” symptom recognition was higher in the intervention arm (2-weeks AMD 0.5, 95% CI:0.03, 0.97 and 6-months AMD 0.7, 95% CI:0.16, 1.17). Implementation cost per participant was £91.34, with no significant between-groups differences in healthcare resource use post-intervention. Conclusions: Improved symptom recognition and earlier anticipated presentation occurred at longer-term follow-up. The ABACus Health Check is a viable low-cost intervention to increase cancer awareness in socioeconomically deprived communities. Clinical Trial Registration: ISRCTN1687254

Improving cancer symptom awareness and help-seeking among adults living in socioeconomically deprived communities in the UK using a facilitated health check: A protocol for the Awareness and Beliefs About Cancer (ABACus) Randomised Control Trial

Background Cancer survival is lower in socioeconomically deprived communities, partly due to low awareness of symptoms, negative beliefs and delayed help-seeking. We developed an interactive health check questionnaire facilitated by trained lay advisors. It entails 29 questions about background, lifestyle and health with tailored behaviour change advice. Personalised results are printed using a traffic light (red/amber/green) system, highlighting areas where action should be taken. This is an individually randomised control trial to test effectiveness of the health check on symptom recognition. Methods A total 246 participants aged 40+ years will be recruited from community and healthcare settings in socioeconomically deprived areas of Yorkshire and South Wales. Participants will be randomised to receive the health check or standard care (1:1 ratio). Outcome measures include: adapted Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer (primary outcome), brief State Trait Anxiety Inventory, intentions and motivation to adopt recommended health behaviours (early symptom presentation, cancer screening and lifestyle behaviours), adapted Client Service Receipt Inventory, brief medical history/screening and demographic questionnaire at: baseline; 2-weeks; and 6-months post-randomisation. A purposive sample of intervention sessions will be audio-recorded (n = 24) and half will additionally be observed (n = 12). Semi-structured interviews will take place at 2-weeks (n = 30) and 6-months (n = 15–20) post-randomisation. The primary analysis will compare cancer symptom recognition scores between arms at 2-weeks. Secondary analysis will assess cancer beliefs, barriers/time to presentation, screening and lifestyle behaviours, anxiety and costs. A process evaluation will assess intervention fidelity, dose and contamination