La opinión pública colombiana sobre el acuerdo de paz 2016-2020: punitivismo, desconfianza y ostracismo / Colombian public opinion on the 2016-2020 peace agreement: punitivism, distrust and ostracism / Opinião pública colombiana sobre o acordo de paz de 2016-2020: punitivismo, desconfiança e ostracismo

Después de varias décadas de conflicto armado en Colombia, el Gobierno colombiano y las Farc-EP firmaron, en 2016, el Acuerdo Final para la terminación del conflicto y la construcción de una paz estable y duradera. No obstante, este acuerdo no fue refrendado por la ciudadanía, en un plebiscito celebrado ese mismo año. En 2018, ganó las elecciones presidenciales un candidato que prometió cambiar las condiciones del Acuerdos Final y modificar uno de sus principales instrumentos: la Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz (JEP). En ese contexto esta investigación se pregunta: ¿cuál es la opinión de los colombianos sobre el Acuerdo Final y la JEP? La investigación indaga en las opiniones de los colombianos a través de un análisis estadístico comparativo de tres encuestas de opinión de 2016, 2018 y 2020. Los resultados detallan los cambios actitudinales ocurridos en esos años, como la disminución del rechazo frontal a los Acuerdos de Paz y el leve incremento de las posibilidades de reintegración de los excombatientes a la vida civil. También, expone algunas reticencias al cambio, como la desconfianza persistente, la reafirmación del rechazo al indulto de los excombatientes (punitivismo) y a su participación política (ostracismo).

After several decades of armed conflict in Colombia, the Colombian Government and the Farc-EP signed, in 2016, the Final Agreement for the termination of the conflict and the construction of a stable and lasting peace. However, this agreement was not endorsed by the citizenry, in a plebiscite held that same year. In 2018, the presidential elections were won by a candidate who promised to change the conditions of the Final Agreement and to modify one of its main instruments: the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP). In this context, this research asks: what is the opinion of Colombians on the Final Agreement and the SJP? The research inquiries into the opinions of Colombians through a comparative statistical analysis of three opinion polls from 2016, 2018 and 2020. The results detail the attitudinal changes that occurred in those years, such as the decrease in the frontal rejection of the Peace Accords and the slight increase in the possibilities of reintegration of ex-combatants to civilian life. It also exposes some reluctance to change, such as persistent distrust, the reaffirmation of the rejection of pardoning ex-combatants (punitivism) and their political participation (ostracism).

Após várias décadas de conflito armado na Colômbia, o governo colombiano e as FARC-EP assinaram, em 2016, o Acordo Final para o fim do conflito e a construção de uma paz estável e duradoura. Entretanto, este acordo não foi endossado pelos cidadãos em um plebiscito realizado no mesmo ano. Em 2018, as eleições presidenciais foram ganhas por um candidato que prometeu mudar as condições do Acordo Final e modificar um de seus principais instrumentos: a Jurisdição Especial para a Paz (JEP). Neste contexto, esta pesquisa pergunta: qual é a opinião dos colombianos sobre o Acordo Final e o SJP? A pesquisa investiga as opiniões dos colombianos através de uma análise estatística comparativa de três pesquisas de opinião de 2016, 2018 e 2020. Os resultados detalham as mudanças de atitude que ocorreram nesses anos, tais como a diminuição da rejeição direta dos Acordos de Paz e o leve aumento das possibilidades de reintegração de ex-combatentes na vida civil. Também expõe alguma relutância em mudar, como a desconfiança persistente, a reafirmação da rejeição do perdão de ex-combatentes (punitivismo) e de sua participação política (ostracismo).

Therapeutic approaches to pediatric COVID-19: an online survey of pediatric rheumatologists.

