Know Your Rights: A Guide to Employment Law for California Workers

The Women\u27s Employment Rights Clinic of Golden Gate University School of Law has written this handbook to help guide California employees who have legal questions regarding their employment. The chapters include broad overviews of different areas of the law. The law changes frequently, and this book contains only basic information. Employees should use this handbook as a starting place for further action and advice; it is not meant to be a substitute for legal counsel

Lettuce

This publication describes types of lettuce and provides instruction for their planting, cultivation, harvesting, storage, and use

Southern Pea

Vigna unguiculata is known by many names including “blackeyes”, “cowpeas”, “crowders” and “field peas”. This publication provides instruction for planting, cultivation, harvesting, storage, nutrition, and use

Muskmelon

This publication describes the groups of Cucumis melo typically grown in Maryland and provides instruction for their planting, cultivation, harvesting, storage, and use

"Getting sicker quicker": does living in a more deprived neighbourhood mean your health deteriorates faster?

Data from the longitudinal West of Scotland Twenty-07 Study: Health in the Community was used to examine whether, over a 20 year period, the self-reported health of people living in deprived areas became poorer faster compared to those living in more affluent areas. Three cohorts (born in the early 1930s, 1950s and 1970s) are included, covering 60 years of the life span. Using multilevel growth curve models, a 40% probability of reporting poor health was predicted among residents of more deprived areas at an earlier age (66) compared to those living in more affluent areas (83). Wider area differences were seen for men than for women. Our findings indicate that attempts to reduce area differences in health should start young but also continue throughout the lifespan

Does Pictorial Health Information Improve Health Behaviours and Other Outcomes? A Systematic Review Protocol

Introduction: Most health information is verbal or written, yet words alone may not be the most effective way to communicate health information. Lower health literacy is prevalent in the US and is linked to limited understanding of one’s medical condition and treatment. Pictures increase comprehension, recall, adherence and attention in health settings. This is called pictorial superiority. No systematic review has examined the impact of pictorial health information among patients and consumers, including those with lower health literacy. Methods and analysis: This systematic review and meta-analysis will assess the characteristics and effectiveness of pictorial health information on patient and consumer health behaviours and outcomes, as well as differentially among individuals of lower literacy/lower health literacy. We will conduct a systematic search across selected databases, as well as grey literature, from inception until June 2018. We will include randomised controlled trials in all languages with all types of participants that assess the effect of pictorial health information on patients’ and consumers’ health behaviours and outcomes. Two independent reviewers will conduct the primary screening of articles and data extraction for the selected articles with a third individual available to resolve conflicts. We will assess the quality of all included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We will combine all selected studies and do a test of heterogeneity. If there is sufficient homogeneity, we will pool studies into a meta-analysis. Independent of the heterogeneity of included studies, we will also conduct a narrative synthesis. Ethics and dissemination: No ethics approval is required. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences

An absence of equipoise: Examining surgeons\u27 decision talk during encounters with women considering breast cancer surgery

Shared decision-making is recommended for decisions with multiple reasonable options, yet clinicians often subtly or explicitly guide choices. Using purposive sampling, we performed a secondary analysis of 142 audio-recorded encounters between 13 surgeons and women eligible for breast-conserving surgery with radiation or mastectomy. We trained 9 surgeons in shared decision-making and provided them one of two conversation aids; 4 surgeons practiced as usual. Based on a published taxonomy of treatment recommendations (pronouncements, suggestions, proposals, offers, assertions), we examined how surgeons framed choices with patients. Many surgeons made assertions providing information and advice (usual care 71% vs. intervention 66%; p = 0.54). Some made strong pronouncements (usual care 51% vs. intervention 36%; p = .09). Few made proposals and offers, leaving the door open for deliberation (proposals usual care 21% vs. intervention 26%; p = 0.51; offers usual care 40% vs. intervention 40%; p = 0.98). Surgeons were significantly more likely to describe options as comparable when using a conversation aid, mentioning this in all intervention group encounters (usual care 64% vs. intervention 100%; p\u3c0.001). Conversation aids can facilitate offers of comparable options, but other conversational actions can inhibit aspects of shared decision-making