This article presents an overview of the rental housing search and occupancy experiences of Veterans with disabilities. Utilizing a mixed-mode survey design, 83 usable responses were obtained. Measures of discrimination, accessibility, and demographics were used as independent variables to explore relationships with housing satisfaction using one-way ANOVA and multiple regression. In addition, chi-square tests were conducted to determine the association between perceived discrimination and independent variables. Findings suggest that Veterans with disabilities are facing challenges in locating and occupying suitable rental housing with factors such as discrimination impacting housing satisfaction. Implications for policy-makers, Veterans, and researchers are discussed.
Technology transfer (TT) between academia and industry is an important source of innovation and economic development and is becoming increasingly relevant across a diversity of research fields. Successful TT depends on effective communication between academic and external partners. This is best facilitated by an academic intermediary who can provide meaningful interactions. An academic intermediary can ensure expertise and knowledge are communicated using a common language and that goals and expectations are clear between partners. In the field of remote sensing where complex technologies, datasets and analyses are required to develop user friendly products, intermediaries play a particularly essential role. The rapid expansion of the remote sensing sector over the last decade, including sensor technologies and the volume of freely available data, has created a bottleneck between available data and technology and ready to use products. In an effort to address this bottleneck and establish a long-term innovation platform and thematic TT infrastructure, FERN.Lab, Remote Sensing for Sustainable Use of Resources Helmholtz Innovation Lab was founded at the Geodesy Department of the German Centre for Geosciences (GFZ) in January 2020. FERN.Lab is funded by the Helmholtz Association, the largest scientific organization in Germany. The goal of FERN.Lab is to facilitate TT and deliver remote sensing products to commercial and non-commercial partners by acting as an expert intermediary platform. FERN.Lab will improve the TT activities of GFZ from two distinct approaches. The first is a "pull" approach where tailor-made technologies are developed for and funded by external third parties. The second is a "push" approach where existing departmental technologies with high market potential are promoted. The pull and push of technologies to external partners is accomplished by a set of competencies and services delivered by the core FERN.Lab team. Competencies include business development, scientific development, software development, and public relations which directly address institutional, financial and skills gap that can cause the TT process to fail. By implementing a robust TT framework for remote sensing products, the impact of research has the potential to be much broader and farther reaching. Additionally, these efforts can improve the acceptance of remote sensing outside of academia improving and modernizing methods used in diverse sectors which in turn can benefit not only individual partners but also politics, society, and the environment. As application-oriented innovation platform, with a close interaction with partners and customers, FERN.Lab will be a crucial part of modern TT at GFZ.
This conversation, transcribed from an Apr 2002 conference entitled, "The Next Great Transformation? Karl Polanyi & the Critique of Globalization," is intended to illuminate current debates about the use & abuse of the embeddedness concept in economic sociology. 26 References. Adapted from the source document.
Many differences exist in postgraduate surgical training programmes worldwide. The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the training requirements in general surgery across 23 different countries. A collaborator affiliated with each country collected data from the country's official training body website, where possible. The information collected included: management, teaching, academic and operative competencies, mandatory courses, years of postgraduate training (inclusive of intern years), working-hours regulations, selection process into training and formal examination. Countries included were Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, India, Ireland, Italy, Kuwait, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, USA and Zambia. Frameworks for defining the outcomes of surgical training have been defined nationally in some countries, with some similarities to those in the UK and Ireland. However, some training programmes remain heterogeneous with regional variation, including those in many European countries. Some countries outline minimum operative case requirement (range 60-1600), mandatory courses, or operative, academic or management competencies. The length of postgraduate training ranges from 4 to 10 years. The maximum hours worked per week ranges from 38 to 88 h, but with no limit in some countries. Countries have specific and often differing requirements of their medical profession. Equivalence in training is granted on political agreements, not healthcare need or competencies acquired during training.
BACKGROUND: Many differences exist in postgraduate surgical training programmes worldwide. The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the training requirements in general surgery across 23 different countries. METHODS: A collaborator affiliated with each country collected data from the country's official training body website, where possible. The information collected included: management, teaching, academic and operative competencies, mandatory courses, years of postgraduate training (inclusive of intern years), working‐hours regulations, selection process into training and formal examination. RESULTS: Countries included were Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, India, Ireland, Italy, Kuwait, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, USA and Zambia. Frameworks for defining the outcomes of surgical training have been defined nationally in some countries, with some similarities to those in the UK and Ireland. However, some training programmes remain heterogeneous with regional variation, including those in many European countries. Some countries outline minimum operative case requirement (range 60–1600), mandatory courses, or operative, academic or management competencies. The length of postgraduate training ranges from 4 to 10 years. The maximum hours worked per week ranges from 38 to 88 h, but with no limit in some countries. CONCLUSION: Countries have specific and often differing requirements of their medical profession. Equivalence in training is granted on political agreements, not healthcare need or competencies acquired during training.
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long- term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
Background: Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods: This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings: Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16-30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77-0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50-0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80-0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54-0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation: Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services.