Search

Objectives. To investigate the rate of manuscript submission to a major peer-reviewed journal (American Journal of Public Health) by gender, comparing periods before and during the pandemic. Methods. We used data from January 1 to May 12, 2020, and defined the start of the pandemic period by country as the first date of 50 or more confirmed cases. We used an algorithm to classify gender based on first name and nation of origin. We included authors whose gender could be estimated with a certainty of at least 95%. Results. Submission rates were higher overall during the pandemic compared with before. Increases were higher for submissions from men compared with women (41.9% vs 10.9% for corresponding author). For the United States, submissions increased 23.8% for men but only 7.9% for women. Women authored 29.4% of COVID-19–related articles. Conclusions. Our findings suggest that the pandemic exacerbated gender imbalances in scientific research.

There is a need for a paradigm shift across mental health in primary care to improve the lives of millions of Europeans. To contribute to this paradigm shift, the European Forum for Primary Care (EFPC-MH) working group for Mental Health, produced a Position Paper for Primary Care Mental Health outlining 14 themes that needed prioritizing. These themes were developed and discussed interactively during the EFPC conferences between 2012 and 2019. The Position Paper on Mental Health gives direction to the necessary improvements over the next ten years. The themes vary from preferable healthcare model to the social determinants highlighting issues such as inequalities. The Statement of Mental Health in Primary Care will be established in cooperation with fellow organizations. ispartof: Primary Health Care Research And Development vol:21 issue:e56 pages:1-8 ispartof: location:England status: published

The author starts with two key topics, i. e. digitalization and COVID-19 pandemic that makes impact on every sphere of human life and activity worldwide. The digitalization explosive development to change information, educational and library infrastructure has been not equal to expectations due to the pandemic and turned out to be different. However, the pandemic has stimulated digitization systems, Open access and open science. The author considers stable interest to ward reading, and printed books especially, to be “adigital era paradox”. He also points to stabilizing market of printed and electronic books. The no-less important topic is language ecology, or ecology of language, which cannot be interpreted exclusively as the fight for languagepurity; the author provides several examples of borrowings (Anglicisms) in the Russian language, which is increasingly evident due to digitalization. The modern digitalization facilitates targeted transition toward “the libraries of the future”, drives mainstream trends and goals on this way. The library collections, premises and working conditions during the pandemic are characterized. The pandemic also has exacerbated the problem of copyright transformation in the digital era. The author provides examples of legislative solutions in copyright in several countries and characterizes the Russia’s trends in copyright transformation in the digital world. The author concludes that, in the conditions of expanding digitalization and sustainable development, the libraries find themselves in the avant-garde as they support and effectually implement many sustainable development goals within the nation.

Digitalization of all spheres of society has brought significant changes in the practices and forms of reading in the XXI century. Along with the traditional (analog, reading from a paper), a new format of reading has appeared and widespread – digital format (computer, electronic, from screen). It changes the nature of the reader's interaction with the text, has potential opportunities (social reading) and risks (digital inequality). In this regard, the role of libraries (as well as cultural and educational institutions) in enculturation society to the new digital literacy and elimination of negative consequences of digital inequality is increasing. The purpose of the article is to study the specifics of the development of reading in the modern world, to ground characteristic features of reading from the paper and the screen. For this purpose, various points of view of scientists on the originality of reading activities in various formats, the effectiveness of perception of a printed and an electronic text are given; the results of research projects conducted in many countries of the world to identify the characteristics, opportunities, risks and prospects for the development of traditional and digital reading are analyzed and summarized. It is concluded that there have emerged and continue to evolve screen reading practices. Reading in the digital environment as a new way of contacts via electronic texts dynamically changes the communication environment, speeding up and simplifying consumer access to information, has many opportunities and advantages, and transforms reading skills and habits of society. Moreover, at a new technological stage of development, it revives social reading, intensifies digital inequality, leading to a secondary mental-­cognitive digital gap, and modifies personal reading experience of contemporaries.

Background Service providers throughout Europe have identified the need to define how high-quality community-based mental health care looks to organize their own services and to inform governments, commissioners and funders. In 2016, representatives of mental health care service providers, networks, umbrella organizations and knowledge institutes in Europe came together to establish the European Community Mental Health Services Provider (EUCOMS) Network. This network developed a shared vision on the principles and key elements of community mental health care in different contexts. The result is a comprehensive consensus paper, of which this position paper is an outline. With this paper the network wants to contribute to the discussion on how to improve structures in mental healthcare, and to narrow the gap between evidence, policy and practice in Europe. Main text The development of the consensus paper started with an expert workshop in April 2016. An assigned writing group representing the workshop participants built upon the outcomes of this meeting and developed the consensus paper with the input from 100 European counterparts through two additional work groups, and two structured feedback rounds via email. High quality community-based mental health care: 1) protects human rights; 2) has a public health focus; 3) supports service users in their recovery journey; 4) makes use of effective interventions based on evidence and client goals; 5) promotes a wide network of support in the community and; 6) makes use of peer expertise in service design and delivery. Each principle is illustrated with good practices from European service providers that are members of the EUCOMS Network. Conclusions Discussion among EUCOMS network members resulted in a blueprint for a regional model of integrated mental health care based upon six principles.

This paper provides empirical evidence that, after fiscal scandals, individuals substantially revise their views on redistribution. I exploit as a quasi-natural experiment the 2016 Panama Papers scandal which revealed top-income tax evasion behaviour simultaneously worldwide. The empirical investigation relies on two original sources of data: a longitudinal dataset on United Kingdom households and a survey conducted in twenty-two European countries. Using a difference-in-differences strategy, I find an increase in pro-redistribution statements post-scandal ranging between 2% and 3.3%. Responses are heterogeneous on income levels and on political affiliations, with larger responses from right-wing individuals. The change in redistribution preferences is moderately translated into votes: I find an increase in voting intentions for the left and negative for the right-wing parties. Complementary estimations at the European-level indicate that pro-redistribution responses increase with media coverage and shock intensity (i.e., number of individuals involved).

