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 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 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.
In recent years, a variety of efforts have been made in political science to enable, encourage, or require scholars to be more open and explicit about the bases of their empirical claims and, in turn, make those claims more readily evaluable by others. While qualitative scholars have long taken an interest in making their research open, reflexive, and systematic, the recent push for overarching transparency norms and requirements has provoked serious concern within qualitative research communities and raised fundamental questions about the meaning, value, costs, and intellectual relevance of transparency for qualitative inquiry. In this Perspectives Reflection, we crystallize the central findings of a three-year deliberative process—the Qualitative Transparency Deliberations (QTD)—involving hundreds of political scientists in a broad discussion of these issues. Following an overview of the process and the key insights that emerged, we present summaries of the QTD Working Groups’ final reports. Drawing on a series of public, online conversations that unfolded at www.qualtd.net, the reports unpack transparency’s promise, practicalities, risks, and limitations in relation to different qualitative methodologies, forms of evidence, and research contexts. Taken as a whole, these reports—the full versions of which can be found in the Supplementary Materials—offer practical guidance to scholars designing and implementing qualitative research, and to editors, reviewers, and funders seeking to develop criteria of evaluation that are appropriate—as understood by relevant research communities—to the forms of inquiry being assessed. We dedicate this Reflection to the memory of our coauthor and QTD working group leader Kendra Koivu.1
This chapter discusses the diagnosis, evaluation and management of shock. It presents special circumstances which make diagnosis and management of shock difficult in pediatric and pregnant patients. Shock should be suspected when patients present with a constellation of signs including ill-appearance, tachycardia, tachypnea, hypotension, and oliguria. The principles of shock management include specific therapy for treating the underlying cause, and general therapy to manage the shock syndrome. Recognition of shock is difficult due to variations in age-dependent vital signs, difficulty in assessing mental status, and the non-specificity of early manifestations of shock such as irritability and poor feeding. Elderly patients experience significantly more morbidity and mortality from all causes of shock due to their limited ability to augment cardiac output and maintain vascular tone. Elderly patients often have multiple comorbidities or use multiple medications that distort the diagnosis and management of shock.
Although frontal patients show impaired decision-making on the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), there has been no follow-up study to date to determine whether there is recovery of function over time. We examined neurological participants’ performance on repeated administrations of the IGT over the course of 6 years. We found that, while non-neurological participants showed considerable improvement due to practice effects on the IGT, patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) damage persisted in showing impaired performance on each retest. These results validate the clinical observations that VMPFC dysfunction does not appear to be subject to autonomous recovery over time in real-life. (JINS, 2012, 18, 1–4)
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.