Search

This paper argues that the convention of allocating donated gametes on a 'first come, first served' basis should be replaced with an allocation system that takes into account more morally relevant criteria than waiting time. This conclusion was developed using an empirical bioethics methodology, which involved a study of the views of 18 staff members from seven U.K. fertility clinics, and 20 academics, policy-makers, representatives of patient groups, and other relevant professionals, on the allocation of donated sperm and eggs. Against these views, we consider some nuanced ways of including criteria in a points allocation system. We argue that such a system is more ethically robust than 'first come, first served', but we acknowledge that our results suggest that a points system will meet with resistance from those working in the field. We conclude that criteria such as a patient's age, potentially damaging substance use, and parental status should be used to allocate points and determine which patients receive treatment and in what order. These and other factors should be applied according to how they bear on considerations like child welfare, patient welfare, and the effectiveness of the proposed treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: While screening uptake is variable, many individuals feel they 'ought' to participate in screening programmes to aid the detection of conditions amenable to early treatment. Those not taking part in screening are often presented as either hindered by practical or social barriers or personally at fault. Why some people choose not to participate receives less consideration. Methods: We explored screening nonparticipation by examining the accounts of participants who chose not to participate in screening offered by a national research trial of atrial fibrillation (AF) screening in England (SAFER: Screening for Atrial Fibrillation with ECG to Reduce stroke). AF is a heart arrhythmia that increases in prevalence with age and increases the risk of stroke. Systematic screening for AF is not a nationally adopted programme within the United Kingdom; it provides a unique opportunity to explore screening nonparticipation outside of the norms and values attached to existing population‐based screening programmes. We interviewed people aged over 65 (n = 50) who declined an invitation from SAFER and analysed their accounts thematically. Results: Beyond practical reasons for nonparticipation, interviewees challenged the utility of identifying and managing AF earlier. Many questioned the benefits of screening at their age. The trial's presentation of the screening as research made it feel voluntary—something they could legitimately decline. Conclusion: Nonparticipants were not resistant to engaging in health‐promoting behaviours, uninformed about screening or unsupportive of its potential benefits. Instead, their consideration of the perceived necessity, legitimacy and utility of this screening shaped their decision not to take part. Patient or Public Contribution: The SAFER programme is guided by four patient and carer representatives. The representatives are embedded within the team (e.g., one is a co‐applicant, another sits on the programme steering committee) and by participating in regular meetings advise on all aspects of the design, management and delivery of the programme, including engaging with interpreting and disseminating the findings. For the qualitative workstream, we established a supplementary patient and public involvement group with whom we regularly consult about research design questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We aimed to characterize the demographics of adults with dissociative (nonepileptic) seizures, placing emphasis on distribution of age at onset, male:female ratio, levels of deprivation, and dissociative seizure semiology. Methods: We collected demographic and clinical data from 698 adults with dissociative seizures recruited to the screening phase of the CODES (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy vs Standardised Medical Care for Adults With Dissociative Non‐Epileptic Seizures) trial from 27 neurology/specialist epilepsy clinics in the UK. We described the cohort in terms of age, age at onset of dissociative seizures, duration of seizure disorder, level of socioeconomic deprivation, and other social and clinical demographic characteristics and their associations. Results: In what is, to date, the largest study of adults with dissociative seizures, the overall modal age at dissociative seizure onset was 19 years; median age at onset was 28 years. Although 74% of the sample was female, importantly the male:female ratio varied with age at onset, with 77% of female but only 59% of male participants developing dissociative seizures by the age of 40 years. The frequency of self‐reported previous epilepsy was 27%; nearly half of these epilepsy diagnoses were retrospectively considered erroneous by clinicians. Patients with predominantly hyperkinetic dissociative seizures had a shorter disorder duration prior to diagnosis in this study than patients with hypokinetic seizures (P < .001); dissociative seizure type was not associated with gender. Predominantly hyperkinetic seizures were most commonly seen in patients with symptom onset in their late teens. Thirty percent of the sample reported taking antiepileptic drugs; this was more common in men. More than 50% of the sample lived in areas characterized by the highest levels of deprivation, and more than two‐thirds were unemployed. Significance: Females with dissociative seizures were more common at all ages, whereas the proportion of males increased with age at onset. This disorder was associated with socioeconomic deprivation. Those with hypokinetic dissociative seizures may be at risk for delayed diagnosis and treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vegetables are commonly rejected by children, making it is important to consider factors that are associated with children's fussiness with vegetables. The current study aimed to investigate whether fussiness with vegetables is associated with a number of factors including caregiver and child vegetable consumption; caregivers' general feeding practices; and caregivers' vegetable-specific feeding practices. Caregivers ( N = 297) of preschool children completed questionnaire measures of their child's fussiness with vegetables, as well as several caregiver and child factors hypothesised to be associated with children's fussiness with vegetables. Findings indicate that children who are fussier with vegetables consume a smaller quantity of vegetables and that almost all have caregivers who eat a smaller quantity of vegetables. Children's fussiness with vegetables was not significantly related to any general feeding practices used by caregivers. However, children's fussiness with vegetables was significantly associated with the use of several vegetable specific feeding practices. Caregivers of fussier children used more encouragement/pressure to eat with vegetables ( r = 0.14, p = .01), hid vegetables within other foods more often ( r = 0.30, p = <.01), used more food rewards for vegetable consumption ( r = 0.19, p <.01), more other rewards for vegetable consumption ( r = 0.21, p < .01), and compromised more when feeding vegetables ( r = 0.14, p = .01). These findings suggest that rather than caregivers' general feeding practices being related to children's fussiness with vegetables, the specific feeding practices used when vegetables are rejected are more significant. It may therefore be helpful to develop advice for caregivers about which feeding practices to avoid when faced with a child who is fussy about eating vegetables. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Tropical Medicine & International Health is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)