This article provides a systematic analysis of the extent to which political, economic, & cultural factors are associated with civil wars in sub-Saharan African states. Drawing on a theoretical argument that associates the likelihood of civil war with the tumult that arises from the simultaneous challenges of state building & nation building, several testable propositions are derived on the correlates of African civil wars. Results of logistic regression analyses indicate that previous colonial experience is a significant predictor to the likelihood of civil wars. It is also found that economic development reduces the probability of civil war while militarization increases it. Regime type played no significant role in African civil wars. Similarly, no support was found for the thesis that cultural factors are significantly associated with African civil war, which belies the notion that African civil wars are simply "ethnic conflicts." It appears that politico-economic factors -- instead of cultural ones -- give rise to civil wars in Africa. 2 Tables, 54 References. Adapted from the source document.
In: The journal of negro education: JNE ;a Howard University quarterly review of issues incident to the education of black people, Band 9, Heft 3, S. 416
In: Lake , A , Henderson , E J & Townshend , T G T 2017 , ' Exploring planners and public health practitioners' views on addressing obesity: lessons from local government in England ' , Cities and Health , pp. - .
Obesity is a complex health and social issue globally. The 2013 restructuring of Public Health in England resulted in a move from within the National Health Service to local government. The aim of this research was to understand the views of individuals working in public health and those working in spatial planning within local government on their respective responsibilities for addressing obesity through spatial planning. Spatial planning measures include planning policy, development control and built environment design at different scales. Findings identified a range of barriers for planners to be engaging with outcomes that can help reduce obesity. These include having an insufficient understanding of the causes of obesity and the importance of addressing obesity through multiagency approaches. They also include what was seen as a fragmentation in the health system and conflicting priorities. Our findings indicate that planners could be better engaged in the obesity agenda through formal incentives and also soft approaches. Formal approaches include written responsibilities within planners' job descriptions or regulations. Soft approaches include and aligning spatial and health priorities and providing planners with public health leadership roles
In: Henderson , E J , Ells , L , Rubin , G P & Hunter , D J 2015 , ' Systematic review of the use of data from national childhood obesity surveillance programmes in primary care: a conceptual synthesis ' , Obesity Reviews , pp. - . https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12319
This study reviewed the use in primary care of national surveillance data for children to determine the data's potential utility to inform policy and practice decisions on how to prevent and treat childhood obesity. We reviewed the 28 countries identified by the World Obesity Federation as having high-quality comparable body mass index data for children. Literature published from any period up to December 2013 was included. Peer review literature was searched using Web of Science (Core Collection, MEDLINE). Grey literature was searched using the Internet by country name, programme name and national health and government websites. We included studies that (i) use national surveillance obesity data in primary care, or (ii) explore practitioner or parent perspectives about the use of such data. The main uses of national surveillance data in primary care were to identify and recruit obese children and their parents to participate in school and general practice-based research and/or interventions, and to inform families of children's measurements. Findings indicate a need for school staff and practitioners to receive additional training and support to sensitively communicate with families. Translation of these findings into policy and practice could help to improve current uses of national child obesity surveillance data in primary care.
This study reviewed the use in primary care of national surveillance data for children to determine the data's potential utility to inform policy and practice decisions on how to prevent and treat childhood obesity. We reviewed the 28 countries identified by the World Obesity Federation as having high-quality comparable body mass index data for children. Literature published from any period up to December 2013 was included. Peer review literature was searched using Web of Science (Core Collection, MEDLINE). Grey literature was searched using the Internet by country name, programme name and national health and government websites. We included studies that (i) use national surveillance obesity data in primary care, or (ii) explore practitioner or parent perspectives about the use of such data. The main uses of national surveillance data in primary care were to identify and recruit obese children and their parents to participate in school and general practice-based research and/or interventions, and to inform families of children's measurements. Findings indicate a need for school staff and practitioners to receive additional training and support to sensitively communicate with families. Translation of these findings into policy and practice could help to improve current uses of national child obesity surveillance data in primary care.
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.