Differences in sex hormone levels in the menstrual cycle due to tobacco smoking — myth or reality?

Introduction: Tobacco smoke contains, among others, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), heterocyclic analogues, aromatic amines, N-nitrosamines, volatile hydrocarbons, aldehydes, phenols, miscellaneous organic compounds, metals, and inorganic compounds. Tobacco smoking can harm women’s reproductive system and may reduce fertility. The objective of the study was to explore the effect of tobacco smoke on the menstrual cycle due to smoking and second-hand smoke-exposure. Material and methods: The study was performed on 153 women of reproductive age, who received care at the Gynaecological-Obstetric Clinical Hospital of the Poznan University of Medical Sciences. They were divided into three treatment groups: non-smokers, secondhand smokers, and smokers. Comprehensive assessment of all hormone levels: follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), 17β-oestradiol (E2), and progesterone (P), in the various phases of the menstrual cycle and with concomitant determinations of serum cotinine concentrations was performed. The menstrual cycle was observed with ultrasonography. Results: Cigarette smoking may be an important factor in disrupting reproduction: 1. The increase in the oestradiol E2 level was accompanied by significantly lowered serum cotinine concentrations in tobacco smokers; 2. In smoking patients, the serum level of LH significantly increased on the first days of the menstrual cycle; 3. The higher levels of P (in the 14th and 21st days) were assumed to be the result of a longer menstrual cycle. Conclusions: Active and passive smoking may be an important contributor to reproductive health issues and deserves greater focus in health education programs directed towards women of reproductive age

Participation Approaches in Education for Social and Educational Work – Analysis of Students’ Experience

W artykule zostały zaprezentowane doświadczenia studentów z uczestnictwa w zajęciach realizowanych z wykorzystaniem podejść partycypacyjnych. W opisywanym kursie w roku akademicki 2020/2021 uczestniczyło 79 studentów – 49 kobiet i 30 mężczyzn. Wszyscy byli studentami II roku studiów licencjackich w systemie stacjonarnym. W pierwszej części tekstu krótko zostanie scharakteryzowana historia podejść partycypacyjnych, która rozwijana jest w Katedrze Pedagogiki Społecznej w Łodzi. Następnie przejdziemy do omawiania najważniejszych założeń podejść partycypacyjnych, które odnosić się będą do aspektów dydaktycznych/edukacyjnych. W dalszej części artykułu przejdziemy do omawiania metodologii badania towarzyszącej opisywanym zajęciom, oraz prezentacji wniosków badawczych. Rekonstrukcja doświadczeń studentów odbywała się poprzez analizę wypowiedzi udzielanych w ramach dwóch tur wywiadów grupowych. Pierwsza tura odbyła się przed rozpoczęciem zajęć, druga po ich zakończeniu. W wywiadach wzięli udział wszyscy uczestnicy kursu. W trakcie analizy skupiono się na kilku aspektach, które dotyczyły zalet, wyzwań, jak i trudności w pracy wykorzystującej podejścia partycypacyjne. Aspektom tym nadano określone kategorie, takie jak rozmycie ról, empowerment czy myślenie krytyczne.This paper presents students' experiences of participating in a course that was carried out using participatory approaches. The described course in the academic year 2020/2021 was attended by 79 students, including 49 women and 30 men. All students were second-year students of full-time undergraduate studies. The first part of the text, the history of participatory approaches developed in the Department of Social Pedagogy in Lodz is briefly presented. Then we move on to discuss the most important assumptions of participatory approaches, which refer to didactic/educational aspects. In the following part of the article, we describe the methodology of the research that accompanied the course sessions and present the research findings. The students' experiences were reconstructed through the analysis of their responses, which were given during two rounds of group interviews. The first round took place before the classes started, the second after the classes ended. All course participants took part in the interviews. During the analysis of their responses, we focused on several aspects that were most frequently mentioned by the students, which related to the advantages, challenges, and difficulties of work with the use of participatory approaches. We gave these aspects specific categories such as role blurring, empowerment, and critical thinking. The material result of these activities is this article, which was written together with the students