Gender disparities in scientific publications have been identified in oncological research. Oral research presentations at major conferences enhance visibility of presenters. The share of women presenting at such podia is unknown. We aim to identify gender‐based differences in contributions to presentations at two major oncological conferences. Abstracts presented at plenary sessions of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meetings and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congresses were collected. Trend analyses were used to analyze female contribution over time. The association between presenter's sex, study outcome (positive/negative) and journals' impact factors (IFs) of subsequently published papers was assessed using Chi‐square and Mann–Whitney U tests. Of 166 consecutive abstracts presented at ASCO in 2011–2018 (n = 34) and ESMO in 2008–2018 (n = 132), 21% had female presenters, all originating from Northern America (n = 17) or Europe (n = 18). The distribution of presenter's sex was similar over time (p = 0.70). Of 2,425 contributing authors to these presented abstracts, 28% were women. The proportion of female abstract authors increased over time (p, What's new? Presenting one's research at a conference is a great way to get your name and ideas heard within the professional community. In this study, the authors investigated how often women served as presenters at plenary sessions of ASCO Annual Meetings and ESMO Congresses. Looking through 166 abstracts over a period of 8 years, they found that 21% had female presenters, while 28% of study authors were female. Lack of visibility for female researchers at conferences can slow their career progress, and greater representation should be encouraged.

In this essay, I undertake a critical analysis of the UN-Habitat publication, The Quito Papers. I begin by unpacking the representation within The Quito Papers of the Charter of Athens of 1941 as an outcome of CIAM IV in 1933. Here, the ways in which the authors centralize the Charter of Athens within their critique of contemporary urbanization is critically analysed. Ultimately, I argue that what emerges is a simplification of the complex intertwining of urbanization and urbanist ideals. Based on this, I situate what is presented in The Quito Papers as alternative imaginaries?centred largely on European ideals of urbanism?within the context of urban change since the 1970s. This includes a discussion of the manner in which these ideals are promoted within urbanist discourse, including the role of the authors themselves in their engagement with UN-Habitat. Finally, I situate some of the arguments contained in The Quito Papers within current debates in urban theory. I contend that the relationship between processes of urbanization and the ideals of modernist urbanism are more genealogical than direct. Furthermore, I argue that it is through this relationship that broader power dynamics and their resultant inequalities can be further examined and challenged.

Purpose This paper aims to outline the context for social tourism as an approach that can help deliver societal goals, such as reducing inequalities, as well as benefits for deserving beneficiaries and the tourism industry. The paper highlights how social tourism can develop in the future. Design/methodology/approach The paper takes a conceptual approach to discuss these issues. Findings This paper finds that there is a great deal of potential for social tourism to contribute to the future sustainability in the tourism industry. Originality/value This paper provides a concise overview of the topic of social tourism and a model that can help researchers and other readers to understand the ways that social tourism can contribute towards a more sustainable and equitable tourism future.

Objectives: DETERMIND (DETERMinants of quality of life, care and costs, and consequences of INequalities in people with Dementia and their carers) is designed to address fundamental, and, as yet unanswered, questions about inequalities, outcomes and costs following diagnosis with dementia. These answers are needed to improve the quality of care and equity of access to care, and therefore the quality of life, of people with dementia and their carers.\ud \ud Method: DETERMIND is a programme of research consisting of seven complementary workstreams (WS) exploring various components that may result in unequal dementia care:\ud WS1: Recruitment and follow-up of the DETERMIND cohort - 900 people with dementia and their carers from three geographically and socially diverse sites within six months following diagnosis, and follow them up for three years.\ud WS2: Investigation of the extent of inequalities in access to dementia care\ud WS3: Relationship between use and costs of services and outcomes \ud WS4: Experiences of self-funders of care \ud WS5: Decision-making processes for people with dementia and carers\ud WS6: Effect of diagnostic stage and services on outcomes \ud WS7: Theory of Change informed strategy and actions for applying the research findings\ud \ud Outcomes: During the life of the programme, analysing baseline results and then follow-up of the DETERMIND cohort over 3 years, we will establish evidence on current services and practice. DETERMIND will deliver novel, detailed data on inequalities in dementia care and what drives positive and negative outcomes and costs for people with dementia and carers, and identify factors that help or hinder living well with dementia.

The exponential increase in the number of scientific publications raises the question of whether the sciences are expanding into a fractured structure, making cross-field communication difficult. On the other hand, scientists may be motivated to learn extensively across fields to enhance their innovative capacity, and this may offset the negative effects of fragmentation. Through an investigation of the distances within and clustering of cross-sectional citation networks, this study presents evidence that fields of science become more integrated over time. The average citation distance between papers published in the same year decreased from approximately 5.33 to 3.18 steps between 1950 and 2018. This observation is attributed to the growth of cross-field communication throughout the entire period as well as the growing importance of high impact papers to bridge networks in the same year. Three empirical findings support this conclusion. First, distances decreased between almost all disciplines throughout the time period. Second, inequality in the number of citations received by papers increased, and as a consequence the shortest paths in the network depend more on high impact papers later in the period. Third, the dispersion of connections between fields increased continually. Moreover, these changes did not entail a lower level of clustering of citations. Both within- and cross-field citations show a similar rate of slowly growing clustering values in all years. The latter findings suggest that domain spanning scholarly communication is partly enabled by new fields that connect disciplines.