Search

Student borrowing is a major higher education public policy issue, with students in both England and the United States increasingly relying on loans to finance postsecondary education. Our paper examines prospective higher education students' attitudes towards debt in England and the United States. It exploits a unique dataset which allows us to compare students' responses to similar surveys conducted in both countries during the same time period. Our study is the first of its kind to explore how students' borrowing attitudes differ across the two countries. It confirms widespread loan aversion among prospective higher education students in both countries. But students in the United States are more debt averse than their peers in England. These debt averse attitudes also predict lower intentions to pursue higher education, potentially exacerbating existing inequalities in access. We consider how these attitudes to borrowing are likely shaped by each country's distinctive student loan system. We conclude that the design of loans matters. England's income‐contingent loan repayments, in contrast to North America's mortgage style repayments, make borrowing less risky and reduce the impact of loan aversion on participation decisions, while borrowing is more common, and the system less complicated, in England. Thus, there are lessons for other countries considering introducing student loans or reforming their provision. We contribute to the extant literature on the determinants of, and socioeconomic differences in, higher education participation and the overlooked role of student debt aversion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This integrative review aimed to understand the impact of nursing on the health outcomes of people with opioid use disorder (OUD). Methods: Whittemore and Knafl's (2005) integrative review methodology guided the review process. The authors searched PubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and OVID databases for peer‐reviewed, English language articles describing nursing care for people receiving medications for OUD. The literature search followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: A total of 773 articles were identified through the database searches after duplicates were removed; 15 articles met inclusion criteria and were included in the final review from the United States, Canada, Ireland, England, and the Netherlands. Two themes emerged: (1) The effect of nurse‐led care on patient outcomes and (2) Nursing roles and the environment of care. Studies emphasized the aspects of nursing care that promote patient‐centeredness and patient satisfaction. Conclusions: The importance of the registered nurse in providing quality care for people receiving medications for OUD is clear from the literature reviewed. The studies in the review highlighted important aspects of the registered nurses' role in affecting outcomes for people receiving medications for OUD including communication and care coordination. Clinical relevance: This review highlights the need for role delineation and further development of nurse‐sensitive indicators in the OUD treatment setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current study aimed to explore the factors that influence how social workers make decisions and develop their decision‐making skills in care proceedings, and to identify effective support and intervention to develop social worker decision‐making skills. The study employed a mixed thematic approach across two phases of study: an initial inductive thematic analysis of responses to an online qualitative questionnaire and then a mixed thematic analysis of follow‐up focus groups and interviews with social workers working in various social work roles within England and Northern Ireland. The findings identified a number of themes that help to understand the decision‐making skills of social workers; thorough assessment skills, relationship‐based anti‐oppressive practice, being mindful of the lived experience of the child and using critical reflection to make complex decisions. Wider structural factors that support or hinder decision‐making, particularly in respect of organizational support and management supervision were also identified. Social workers can be supported to develop decision‐making skills through additional training, reflective learning and management support to develop their practice wisdom within this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Most population studies that evaluate the relationship between nicotine vaping and cigarette cessation focus on limited segments of the smoker population. We evaluated vaping uptake and smoking cessation considering differences in smokers' plans to quit. Design: Longitudinal International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Smoking and Vaping Surveys were conducted in 2016, 2018 and 2020. Setting: This study was conducted in the United States, Canada, England and Australia. Participants: Participants of this study were adult daily cigarette smokers who had not vaped in the past 6 months at baseline and had participated in two or more consecutive waves of the ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Surveys (n = 2815). Measurements Plans to quit cigarette smoking was assessed at baseline (within 6 months, beyond 6 months, not planning to quit) and at follow‐up (within 6 months vs not within 6 months), cigarette smoking cessation was assessed at follow‐up (smoking less than monthly [including complete cessation] vs daily/weekly/monthly smoking) and inter‐wave vaping uptake was assesed between baseline and follow‐up (none, only non‐daily vaping and any daily vaping). Generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate whether inter‐wave vaping uptake was associated with smoking cessation at follow‐up and with planning to quit at follow‐up, each stratified by plans to quit smoking at baseline. Findings Overall, 12.7% of smokers quit smoking. Smokers not initially planning to quit within 6 months experienced higher odds of smoking cessation when they took up daily vaping (32.4%) versus no vaping (6.8%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 8.58; 95% CI, 5.06–14.54). Among smokers planning to quit, smoking cessation rates were similar between those who did and did not take up daily vaping (25.1% vs 16.8%; AOR, 1.91; 95% CI, 0.91–4.00), although we could not account for potential use of cessation aids. Daily vaping uptake was associated with planning to quit smoking at follow‐up among those initially not planning to quit (AOR,6.32; 95% CI, 4.17–9.59). Conclusions: Uptake of nicotine vaping appears to be strongly associated with cigarette smoking cessation among smokers with no initial plans to quit