Standardised data on initiatives-STARDIT: Beta version.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is currently no standardised way to share information across disciplines about initiatives, including fields such as health, environment, basic science, manufacturing, media and international development. All problems, including complex global problems such as air pollution and pandemics require reliable data sharing between disciplines in order to respond effectively. Current reporting methods also lack information about the ways in which different people and organisations are involved in initiatives, making it difficult to collate and appraise data about the most effective ways to involve different people. The objective of STARDIT (Standardised Data on Initiatives) is to address current limitations and inconsistencies in sharing data about initiatives. The STARDIT system features standardised data reporting about initiatives, including who has been involved, what tasks they did, and any impacts observed. STARDIT was created to help everyone in the world find and understand information about collective human actions, which are referred to as 'initiatives'. STARDIT enables multiple categories of data to be reported in a standardised way across disciplines, facilitating appraisal of initiatives and aiding synthesis of evidence for the most effective ways for people to be involved in initiatives. This article outlines progress to date on STARDIT; current usage; information about submitting reports; planned next steps and how anyone can become involved. METHOD: STARDIT development is guided by participatory action research paradigms, and has been co-created with people from multiple disciplines and countries. Co-authors include cancer patients, people affected by rare diseases, health researchers, environmental researchers, economists, librarians and academic publishers. The co-authors also worked with Indigenous peoples from multiple countries and in partnership with an organisation working with Indigenous Australians. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Over 100 people from multiple disciplines and countries have been involved in co-designing STARDIT since 2019. STARDIT is the first open access web-based data-sharing system which standardises the way that information about initiatives is reported across diverse fields and disciplines, including information about which tasks were done by which stakeholders. STARDIT is designed to work with existing data standards. STARDIT data will be released into the public domain (CC0) and integrated into Wikidata; it works across multiple languages and is both human and machine readable. Reports can be updated throughout the lifetime of an initiative, from planning to evaluation, allowing anyone to be involved in reporting impacts and outcomes. STARDIT is the first system that enables sharing of standardised data about initiatives across disciplines. A working Beta version was publicly released in February 2021 (ScienceforAll.World/STARDIT). Subsequently, STARDIT reports have been created for peer-reviewed research in multiple journals and multiple research projects, demonstrating the usability. In addition, organisations including Cochrane and Australian Genomics have created prospective reports outlining planned initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: STARDIT can help create high-quality standardised information on initiatives trying to solve complex multidisciplinary global problems.

All major problems, including complex global problems such as air pollution and pandemics, require reliable data sharing between disciplines in order to respond effectively. Such problems require evidence-informed collaborative methods, multidisciplinary research and interventions in which the people who are affected are involved in every stage. However, there is currently no standardised way to share information about initiatives and problem-solving across and between fields such as health, environment, basic science, manufacturing, education, media and international development. A multi-disciplinary international team of over 100 citizens, experts and data-users has been involved in co-creating STARDIT to help everyone in the world share, find and understand information about collective human actions, which are referred to as 'initiatives'. STARDIT is an open access data-sharing system to standardise the way that information about initiatives is reported, including information about which tasks were done by different people. Reports can be updated at all stages, from planning to evaluation, and can report impacts in many languages, using Wikidata. STARDIT is free to use, and data can be submitted by anyone. Report authors can be verified to improve trust and transparency, and data checked for quality. STARDIT can help create high-quality standardised information on initiatives trying to solve complex multidisciplinary global problems. Among its main benefits, STARDIT offers those carrying out research and interventions access to standardised information which enables well-founded comparisons of the effectiveness of different methods. This article outlines progress to date; current usage; information about submitting reports; planned next steps and how anyone can become involved.

Designing Faith-Based Blood Pressure Interventions to Reach Young Black Men.

INTRODUCTION: This community-based participatory research pilot study explored multilevel perceptions and strategies for developing future faith-based organization blood pressure interventions for young black men. METHODS: Community partners recruited the sample through two, southeastern U.S. urban churches as potential intervention hubs; academic partners conducted phone interviews with church leader key informants, and three focus groups with black men aged 18-50 years. Qualitative content analysis helped generate themes from: key informant questions assessing organizational assets and capacities, and factors influencing participation; and focus group questions assessing lifestyle and self-management behaviors. Questions assessing themes on blood pressure intervention strategies were asked. Data were collected in 2016 and analyzed in 2016-2017. RESULTS: The sample included 21 key informants and 19 young black men. Key informants' leadership experience averaged 16.6 (SD=12.1) years and 28.6% were male. Focus group participants were primarily single (55.6%), college educated (61.1%), and employed (77.8%). Mean blood pressure was 131.1 (SD=15.3)/79.5 (SD=11.2) mmHg, 33.3% self-reported having hypertension, 88.9% report a family history of hypertension, and 88.9% see a provider annually. For key informants, young black men lack understanding of hypertension despite available resources, and pastors are important role models and advocates. For focus group participants, hidden sodium and stressful, busy schedules impact lifestyle behaviors; and church support for busy schedules are important. Common strategies included incentive-laden, activity-integrated programs, and male social context (testimonials, peer mentoring, engagement outside of the church). CONCLUSIONS: Findings and lessons learned will help design future community-based participatory research, faith-based organization-led blood pressure interventions relevant to young black men. SUPPLEMENT INFORMATION: This article is part of a supplement entitled African American Men's Health: Research, Practice, and Policy Implications, which is sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.