Data on therapy of COVID-19 in immunocompetent and immunosuppressed children are scarce. We aimed to explore management strategies of pediatric rheumatologists. All subscribers to international Pediatric Rheumatology Bulletin Board were invited to take part in an online survey on therapeutic approaches to COVID-19 in healthy children and children with autoimmune/inflammatory diseases (AID). Off-label therapies would be considered by 90.3% of the 93 participating respondents. In stable patients with COVID-19 on oxygen supply (stage I), use of remdesivir (48.3%), azithromycin (26.6%), oral corticosteroids (25.4%) and/or hydroxychloroquine (21.9%) would be recommended. In case of early signs of "cytokine storm" (stage II) or in critically ill patients (stage III) (a) anakinra (79.5% stage II; 83.6% stage III) or tocilizumab (58.0% and 87.0%, respectively); (b) corticosteroids (oral 67.2% stage II, intravenously 81.7% stage III); (c) intravenous immunoglobulins (both stages 56.5%); or (d) remdesivir (both stages 46.7%) were considered. In AID, > 94.2% of the respondents would not support a preventive adaptation of the immunomodulating therapy. In case of mild COVID-19, more than 50% of the respondents would continue pre-existing treatment with immunoglobulins (100%), hydroxychloroquine (94.2%), anakinra (79.2%) or canakinumab (72.5%), or tocilizumab (69.8%). Long-term corticosteroids would be reduced by 26.9% (< = 2 mg/kg/d) and 50.0% (> 2 mg/kg/day), respectively, with only 5.8% of respondents voting to discontinue the therapy. Conversely, more than 75% of respondents would refrain from administering cyclophosphamide and anti-CD20-antibodies. As evidence on management of pediatric COVID-19 is incomplete, continuous and critical expert opinion and knowledge exchange is helpful.

Questionnaire survey on cardiologists' view and management of coronary microvascular disease in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the opinion of Dutch cardiologists on coronary microvascular disease (CMD) and its management in clinical practice, and to assess the need for a CMD guideline among Dutch cardiologists. METHODS: We developed an online questionnaire including different aspects of CMD which was reviewed by an expert panel. The questionnaire was distributed by e­mail among all members of the Dutch Society of Cardiology. RESULTS: A total of 103 cardiologists (70% male) completed the questionnaire (response rate: 10%). Median age and years of experience as a cardiologist were 49 ± 15 and 12 ± 12 years, respectively. Overall, 93% of the cardiologists had considered the CMD diagnosis, 85% had ever made such a diagnosis, 90% had treated a patient with CMD, and 61% had referred patients to tertiary care. The median (interquartile range) self-rated knowledge level was 7.0 (2.0) (scale of 0-10). 84% rated their knowledge as sufficient (>5.5) and 58% viewed CMD as a disease entity. Overall, 61% and 17%, respectively, agreed that evidence-based diagnostic and treatment modalities for CMD do not exist, while 56% believed that CMD patients have a higher risk for cardiovascular disease and mortality. Finally, 82% of the responders stated that a CMD guideline is needed, and 91% wanted to receive the guideline once developed. DISCUSSION: Fifty-eight per cent of the responders recognise CMD as a separate disease entity. Our study underscores the need for a dedicated CMD guideline for Dutch cardiology practice. However, the response rate was low (10%), and it is likely that mainly cardiologists interested in CMD have participated in our study.

Measuring the Prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experiences by Survey Research Methods.

Background: Child maltreatment has been firmly established as a fundamental risk factor for adult health. However, its quantification poses many questions methodologically, psychologically, and culturally alike. We carried out the first nationally representative survey research in Hungary and in Central⁻Eastern Europe to assess the prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) among adults. Methods: Data were collected by an opinion research company using a screening tool of the Adverse Childhood Experiences study. Results: 25% (n = 293) of adults reported any childhood adversity; 5% (n = 59) of them had four or more ACEs. The most prevalent forms of child maltreatment were emotional (5%, n = 59) and physical abuse (5%, n = 59), sexual abuse (1%, n = 12) being the least prevalent. The most frequent dysfunctional household condition was parental divorce or separation (13%, n = 153), followed by household substance abuse (11%, n = 129). Conclusions: Nationally representative surveys on ACEs found a range of overall prevalence of various forms of child maltreatment between 14.1 and 35.2% into which our results fall. Nevertheless, our survey most likely underestimates the prevalence of child maltreatment in Hungary, reflecting the impact of a host of factors influencing awareness. Survey research methods are appropriate to obtain nationally representative data on child maltreatment that not only contribute to designing interventions but can also be used to monitor the effectiveness of interventions to improve child and adult health in the long run.

