Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Alternativ können Sie versuchen, selbst über Ihren lokalen Bibliothekskatalog auf das gewünschte Dokument zuzugreifen.
Bei Zugriffsproblemen kontaktieren Sie uns gern.
10 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
SSRN
Working paper
SSRN
Working paper
SSRN
Working paper
Violence is a subject we all like to think is not a huge issue but know in the back of our minds that it is prevalent throughout the world for various reasons. However, what we do not often consider is how our word choices perpetuate violence within our culture and society. Elizabeth Howe opens our eyes to how our language affects this issue.During her undergraduate years, Howe was invited to work with Dr. Paul Heilker's Nonviolence in Communication Research Group. When asked about her work, Howe answered, "the research group was such a great project in that all eight of [the students involved] were able to adapt the topic to fit our specific interests, and the research we produced varied across all fields of the humanities." Howe's project within the group was influenced by her experiences as a military child, an ROTC cadet, and an aspiring journalist. Her work in military journalism "drew [her] attention to the relationship between the military, mainstream media, and the masses" and the conflicts that arise from these relations. She states that "certain euphemisms, enthymemes, and logical fallacies are enlisted to partially obscure truths or convey strategically constructed messages," and this is the main idea that she draws from in her research paper.In her paper Howe explains each side of the argument: whether violence was being inflicted through skewed communications (language) or the public was being sheltered from violence in this way. The culmination of a semester's work with Dr. Heilker, her paper takes an objective stance toward her thesis, explaining the issues while simultaneously anticipating the counter argument.Howe first draws from everyday speech and common phrases that have an underlying connotation of destruction or violence. This example clearly explains to the reader that this is not only a problem in military communications, while also giving a simpler example to start off with. She then goes on to elaborate on euphemisms used in military communications, making examples of contemporary issues such as American operations against forces in Iraq and speeches made by former President George W. Bush.Not only does Howe bring contemporary issues into the spotlight, she turns back to America's past to display that this is not a newly-learned habit in our military communications. She asserts the euphemisms that are currently used were part of a generation-to-generation inheritance of common language, resulting in the current issue.Howe also offers criticism to this idea of institutionalized concealment in our language and as result, our media. She shows that language can deceive or reveal what is truly happening in our world. If we choose to use words that deliberately change the connotation of our communications, are we protecting our citizens or keeping them in the dark? It ultimately comes down to whether the public should know the movements and operations of our nation's military to its fullest extent. This subject is clearly open to further debate, but Elizabeth Howe offers a truly stellar piece of research to the table.
BASE
Public Space, Media Space asks how media saturation are transforming public space and our experience of it. From the role of graffiti and Youtube videos of street art in the Cairo revolution, to OOH (Out of Home) advertising, the book is diverse in its approach and global in its coverage
In: Adoption quarterly: innovations in community and clinical practice, theory, and research, Band 22, Heft 4, S. 247-264
ISSN: 1544-452X
In: Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities: JARID, Band 31, Heft 1
ISSN: 1468-3148
BackgroundThere is a need for mentoring interventions in which transition‐age youth and young adults with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities (I/DD) participate as both mentors and mentees. Project TEAM (Teens making Environment and Activity Modifications) is a problem‐solving intervention that includes an electronic peer‐mentoring component.MethodsForty‐two mentees and nine mentors with I/DD participated. The present authors analysed recorded peer‐mentoring calls and field notes for mentee engagement, mentor achievement of objectives and supports needed to implement peer mentoring.ResultsOverall, mentees attended 87% of scheduled calls and actively engaged during 94% of call objectives. Across all mentoring dyads, mentors achieved 87% of objectives and there was a significant relationship between the use of supports (mentoring script, direct supervision) and fidelity.ConclusionsTransition‐age mentees with I/DD can engage in electronic peer mentoring to further practice problem‐solving skills. Mentors with I/DD can implement electronic peer mentoring when trained personnel provide supports and individualized job accommodations.
In: Journal of the Society for Gynecologic Investigation: official publication of the Society for Gynecologic Investigation, Band 8, Heft 5, S. 285-290
ISSN: 1556-7117
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.
BASE
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.
BASE