smoking. Excluding smokers not planning to quit from studies on vaping and smoking cessation may underestimate potential benefit of daily vaping for daily smokers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To examine whether polyuse of cigarettes and other smoked products (polysmoking) is predictive of quit attempts and quit success. Design: A prospective multi‐country cohort design. Setting: Australia, Canada, England and the United States. Participants: A total of 3983 adult daily cigarette smokers were surveyed in 2016 (wave 1 of data collection) and were re‐contacted in 2018 (wave 2) (i.e. waves 1–2 cohort) in the International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping (ITC 4CV) surveys; and 3736 smokers were surveyed in 2018 and re‐contacted in 2020 (wave 3) (i.e. waves 2–3 cohort). Measurements Participants were asked about their cigarette smoking and use of cigars, cigarillos, pipes and waterpipes. Outcomes were quit attempts between two survey waves and success, defined as having quit smoking all the combustible tobacco at the subsequent survey for 1 month or more. Findings Levels of polysmoking were 12.7% in the waves 1–2 cohort and 10.5% for the waves 2–3 cohort. Compared with cigarette‐only smokers, polysmokers were more likely to attempt to quit between waves 1 and 2 [54.9 versus 42.7%, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.08–1.74, P < 0.01], but not between waves 2 and 3 (43.8 versus 40.1%, aOR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.72–1.22). Polysmoking predicted reduced likelihood of success in both cohorts among attempters and the overall samples. Between waves 2 and 3 there were significantly more transitions to non‐daily smoking among the polysmokers (12.4 versus 5.3%, χ2 = 40.4, P < 0.001). Conclusions: There is a consistent association between polysmoking (use of cigarettes together with other smoked products) and reduced quit success for combustible tobacco, but it is probably due to increased likelihood of transitioning to non‐daily use rather than complete cessation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy PointsThe number of social prescribing practices, which aim to link patients with nonmedical services and supports to address patients' social needs, is increasing in both England and the United States.Traditional health care financing mechanisms were not designed to support social prescribing practices, and flexible payment approaches may not support their widespread adoption.Policymakers in both countries are shifting toward developing explicit financing streams for social prescribing programs. Consequently, we need an evaluation of them to assess their success in supporting both the acceptance of these programs and their impacts.Investment in community‐based organizations and wider public services will likely be crucial to both the long‐term effectiveness and the sustainability of social prescribing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare patterns of technological adoption of minimally invasive surgery for radical prostatectomy across the United States and England. Data Sources: We examine radical prostatectomy in the United States and England between 2005 and 2017, using de‐identified administrative claims data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse in the United States and the Hospital Episodes Statistics in England. Study Design: We conducted a longitudinal analysis of robotic, laparoscopic, and open surgery for radical prostatectomy. We compared the trends of adoption over time within and across countries. Next, we explored whether differential adoption patterns in the two health systems are associated with differences in volumes and patient characteristics. Finally, we explored the relationship between these adoption patterns and length of stay, 30‐day readmission, and urology follow‐up visits. Data Collection: Open, laparoscopic, and robotic radical prostatectomies are identified using Office of Population Censuses and Surveys Classification of Interventions and Procedures (OPCS) codes in England and International Classification of Diseases ninth revision (ICD9), ICD10, and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes in the United States. Principal Findings: We identified 66,879 radical prostatectomies in England and 79,358 in the United States during 2005–2017. In both countries, open surgery dominates until 2009, where it is overtaken by minimally invasive surgery. The adoption of robotic surgery is faster in the United States. The adoption rates and, as a result, the observed centralization of volume, have been different across countries. In both countries, patients undergoing radical prostatectomies are older and have more comorbidities. Minimally invasive techniques show decreased length of stay and 30‐day readmissions compared to open surgery. In the United States, robotic approaches were associated with lower length of stay and readmissions when compared to laparoscopic. Conclusions: Robotic surgery has become the standard approach for radical proctectomy in the United States and England, showing decreased length of stay and in 30‐day readmissions compared to open surgery. Adoption rates and specialization differ across countries, likely a product of differences in cost‐containment efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Ball State University Center for Peace and Conflict Studies in the United States has compiled altruistic stories from different countries such as India, Australia, the United States, and England since the onset of the COVID‐19 pandemic. We examined those stories to understand (1) who receives the most support, (2) what type of support is provided, (3) who those supporters are, and (4) why people support each other during the pandemic. Conducting a qualitative content analysis of 104 altruistic stories, we first identified that (a) older individuals , (b) people with sensitive health conditions, and disabilities, (c) frontline workers, and (d) working class and marginalized communities received the primary support. Second, we identified three types of support: (a) material, (b) social/emotional, and (c) psychological. Third, we found that support was coming from (a) different organizations, (b) advantaged groups, and (c) volunteers. Last, (a) sharing a community/humanity identity, (b) allyship, and (c) showing gratitude were the reasons behind altruistic and prosocial behavior. Our findings contribute to the literature by providing some possible reasons and ways that allies have supported disadvantaged communities via sharing the available resources and how showing gratitude can be a reason for altruism and prosocial behavior in a pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]