Suchergebnisse

International audience ; Responses to the early (February–July 2020) COVID-19 pandemic varied widely, globally. Reasons for this are multiple but likely relate to the healthcare and financial resources then available, and the degree of trust in, and economic support provided by, national governments. Cultural factors also affected how different populations reacted to the various pandemic restrictions, like masking, social distancing and self-isolation or self-quarantine. The degree of compliance with these measures depended on how much individuals valued their needs and liberties over those of their society. Thus, several themes may be relevant when comparing pandemic responses across different regions. East and Southeast Asian populations tended to be more collectivist and self-sacrificing, responding quickly to early signs of the pandemic and readily complied with most restrictions to control its spread. Australasian, Eastern European, Scandinavian, some Middle Eastern, African and South American countries also responded promptly by imposing restrictions of varying severity, due to concerns for their wider society, including for some, the fragility of their healthcare systems. Western European and North American countries, with well-resourced healthcare systems, initially reacted more slowly, partly in an effort to maintain their economies but also todelay imposing pandemic restrictions that limited the personal freedoms of their citizens.

International audience ; Responses to the early (February–July 2020) COVID-19 pandemic varied widely, globally. Reasons for this are multiple but likely relate to the healthcare and financial resources then available, and the degree of trust in, and economic support provided by, national governments. Cultural factors also affected how different populations reacted to the various pandemic restrictions, like masking, social distancing and self-isolation or self-quarantine. The degree of compliance with these measures depended on how much individuals valued their needs and liberties over those of their society. Thus, several themes may be relevant when comparing pandemic responses across different regions. East and Southeast Asian populations tended to be more collectivist and self-sacrificing, responding quickly to early signs of the pandemic and readily complied with most restrictions to control its spread. Australasian, Eastern European, Scandinavian, some Middle Eastern, African and South American countries also responded promptly by imposing restrictions of varying severity, due to concerns for their wider society, including for some, the fragility of their healthcare systems. Western European and North American countries, with well-resourced healthcare systems, initially reacted more slowly, partly in an effort to maintain their economies but also todelay imposing pandemic restrictions that limited the personal freedoms of their citizens.

International audience ; Responses to the early (February–July 2020) COVID-19 pandemic varied widely, globally. Reasons for this are multiple but likely relate to the healthcare and financial resources then available, and the degree of trust in, and economic support provided by, national governments. Cultural factors also affected how different populations reacted to the various pandemic restrictions, like masking, social distancing and self-isolation or self-quarantine. The degree of compliance with these measures depended on how much individuals valued their needs and liberties over those of their society. Thus, several themes may be relevant when comparing pandemic responses across different regions. East and Southeast Asian populations tended to be more collectivist and self-sacrificing, responding quickly to early signs of the pandemic and readily complied with most restrictions to control its spread. Australasian, Eastern European, Scandinavian, some Middle Eastern, African and South American countries also responded promptly by imposing restrictions of varying severity, due to concerns for their wider society, including for some, the fragility of their healthcare systems. Western European and North American countries, with well-resourced healthcare systems, initially reacted more slowly, partly in an effort to maintain their economies but also todelay imposing pandemic restrictions that limited the personal freedoms of their citizens.

International audience ; Responses to the early (February–July 2020) COVID-19 pandemic varied widely, globally. Reasons for this are multiple but likely relate to the healthcare and financial resources then available, and the degree of trust in, and economic support provided by, national governments. Cultural factors also affected how different populations reacted to the various pandemic restrictions, like masking, social distancing and self-isolation or self-quarantine. The degree of compliance with these measures depended on how much individuals valued their needs and liberties over those of their society. Thus, several themes may be relevant when comparing pandemic responses across different regions. East and Southeast Asian populations tended to be more collectivist and self-sacrificing, responding quickly to early signs of the pandemic and readily complied with most restrictions to control its spread. Australasian, Eastern European, Scandinavian, some Middle Eastern, African and South American countries also responded promptly by imposing restrictions of varying severity, due to concerns for their wider society, including for some, the fragility of their healthcare systems. Western European and North American countries, with well-resourced healthcare systems, initially reacted more slowly, partly in an effort to maintain their economies but also todelay imposing pandemic restrictions that limited the personal freedoms of their citizens.

