16 research outputs found
The Lantern Vol. 4, No. 3, June 1936
• Dr. Omwake as his Friends See Him: A Letter from Dr. James M. Anders ; An Interview with Dean Kline • George Leslie Omwake, Educator and Churchman • The Story of Ursinus • Way Back When • Editorial: We Look Before and After • Reminiscences of an Ex-Storekeeper\u27s Daughter • The Tale of a Toper, or How the Little Stone Went Rolling • Book Review: May I Present? • Time Out, Please • Youth at the Crossroads • Of Candy Bars and Tears • Reflections • To a Star • It Takes Two to Study the Moonhttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/lantern/1008/thumbnail.jp
The Lantern Vol. 4, No. 3, June 1936
• Dr. Omwake as his Friends See Him: A Letter from Dr. James M. Anders ; An Interview with Dean Kline • George Leslie Omwake, Educator and Churchman • The Story of Ursinus • Way Back When • Editorial: We Look Before and After • Reminiscences of an Ex-Storekeeper\u27s Daughter • The Tale of a Toper, or How the Little Stone Went Rolling • Book Review: May I Present? • Time Out, Please • Youth at the Crossroads • Of Candy Bars and Tears • Reflections • To a Star • It Takes Two to Study the Moonhttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/lantern/1008/thumbnail.jp
BHPR research: qualitative1. Complex reasoning determines patients' perception of outcome following foot surgery in rheumatoid arhtritis
Background: Foot surgery is common in patients with RA but research into surgical outcomes is limited and conceptually flawed as current outcome measures lack face validity: to date no one has asked patients what is important to them. This study aimed to determine which factors are important to patients when evaluating the success of foot surgery in RA Methods: Semi structured interviews of RA patients who had undergone foot surgery were conducted and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis of interviews was conducted to explore issues that were important to patients. Results: 11 RA patients (9 ♂, mean age 59, dis dur = 22yrs, mean of 3 yrs post op) with mixed experiences of foot surgery were interviewed. Patients interpreted outcome in respect to a multitude of factors, frequently positive change in one aspect contrasted with negative opinions about another. Overall, four major themes emerged. Function: Functional ability & participation in valued activities were very important to patients. Walking ability was a key concern but patients interpreted levels of activity in light of other aspects of their disease, reflecting on change in functional ability more than overall level. Positive feelings of improved mobility were often moderated by negative self perception ("I mean, I still walk like a waddling duck”). Appearance: Appearance was important to almost all patients but perhaps the most complex theme of all. Physical appearance, foot shape, and footwear were closely interlinked, yet patients saw these as distinct separate concepts. Patients need to legitimize these feelings was clear and they frequently entered into a defensive repertoire ("it's not cosmetic surgery; it's something that's more important than that, you know?”). Clinician opinion: Surgeons' post operative evaluation of the procedure was very influential. The impact of this appraisal continued to affect patients' lasting impression irrespective of how the outcome compared to their initial goals ("when he'd done it ... he said that hasn't worked as good as he'd wanted to ... but the pain has gone”). Pain: Whilst pain was important to almost all patients, it appeared to be less important than the other themes. Pain was predominately raised when it influenced other themes, such as function; many still felt the need to legitimize their foot pain in order for health professionals to take it seriously ("in the end I went to my GP because it had happened a few times and I went to an orthopaedic surgeon who was quite dismissive of it, it was like what are you complaining about”). Conclusions: Patients interpret the outcome of foot surgery using a multitude of interrelated factors, particularly functional ability, appearance and surgeons' appraisal of the procedure. While pain was often noted, this appeared less important than other factors in the overall outcome of the surgery. Future research into foot surgery should incorporate the complexity of how patients determine their outcome Disclosure statement: All authors have declared no conflicts of interes
Habitat proximity exerts opposing effects on key ecological functions
Connectivity is an important property of landscapes that shapes populations and ecosystem functioning. We do not know, however, whether and how different types of spatial linkages combine to influence ecological functions, and this hampers their integration into conservation planning.We used coral reef seascapes in eastern Australia as a model system to test whether the proximity of other reefs (habitat proximity) or the proximity of other habitats (seascape proximity) exert stronger effects on two key ecological functions (herbivory and piscivory).We measured rates of herbivory (on fleshy macroalgae) and piscivory (on prey fish) on reefs that differed in their proximity to both other reefs and nearby mangroves and seagrass.The extent of habitat proximity between reefs significantly influenced both ecological functions, but in different ways: isolated reefs supported high herbivory but low piscivory, whilst, conversely, reefs that were closer to other reefs supported high piscivory but low herbivory. This was not caused by herbivores avoiding their predators, as the dominant piscivores (small predatory snappers) were too small to consume the dominant herbivores (large rabbitfishes). Seascape proximity (e.g., distance to mangroves or seagrass) was less important in shaping ecological functions on reefs in this system.We suggest that the effects of seascape configuration on ecological functions depends on the type of spatial linkage, and the ecological functions in question. To better integrate connectivity into conservation, we must develop a deeper understanding of how different spatial linkages combine to shape ecosystem functioning across landscapes
Recommended from our members
Early Intervention in Low-Birth-Weight Premature Infants: Results Through Age 5 Years From the Infant Health and Development Program
Objective.—To evaluate the persistence of effects on health and development at age 5 years of the Infant Health and Development Program, an early childhood intervention that was provided to low-birth-weight (LBW) premature infants from neonatal discharge through age 3 years.Design.—Randomized, controlled, multicenter trial, stratified by two LBW groups: lighter (≤2000 g) and heavier (2001 to 2500 g).Setting.—Eight socioeconomically heterogeneous clinical sites.Participants.—Of 985 eligible infants weighing 2500 g or less and at 37 weeks' or less gestational age, 377 infants were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 608 to the follow-up only group. About two thirds of the infants in each group were in the lighter LBW stratum, and one third were in the heavier LBW stratum.Intervention.—The intervention group received home visits (from neonatal discharge through age 3 years) as well as center-based schooling (from 1 to 3 years of age). Children in both groups received pediatric surveillance.Main Outcome Measures.—Cognitive development, behavioral competence, and health status.Results.—At age 5 years, the intervention group had full-scale IQ scores similar to children in the follow-up only group. However, in the heavier LBW stratum, children in the intervention group had higher full-scale IQ scores (3.7 points higher; P=.03) and higher verbal IQ scores (4.2 points higher; P=.02). No significant differences between intervention and follow-up only groups in cognitive measures at age 5 years were noted in the lighter LBW infants. The intervention and follow-up groups were similar in behavior and health measures regardless of LBW stratum.Conclusion.—The early childhood intervention provided in the first 3 years of life had effects on heavier LBW premature infants' IQ and verbal performance at age 5 years that were not observed for lighter LBW premature infants. The intervention did not affect health or behavior at age 5 years in either LBW stratum.(JAMA. 1994;272:1257-1262