Public Views of Health Insurance in Japan During the Era of Attaining Universal Health Coverage: A Secondary Analysis of an Opinion Poll on Health Insurance in 1967.

While Japan's success in achieving universal health insurance over a short period with controlled healthcare costs has been studied from various perspectives, that of beneficiaries have been overlooked. We conducted a secondary analysis of an opinion poll on health insurance in 1967, immediately after reaching universal coverage. We found that people continued to face a slight barrier to healthcare access (26.8% felt medical expenses were a heavy burden) and had high expectations for health insurance (60.5% were satisfied with insured medical services and 82.4% were willing to pay a premium). In our study, younger age, having children before school age, lower living standards, and the health insurance scheme were factors that were associated with a willingness to pay premiums. Involving high-income groups in public insurance is considered to be the key to ensuring universal coverage of social insurance.

Attitudes towards assisted dying are influenced by question wording and order: a survey experiment.

BACKGROUND: Surveys on attitudes towards assisted dying play an important role in informing public debate, policy and legislation. Unfortunately, surveys are often designed with insufficient attention to framing effects; that is, effects on the respondents' stated attitudes caused by question wording and context. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate and measure such framing effects. METHODS: Survey experiment in which an eight-question survey on attitudes towards assisted dying was distributed to Norwegian citizens through a web-based panel. Two variations of question wording as well as two variations of question order were employed. Respondents were randomized to receive one of four questionnaire versions. RESULTS: Three thousand and fifty responses were received. There were moderate to large question wording and question order effects. A majority of Norwegian citizens favour the legalization of assisted dying for patients with terminal or chronic disease. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders in the assisted dying debate need to acknowledge potential framing effects, and accordingly should interpret survey results with caution. The same holds for researchers who conduct attitude surveys in the field of bioethics.

Regulating wild boar populations is "somebody else's problem"! - Human dimension in wild boar management.

As a part of the ongoing game survey of the German federal state of Lower Saxony (WTE), we conducted inquiries into wild boar management and distribution, as well as hunters' attitudes, in order to determine the reasons for the increase of wild boar populations and to inform our game management strategy. According to hunters' reports within the WTE, increases in distribution and population continue and a reduction of the wild boar population has been deemed necessary on a large scale. In the home region, however, it seems to be "somebody else's problem" (SEP), according to hunters' opinions. The majority of hunters are not able to regulate the population and this could be a reason that wild boar numbers continue to increase. Cooperation and comprehensive hunting with efficient hunting methods seems to be the most promising solution, as non-hunting methods are unpopular amongst hunters. The hunters seem to be aware of the problems, solutions and contributing factors; however, most hunters do not feel responsible and see the management of wild boar, again, as a SEP. Regional conditions, as well as hunters' willingness and capacity to manage wild boar will have to be incorporated into management concepts.

Prohibiting Headgear for Safety in Amateur Boxing? Opinion of the Canadian Boxing Community: an Online Poll.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, the Amateur International Boxing Association (AIBA) introduced a rule banning headgear for male-senior open class boxers during competition. The AIBA has defended the rule change as motivated by safety and supported by internal unpublished studies. As a result, in 2018, the AIBA plans to universally prohibit headgear in competition: for all competitors (male and female), all ages and all levels. Within Canada, this ruling has generated controversy in the boxing community, yet there has been no overall measure of opinion. METHODS: To address this, we instituted a voluntary, anonymous, online open-access poll to allow members of the boxing community to express their stance on headgear use in competition. RESULTS: In total, 636 responses were received. A total of 71.5 % of Canadian respondents believed headgear should be mandatory at all levels. Only 5.8 % agreed that headgear should be prohibited, as planned for 2018. Estimating results on a representative breakdown of boxing membership in Canada, a similar pattern emerged, whereby 68.2 % concurred with mandatory headgear while only 4.95 % supported its prohibition. Parents of boxers were almost unanimously against banning headgear, stating they would change sports as a result. Similarly, only 1.7 % of women believed headgear should be prohibited. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus of the Canadian boxing community largely opposes the rule changes that the AIBA has implemented. The results highlight risks posed to the long-term viability of the sport, if significant grassroots safety concerns are disregarded.

