Project description:Raw metagenomic sequences of the he WELCOME (WEilL COrnell Medicine Employees) (protocol number IRB# 20-04021831) trial conducted at Weill Cornell Medicine (WCM) and New York Presbyterian Hospital (NYP)
Project description:BackgroundElder mistreatment is common and has serious social and medical consequences for victims. Though programs to combat this mistreatment have been developed and implemented for more than three decades, previous systematic literature reviews have found few successful ones.ObjectiveTo conduct a more comprehensive examination of programs to improve elder mistreatment identification, intervention, or prevention, including those that had not undergone evaluation.DesignSystematic review.SettingOvid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO Elton B. Stephens Co. (EBSCO), AgeLine, CINAHL.MeasurementsWe abstracted key information about each program and categorized programs into 14 types and 9 subtypes. For programs that reported an impact evaluation, we systematically assessed the study quality. We also systematically examined the potential for programs to be successfully implemented in environments with limited resources available.ResultsWe found 116 articles describing 115 elder mistreatment programs. Of these articles, 43% focused on improving prevention, 50% focused on identification, and 95% focused on intervention, with 66% having multiple foci. The most common types of program were: educational (53%), multidisciplinary team (MDT) (21%), psychoeducation/therapy/counseling (15%), and legal services/support (8%). Of the programs, 13% integrated an acute-care hospital, 43% had high potential to work in low-resource environments, and 57% reported an attempt to evaluate program impact, but only 2% used a high-quality study design.ConclusionMany programs to combat elder mistreatment have been developed and implemented, with the majority focusing on education and MDT development. Though more than half reported evaluation of program impact, few used high-quality study design. Many have the potential to work in low-resource environments. Acute-care hospitals were infrequently integrated into programs.
Project description:Europe recently experienced a large influx of refugees, spurring much public debate about the admission and integration of refugees and migrants into society. Previous research based on cross-sectional data found that European citizens generally favour asylum seekers with high employability, severe vulnerabilities, and Christians over Muslims. These preferences and attitudes were found to be homogeneous across countries and socio-demographic groups. Here, we do not study the general acceptance of asylum seekers, but the acceptance of refugee and migrant homes in citizens' vicinity and how it changes over time. Based on a repeated stated choice experiment on preferences for refugee and migrant homes, we show that the initially promoted "welcome culture" towards refugees in Germany was not reflected in the views of a majority of a sample of German citizens who rather disapproved refugee homes in their vicinity. Their preferences have not changed between November 2015, the peak of "welcome culture," and November 2016, after political debates, media reporting and public discourse had shifted towards limiting admission of immigrants. A minority of one fifth of the sample population, who were initially rather approving of refugee and migrant homes being established in their vicinity, were more likely to change their preferences towards a rather disapproving position in 2016. Experience of contact with refugees and migrants, higher education, and general pro-immigration attitudes explain acceptance of refugee and migrant homes as well as preference stability over time. Country of origin and religion of refugees and migrants are considered less important than decent housing conditions and whether refugee and migrants arrive as families or single persons. In this respect our results highlight the importance of humanitarian aspects of sheltering and integration of refugees and other migrants into society.
Project description:IntroductionIn July 2018, a new federal mandate by the Department of Housing and Urban Development went into effect requiring all US public housing authorities to implement policies banning smoking in living units, indoor common areas, administrative buildings, and outdoor areas within 25 feet of these buildings. Although some housing authorities had smoke-free policies in place for decades, others had to implement them for the first time. Housing authorities continue to face challenges in ensuring compliance with these policies, and resident perspectives can greatly inform measures to promote adherence.Aims and methodsWe conducted in-person interviews with 20 New York City Housing Authority tenants in April 2018. Our thematic analysis examined resident opinions on the upcoming smoke-free housing policy.ResultsAlthough 65% of residents supported the policy, 50% anticipated poor adherence due to expected lack of enforcement, safety issues with smoking outdoors, and general discontent with the housing authority and living conditions. However, many participants felt adherence could be improved if the housing authority optimized resource-provision and communication with tenants.ConclusionsOur study adds to existing literature examining tenant views on the controversial topic of mandatory smoke-free housing policies, and our interviews were conducted at a unique time prior to policy implementation in the country's largest public housing authority. Based on our results, we provide recommendations for housing authorities including: (1) information and resource-provision, (2) safety enhancement, and (3) relationship building with tenants in order to maximize policy adherence.ImplicationsOur study is unique because we captured resident views prior to policy implementation in a housing authority without a preexisting smoke-free policy in place. In comparison, most recent research on this topic has focused on the postimplementation period or used survey research methods in the preimplementation phase. Our findings add to extant research about tenant perspectives on smoke-free housing policies and offer suggestions to address barriers to compliance.