Responses to the early (February–July 2020) COVID-19 pandemic varied widely, globally. Reasons for this are multiple but likely relate to the healthcare and financial resources then available, and the degree of trust in, and economic support provided by, national governments. Cultural factors also affected how different populations reacted to the various pandemic restrictions, like masking, social distancing and self-isolation or self-quarantine. The degree of compliance with these measures depended on how much individuals valued their needs and liberties over those of their society. Thus, several themes may be relevant when comparing pandemic responses across different regions. East and Southeast Asian populations tended to be more collectivist and self-sacrificing, responding quickly to early signs of the pandemic and readily complied with most restrictions to control its spread. Australasian, Eastern European, Scandinavian, some Middle Eastern, African and South American countries also responded promptly by imposing restrictions of varying severity, due to concerns for their wider society, including for some, the fragility of their healthcare systems. Western European and North American countries, with well-resourced healthcare systems, initially reacted more slowly, partly in an effort to maintain their economies but also to delay imposing pandemic restrictions that limited the personal freedoms of their citizens.

Single, severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) which elevates CNS amyloid, increases the risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD); while repetitive concussive and subconcussive events as observed in athletes and military personnel, may increase the risk of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). We describe two clinical cases, one with a history of multiple concussions during a career in the National Football League (NFL) and the second with frontotemporal dementia and a single, severe TBI. Both patients presented with cognitive decline and underwent [18F]-Florbetapir positron emission tomography (PET) imaging for amyloid plaques; the retired NFL player also underwent [18F]-T807 PET imaging, a new ligand binding to tau, the main constituent of neurofibrillary tangles (NFT). Case 1, the former NFL player, was 71 years old when he presented with memory impairment and a clinical profile highly similar to AD. [18F]-Florbetapir PET imaging was negative, essentially excluding AD as a diagnosis. CTE was suspected clinically, and [18F]-T807 PET imaging revealed striatal and nigral [18F]-T807 retention consistent with the presence of tauopathy. Case 2 was a 56-year-old man with personality changes and cognitive decline who had sustained a fall complicated by a subdural hematoma. At 1 year post injury, [18F]-Florbetapir PET imaging was negative for an AD pattern of amyloid accumulation in this subject. Focal [18F]-Florbetapir retention was noted at the site of impact. In case 1, amyloid imaging provided improved diagnostic accuracy where standard clinical and laboratory criteria were inadequate. In that same case, tau imaging with [18F]-T807 revealed a subcortical tauopathy that we interpret as a novel form of CTE with a distribution of tauopathy that mimics, to some extent, that of progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), despite a clinical presentation of amnesia without any movement disorder complaints or signs. A key distinguishing feature is that our patient presented with hippocampal involvement, which is more frequently seen in ...

INTRODUCTION: Exercise, support and advice are considered core components of management for most musculoskeletal conditions and are typically provided by physiotherapists through regular face-to-face treatments. However, exercise can be provided remotely as part of a home exercise programme, while support and advice can be provided over the telephone. There is initial evidence from trials and systematic reviews to suggest that remotely provided physiotherapy can be used to manage a variety of musculoskeletal conditions safely and effectively. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The aim of this single-blind randomised controlled non-inferiority trial is to determine whether a supported home exercise programme is as good as or better than face-to-face physiotherapy for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions. Two hundred and ten participants will be recruited from five public hospitals in Sydney, Australia. Participants will be randomised to either the supported home exercise group or the face-to-face physiotherapy group. Participants allocated to the supported home exercise group will initially receive one face-to-face session with the trial physiotherapist and will then be managed remotely for the next 6 weeks. Participants allocated to the face-to-face physiotherapy group will receive a course of physiotherapy as typically provided in Sydney government hospitals. The primary outcome is function measured by the Patient Specific Functional Scale at 6 weeks. There will be nine secondary outcomes measured at 6 and 26 weeks. Separate analyses will be conducted on each outcome, and all analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. A health economic evaluation will be conducted from a health funder plus patient perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained on the 17 March 2017 from the Northern Sydney Local Health District HREC, trial number HREC/16HAWKE/431-RESP/16/287. The results of this study will be submitted for publication to peer-reviewed journals and be presented at national and ...

Wiederholungsbefragung einer Studie aus den frühen 70er Jahren
zu Strukturen und Determinanten politischer Ideologie in drei
Industrieländern.