Public Opinions Regarding Advanced Dental Hygiene Practitioners in a High-Need State.

Purpose: The new Advanced Dental Hygiene Practitioner (ADHP) profession is expected to increase access to oral health care for the general population, particularly in rural and underserved areas. In order for this strategy to be successful, the public must feel comfortable with the care provided by ADHPs and seek out their services, yet consumer receptivity has been overlooked in the literature. The current study explores comfort with ADHPs for one high-need state: Kentucky.Methods: Consumer receptivity to the ADHP was assessed using a large, random sample telephone survey. As a point of comparison, respondents were first asked about their comfort with care provided by two other advanced practice clinicians already licensed in the state: advanced practice registered nurses (APRN) and physician assistants (PA).Results: After hearing a brief description of the profession, nearly 3 in 4 Kentucky adults said they would be somewhat (35.4%) or very (38.2%) comfortable seeing an ADHP for routine dental care. The total proportion of Kentucky adults who were comfortable seeking care from an ADHP (73.6%) was slightly less than the proportion indicating comfort seeing an APRN (79.7%) or PA (81.3%).Conclusion: Overall, this study demonstrates that adults are receptive to new models of care delivery and report high levels of comfort with ADHPs. Consumer concerns are unlikely to be a barrier to expanded licensure for dental hygienists in high-need areas like Kentucky.

Assessing views about gun violence reduction policy: a look at type of violence and expected effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE: Public opinion polling about gun policy is routinely conducted and often disregarded. The purpose of this research is to explore ways in which surveys can be made more useful to policy makers, researchers, and the general public. METHODS: A stratified random sample of 1000 undergraduates at a private, urban university was recruited for an online survey about proposed gun policies. A total of 51.7% answered the questions analyzed herein. Including but going beyond typical assessments of agreement, the survey elicited respondent evaluations of the effectiveness of seven gun policies under two randomly assigned conditions: the type of gun violence (e.g., homicide, suicide, violent crime) and its magnitude. Participants were asked to estimate the effectiveness of each policy, including the possibility of making things worse. RESULTS: Participants indicated strong support for all policies and expected each to be effective with one exception - a policy designed to increase the number of guns on the scene, that is, putting armed police in schools. Persons who did not support other policies, on average, did not expect them to make things worse. Telling participants about the scope of the violence did not but the type of gun violence did affect effectiveness ratings. CONCLUSIONS: Asking about expected effectiveness of (vs. general support for) a policy might identify some optimism: Even people who don't support a policy sometimes think it will be effective. Findings suggest that surveys about the effectiveness of gun violence policies likely assess views that exclude suicide, the most common form of gun-related mortality.

Brazilians have different views on when abortion should be legal, but most do not agree with imprisoning women for abortion.

Unsafe abortions remain a major public health problem in countries with very restrictive abortion laws. In Brazil, parliamentarians - who have the power to change the law - are influenced by "public opinion", often obtained through surveys and opinion polls. This paper presents the findings from two studies. One was carried out in February-December 2010 among 1,660 public servants and the other in February-July 2011 with 874 medical students from three medical schools, both in São Paulo State, Brazil. Both groups of respondents were asked two sets of questions to obtain their opinion about abortion: 1) under which circumstances abortion should be permitted by law, and 2) whether or not women in general and women they knew who had had an abortion should be punished with prison, as Brazilian law mandates. The differences in their answers were enormous: the majority of respondents were against putting women who have had abortions in prison. Almost 60% of civil servants and 25% of medical students knew at least one woman who had had an illegal abortion; 85% of medical students and 83% of civil servants thought this person(s) should not be jailed. Brazilian parliamentarians who are currently reviewing a reform in the Penal Code need to have this information urgently.

