To save 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 saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
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 saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.
Previous studies indicate that “hesitation” and “skepticism” are important barriers to the development of renewable energy industries in the United States. We examine whether key pecuniary and nonpecuniary characteristics of bioenergy crops underlie the hesitation argument. Based on a stated choice experiment, we find that Midwestern producers appreciate certain crop attributes that are found in switchgrass, but not in conventional crops. We also find that producers would be willing to grow switchgrass-like crops for net margins between $222/acre/year and $247/acre/year in marginal counties. We argue that farmers’ hesitation and skepticism toward bioenergy crops can be overcome.
ABSTRACT IMPACT: We conducted a study to understand how a patient’s report of a new diagnosis compares with what was documented in the electronic medical record, since it is critical to the diagnostic process that the patient both understands and agrees with a new diagnosis. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: We sought feedback on patient’s understanding of their diagnosis and health status follow Emergency Department discharge. We compared patient report of a new diagnosis to documentation in the electronic medical record. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: To compare patient reported diagnoses to documented diagnoses, we employed a longitudinal cohort study design at 3 of emergency departments in an academic health system in the Mid-Atlantic. Patients consented to complete questionnaires regarding their understanding of their diagnosis and/or follow-up steps and their health status at 2 weeks, 1 month, and 3 months following emergency department discharge. Inclusion criteria: adult ED patients aged 18 and older seen within the last 7 days with one or more of the following common chief complaints: chest pain, upper back pain, abdominal pain, shortness of breath/cough, dizziness, and headache. We compared patient report of a new diagnosis following discharge to documentation in the electronic medical record. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Of the sample recruited (n=137), the majority were women (66%, n=91), the average age was 42 (SD 16). A third (n=45) were black and 56% (n=76) were white. The majority of participants (84%, n=115) reported that they either understood the diagnosis they received on ED discharge, or were not given a diagnosis but they understood follow-up steps. At two weeks following discharge, 25% of participants (n=36) had a new diagnosis identified after discharge and 33% (n=45) reported that their health status stayed the same or worsened. There was 85% agreement (kappa 0.49) between patient report of a new diagnosis and a new diagnosis identified in the electronic medical record. Only one of the participants who reported a new diagnosis also reported seeking healthcare outside of the health system. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: Patient report of a new diagnosis following emergency department discharge had moderate agreement with new diagnoses identified in the electronic medical record, and differences in agreement were not explained by outside healthcare visits.
An interested and engaged electorate is widely believed to be an indicator of democratic health. As such, the aggregate level of political interest of an electorate – macrointerest – is an essential commodity in a democracy, and understanding the forces that change macrointerest is important for diagnosing the health of a democracy. Because being interested in politics requires time and effort, the article theorizes that the electorate's level of political interest will be highest when the electorate believes the government cannot be trusted or is performing poorly. To test hypotheses derived from a proposed theory against rival explanations, the study develops a measure of macrointerest using a quarterly time series of aggregated survey items (1973–2014) of political interest. The authors find support for the theory that the electorate responds as reasonable agents when determining how closely to monitor elected officials: interest is positively related to decreases in trust in government.
Prospectively acquired Canadian cerebrospinal fluid samples were used to assess the performance characteristics of three ante-mortem tests commonly used to support diagnoses of Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease. The utility of the end-point quaking-induced conversion assay as a test for Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease diagnoses was compared to that of immunoassays designed to detect increased amounts of the surrogate markers 14-3-3γ and hTau. The positive predictive values of the end-point quaking-induced conversion, 14-3-3γ, and hTau tests conducted at the Prion Diseases Section of the Public Health Agency of Canada were 96%, 68%, and 66%, respectively.
We conclude by arguing that White animus toward Latinos can no longer be ignored. The policy implications violent the rights of both Latinos as well as undermine the very foundation of democratic government. The future of Latinos living in the United States is largely dependent on how citizens and political institutions deal with this widespread and influential animus toward Latinos. We suggest that that this animus will most likely be a persistent presence in US politics, but can be muted when policy agendas shift and the electoral benefits of campaigning toward those who harbor this animus subside.
Measuring racial animus is quite difficult in an era where explicit racism is still deemed socially unacceptable. This chapter shows that existing measures of racism toward Latinos fail to capture the full extent of animosity toward the group and limits our understanding of how White animus toward Latinos shapes American politics. It provides a wide range of both focus group and survey data to document how White’s commonly express animus about Latinos in everyday discourse. Evidence is provided that shows that this form of animus represents a coherent belief system that is distinct from other beliefs such as political ideology, a preference for Anglo-American culture, ethnocentrism, and old-fashioned racial stereotypes. The connection between this belief system and concerns about race is then established.
Immigration has become the most obvious point of contention between Whites and Latinos. Despite claims that anti-immigration sentiment is divorced of racism, this chapter demonstrates a sizable and stable relationship between White animus toward Latinos and public support for immigration policies ranging from a pathway to citizenship to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals to building a wall. Even Whites who are open to the idea of free migration for US citizens oppose the policy when applied to citizens of Latino countries as a result of this belief system that Latinos fail to assimilate and adhere to Anglo-American norms.