Themen: Einschätzung des derzeitigen, früheren und zukünftigen
materiellen Lebensstandards; Lebenszufriedenheit; eigene Alltagsprobleme
und größtes derzeitiges Problem; eigene Fähigkeit zur Problemlösung;
Organisationen, staatliche Institutionen oder Parteien als perzipierte
Lösungsinstanzen; politisches Interesse; Wahrnehmung über- bzw.
unterprivilegierter Gruppen; Einstellung zur Terrorismusbekämpfung auf
Kosten der individuellen Freiheit, zur Kernenergie, zur sozialen
Gleichheit, zur gesellschaftlichen Gleichstellung der Geschlechter, zur
Ausweitung der staatlichen Einflußsphäre in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft,
zum Schwangerschaftsabbruch und zum Umweltschutz; Einstellung zur
Veränderung der Gesellschaft; Bereitschaft zu politischen Aktivitäten
auf lokaler und nationaler Ebene (Almond-Verba-Aktivitätsindex);
Selbsteinschätzung auf einem Links-Rechts-Kontinuum;
Links-Rechts-Verständnis; Postmaterialismus (zwei Index-Versionen);
Bewertung der staatlichen Aufgabenerfüllung in den Bereichen der
Altenfürsorge, der Gleichberechtigung, der Arbeitsmarktpolitik, der
Ausbildung, der medizinischen Versorgung, der Wohnungspolitik, des
Umweltschutzes, der Kriminalitätsbekämpfung, der Minderheitenpolitik,
des Ausgleichs sozialer Ungleichheit, der Inflationsbekämpfung und der
Energieversorgung; Einstufung der Wichtigkeit dieser Probleme; gute und
schlechte Seiten der Parteien; Sympathie-Skalometer für
gesellschaftliche Gruppierungen, Organisationen und Parteien sowie für
das politische System; Einstellung zur derzeitigen Regierung und zum
politischen System; Einstellung zu ausgewählten politischen
Protestformen; politische Partizipation; Zeitpunkt, Ziele und Initiator
des Protests; Einstellung zu staatlicher Repression gegen
Protestmaßnahmen; Parteiidentifikation; Wahlverhalten bei der letzten
und Wahlabsicht bei der kommenden nationalen Wahl; Umfang, Zeitpunkt,
Ziele und Initiator eigener politischer Aktivitäten; Einschätzung
politischer Wirksamkeit und Gefühl der politischen Repräsentiertheit;
Einstellung zum Jugendprotest; Beeinflussung der Regierung durch die
Interessen der Mächtigen; Vertrauen in die Regierung; Geburtsmonat und
Geburtsjahr; Beschreibung der finanziellen und familiären Situation im
Elternhaus während der eigenen Kindheit und Jugendzeit; soziale
Herkunft; Parteipräferenz der Eltern; Einschätzung der eigenen
Schichtzugehörigkeit; Vorgesetztenfunktion am Arbeitsplatz;
Arbeitslosigkeit und Einschätzung der eigenen Arbeitsplatzsicherheit;
Gewerkschaftsmitgliedschaft und Beteiligung an
Gewerkschaftsversammlungen; Mitgliedschaften.

Demographie: Alter; Geschlecht; Familienstand; Religiosität;
Kirchgangshäufigkeit; Berufstätigkeit; Einkommen; Haushaltseinkommen;
Haushaltsgröße; Befragter ist Haushaltsvorstand; Parteipräferenz;
Wahlverhalten bei der letzten Wahl; Urbanisierungsgrad.

Interviewerrating: Einschätzung der ethnischen Gruppenzugehörigkeit;
Anwesenheit Dritter beim Interview und Häufigkeit der Eingriffe in das
Interview; Kooperationsbereitschaft und Zuverlässigkeit des Befragten;
Haustyp; Interviewdatum; Interviewdauer; Interviewer-Identifikation;
Ortsgröße.

Indizes: Konventionelle politische Partizipation; Protestbereitschaft
und Protestaktivitäten; Protestpotential; Repressionspotential;
Typologie politischer Partizipation und politischer Aktivität;
ideologisches Denken; Links-Rechts-Verständnis; Niveau der ideologischen
Konzeptionalisierung; Postmaterialismus-Index; politische Effizienz;
politisches Vertrauen; Systemreaktionsbereitschaft;
Links-Rechts-Wahlverhalten; Links-Rechts-Parteipräferenz; Wahl und
Parteipräferenz für Regierungs- oder Oppositionspartei;
Parteiidentifikation; Erwartungen an die Jugend; Dimension der
Parteiorientierung und der gesellschaftlichen Orientierung; Wahrnehmung
von Gruppenprivilegien; Bildung.