An opinion poll regarding the national licensure examination for clinical instructors and trainees within 2 years of passing the examination / 医学教育

We sent questionnaires to clinical instructors and trainees within 2 years of the latter passing the national licensure examination for medical practitioners to investigate their opinions about the examination and to improve its style. Most instructors wanted to change the examination into an ideal style; however, the trainees had positive comments about the present examination. Several problems came to light, including whether the present examination is asking the minimum requirements for initial training and what the necessary actions are for assessing clinical skills. We must take measures to improve the examination.

Public perceptions of climate change as a human health risk: surveys of the United States, Canada and Malta.

We used data from nationally representative surveys conducted in the United States, Canada and Malta between 2008 and 2009 to answer three questions: Does the public believe that climate change poses human health risks, and if so, are they seen as current or future risks? Whose health does the public think will be harmed? In what specific ways does the public believe climate change will harm human health? When asked directly about the potential impacts of climate change on health and well-being, a majority of people in all three nations said that it poses significant risks; moreover, about one third of Americans, one half of Canadians, and two-thirds of Maltese said that people are already being harmed. About a third or more of people in the United States and Canada saw themselves (United States, 32%; Canada, 67%), their family (United States, 35%; Canada, 46%), and people in their community (United States, 39%; Canada, 76%) as being vulnerable to at least moderate harm from climate change. About one third of Maltese (31%) said they were most concerned about the risk to themselves and their families. Many Canadians said that the elderly (45%) and children (33%) are at heightened risk of harm, while Americans were more likely to see people in developing countries as being at risk than people in their own nation. When prompted, large numbers of Canadians and Maltese said that climate change can cause respiratory problems (78-91%), heat-related problems (75-84%), cancer (61-90%), and infectious diseases (49-62%). Canadians also named sunburn (79%) and injuries from extreme weather events (73%), and Maltese cited allergies (84%). However, climate change appears to lack salience as a health issue in all three countries: relatively few people answered open-ended questions in a manner that indicated clear top-of-mind associations between climate change and human health risks. We recommend mounting public health communication initiatives that increase the salience of the human health consequences associated with climate change.

An analysis of opinion polls for family medicine specialists on the implementation of family doctor registration system in Korea

BACKGROUND: Since the Independence in 1945, the Republic of Korea (ROK) has maintained fundamentally the liberal health care system by the influence of U.S.A. Therefore, as in the case of U.S.A., the primary health care system of ROK has fallen in the chaos. Recently, the new government of ROK seems to retry the introduction of 'Family Doctor Registration System (FDRS)' in spite of the 1996's failure. In order to conduct FDRS efficiently, there should be a thorough investigation on the opinions of doctors and people in the community. This study was conducted with a view to collecting necessary information regarding the implementation of FDRS. METHODS: By mailing, the self-administered questionnaires were collected twice during March 18 to May 12 in 1998. The questionnaire had been prepared through several discussions, pretest, and final correction by five family physicians and two health care policy professors. The subjects consisted of 2,093 family physicians. RESULTS: Though the overall response rate was only 28.2% (591) subjects, age distribution for the study subjects was similar to that of average family physicians. The subjects consisted of 451 males and 138 females. The number of those whose age was less than 40 was 49.9% (195). "The group that agrees with the introduction of FDRS" was 58.5% of all respondents; "the group that objects 14.4%; and the group undetermined" 24.7%. The 73.6% of all respondents had negative opinion on increased administrative work. Only 21.3% expected their net income to increase. On multiple logistic regression analysis, relatively large city rather than metropolitan Seoul, the smaller number of visiting patients a month, regular resident training experience, and male sex resulted in having a significant positive relationship with the introduction of FDRS. Further analyses are called for to identify differences of opinions between family physicians and single specialty medical practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this survey should be reflected into the health care policy when retrying to implement FDRS in Korea.