To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Evidence is mixed on e-cigarette's effectiveness as a tobacco cessation aid. Research suggests that e-cigarette users face greater barriers to quitting tobacco.
To examine the association between e-cigarette use and tobacco cessation outcomes among quitline callers.
We examined 2,204 callers who enrolled and completed 7-month follow-up surveys between April 2014 and January 2017. We examined the association between any e-cigarette use and tobacco cessation. We also evaluated these relationships by e-cigarette use patterns between enrollment and 7-month follow-up: sustained, adopted, discontinued, and non-use. We used multivariable logistic regression to control for caller characteristics, tobacco history, and program utilization.
Overall, 18% of callers reported using e-cigarettes at enrollment, follow-up, or both. Compared to non-users, e-cigarette users were more likely to be younger, non-Hispanic, and report a mental health condition. The adjusted odds of tobacco cessation were not statistically different for callers who used e-cigarettes compared to those who did not (adjusted odds ratios = 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.79–1.32). Results were similar when examining cessation by patterns of e-cigarette use.
E-cigarette use was not associated with tobacco cessation. This suggests that e-cigarette use may neither facilitate nor deter tobacco cessation among quitline callers. Future research should continue exploring how e-cigarette use affects quitting.
Despite the events that occurred at the 2013 Boston Marathon (Boston, Massachusetts USA), there are currently no evidence-based guidelines or published data regarding medical and disaster preparedness of marathon races in the United States.
To determine the current state of medical disaster preparedness of marathons in the US and to identify potential areas for improvement.
A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was conducted from January through May of 2014. The questionnaire was distributed to race directors of US road and trail marathons, as identified by a comprehensive internet database.
One hundred twenty-three questionnaires were available for analysis (19% usable response rate). Marathon races from all major regions of the US were represented. Runner medical information was not listed on race bibs in 53% of races. Only 45% of races held group training and planning sessions prior to race day. Automated external defibrillators (AEDs) were immediately available on 50% of courses, and medications such as albuterol (30%), oxygen (33%), and IV fluids (34%) were available less frequently. Regarding medical emergencies, 55% of races did not have protocols for the assessment of dehydration, asthma, chest pain, syncope, or exercise-induced cramping. With regard to disaster preparedness, 50% of races did not have protocols for the management of disasters, and 21% did not provide security personnel at start/finish lines, aid stations, road crossings, and drop bag locations.
Areas for improvement in the preparedness of US marathons were identified, such as including printed medical information on race bibs, increasing pre-race training and planning sessions for volunteers, ensuring the immediate availability of certain emergency equipment and medications, and developing written protocols for specific emergencies and disasters.
GlickJRixeJASpurkelandNBradyJSilvisMOlympiaRP. Medical and Disaster Preparedness of US Marathons. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(4):1–7.
Little is known about vitamin D status in preterm infants and their response to supplementation. To investigate this, we assessed serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) levels using RIA in a consecutive sample of stable preterm very low birth weight (VLBW) infants (born ≤ 32 weeks gestation or birth weight ≤ 1·5 kg), and we explored associated factors. Serum 25OHD level was first assessed once infants were tolerating feeds (n 274). If this first 25OHD level was below 50 nmol/l (20 ng/ml), which is the level associated with covering requirements in terms of skeletal health in the majority, then we recommended prolonged augmented vitamin D intake ( ≥ 10 μg (400 IU) daily) from a combination of fortified feeds and vitamin supplements and follow-up re-assessment at approximately 6 weeks corrected age (n 148). The first assessment, conducted at a median for chronological age of 18 (interquartile range (IQR) 11–28) d, found that 78 % had serum 25OHD levels below 50 nmol/l. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that the determinants of serum 25OHD levels were duration of vitamin D supplementation and gestational age at birth (r2 0·215; P< 0·001). At follow-up, after a median of 104 (IQR 78–127) d, 87 % achieved levels ≥ 50 nmol/l and 8 % had levels >125 nmol/l, a level associated with potential risk of harm. We conclude that low 25OHD levels are an issue for preterm VLBW infants, warranting early nutritional intervention. In infants with serum 25OHD levels < 50 nmol/l, a vitamin D intake of ≥ 10 μg (400 IU) daily achieves target levels in the majority; however, further work is needed to determine the exact dose to safely meet target levels without overcorrection.
The courts use the proportionality test to assess the Convention-compatibility of the full range of government action, from administrative decisions to primary legislation. In applying the test, the courts are often conscious of the need to pay some deference to the expertise and competence of other branches of government. This rigorous analysis of the relationship between proportionality and deference under the Human Rights Act sets out a model of proportionality, drawn from existing case law, which integrates deference within the multi-stage proportionality test. The model is 'institutionally sensitive' and can be applied to proportionality-based judicial review of all forms of government activity. The model is shown in operation in three fields that span the full range of government activity: immigration (administrative action), criminal justice (legislation) and housing (multi-level decisions).