Delayed Migration and Perforation of the Jugular Vein by a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter.

We report a case of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) migration and perforation of the left internal jugular vein in a home health setting in an 80-year-old female. A left sided PICC was placed for treatment of diverticulitis following hospital discharge. She complained of sudden onset left sided neck pain immediately after starting an infusion of vancomycin. In the emergency department the injury was identified by portable chest radiograph and computed tomography of her neck. Following removal of the line, she had an uneventful course. Emergency physicians should be aware of this possible PICC line complication.

Gender issues in clinical dental education.

In spring 2011, a study was initiated to investigate the nature and extent of gender issues in clinical dental education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Dentistry. Surveys were sent to 236 dental students in the second, third, and fourth years; eighty-six (36.4 percent) responded. Surveys were also sent to seventy-one full-time dental faculty members who had clinical contact with students, and thirty-four (47.9 percent) responded. Of the student respondents, fifty-one were female and thirty-five were male; the faculty respondents were ten women and twenty-four men. A significantly greater proportion of female than male student respondents reported that issues related to gender affected clinical training. The female students also responded that mentorship was less available and less in content for them compared to males, and significantly more female than male students reported lower self-confidence in clinical settings. Among faculty respondents, a higher proportion of women than men reported insufficient awareness of gender issues. These faculty members also reported thinking that female students showed more empathy toward patients than males. Both faculty and student respondents said that female faculty members received less respect from students than did male faculty members. Forty-eight percent of the students reported experiencing or witnessing gender-based prejudice in clinical settings, and 7.0 percent reported experiencing or witnessing unwelcome sexual advances or conduct. A more robust study to include other dental institutions is needed. With confirmation of specific gender issues, corrective measures could be recommended to improve the climate for both females and males in the clinical component of dental education.

Warfarin knowledge in patients with atrial fibrillation: implications for safety, efficacy, and education strategies.

BACKGROUND: Multiple factors influence warfarin metabolism and can significantly affect the risk of adverse events. The extent to which patients understand the modifiable factors that impact on warfarin safety and efficacy is unclear. METHODS: A 52-item questionnaire related to knowledge of warfarin was administered to patients with atrial fibrillation in a face-to-face interview with a dietitian. Results were compiled based on five categories: general warfarin knowledge, compliance, drug interactions, herbal or vitamin interactions, and diet. RESULTS: 100 patients were surveyed. Stroke risk factors included hypertension (57%), heart failure (36%), age >75 years (33%), diabetes (22%), and prior stroke/transient ischemic attack (29%). The majority were either high-school (49%) or college graduates (27%). Ten (10%) had a stroke while on warfarin, 11 (11%) had a blood transfusion, and 26 (26%) had at least one fall. The percentages correct for questionnaire items in the five categories were as follows: general knowledge (62%), compliance (71%), drug interactions (17%), herbal or vitamin interactions (7%), and diet (23%). Neither education level nor duration of therapy correlated with warfarin knowledge. Patients at highest risk of stroke had very low knowledge scores in general. DISCUSSION: Patients on warfarin have a poor general understanding of the medication, particularly those at highest risk of stroke.

Treating perpetrators of child physical abuse: a review of interventions.

This systematic review analyzes eleven empirically based articles relevant to evaluating treatments and interventions for perpetrators of child physical abuse. The articles provide a clear picture of the limited research available in this area. The review describes current themes in research and interventions, common challenges in working with families in which child physical abuse has occurred, gaps in the current research, and suggestions for practice, policy, and future research.

Blindness and glaucoma: a comparison of patients progressing to blindness from glaucoma with patients maintaining vision.

PURPOSE: To compare patients becoming legally blind from glaucoma with those who did not go blind. DESIGN: Retrospective, cohort, and case-control study. METHODS: A retrospective community-based longitudinal study of residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, who were newly diagnosed with open-angle glaucoma between 1965 and 1980 and followed through 1998. A case-control study was performed comparing patients progressing to legal blindness from glaucoma with aged-matched and visual field-matched patients not progressing to blindness. RESULTS: Fifty-six of 290 patients progressed to legal blindness in at least one eye over the 34-year period of the study. Most who progressed to blindness had moderate to advanced visual field loss at the time of diagnosis of glaucoma. Those becoming legally blind had mean intraocular pressures (IOP) on therapy lower than or similar to patients who did not go blind, although the variability of IOP was higher in the blind group. Different susceptibilities to IOP were apparent, as some eyes with initially normal disks and visual fields became blind at an IOP of 20 mm, while others did not worsen. Changes in medical therapy after progression of visual field damage were less effective in lowering IOP in the group becoming blind than in the nonblind group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients at greatest risk of blindness had visual field loss at the time of diagnosis of glaucoma. Different susceptibilities to IOP were apparent, with some patients becoming blind at pressures that others tolerated without significant progression. This suggests that continued monitoring of visual fields and reassessment of target IOP levels when field damage occurs are fundamental in the management of glaucoma.