Suchergebnisse

The United States has long had a tradition of free access to government information. How is that changing with the advent of putting information into electronic format? What changes must academic libraries make in order to provide access to government information? Is it all a matter of funding and/or philosophy? In choosing a future for access to government information how will academic libraries help to close the gap between the 'information rich' and the 'information poor'?

A Guttman scale of substance use was constructed from the self-report data of adolescents' substance use. The properties of this scale were excellent indicating that substance use is unidimensional and cumulative. A prospective analysis over two years indicated that the temporal sequence of substance use implied by the Guttman scale represents stages in substance use – adolescents transition from alcohol use, to cigarette use, to marijuana use, and finally, to hard drugs. Relations between adolescent stage of substance use and adolescent "deviancy" validated the order of substances in the scale. Concurrent and prospective relations between the family environment and stage of substance use demonstrated the usefulness of the scale in research on adolescent substance use.

Two approaches to measuring perceptions of synergistic risk were compared, one using the traditional Likert scale, the other using an anchored, relative scale. Perception of synergistic risk was defined as rating the combined hazard as more risky than each of its constituent single hazards. In a within‐subjects design, a convenience sample from the community (N= 604) rated three hazard combinations and their constituents: Driving while Intoxicated (familiar, high synergy), Radon and Smoking (unfamiliar, high synergy), and Smoking and Driving (familiar, low synergy), on both scales. The relative scale was expected to be a more sensitive measure of synergy than the Likert scale. The effects of item order (single hazards rated first versus combined hazards rated first) were examined between subjects. Driving while Intoxicated was perceived by the large majority of participants as a synergistic risk on both scales, but neither of the other two combined hazards were rated synergistically on either scale. The relative scale demonstrated a slight advantage over the Likert scale, and presenting the single hazards first for the relative scale produced more synergistic ratings. It is recommended that anchored, relative scales be used to measure synergy and that single hazards be presented prior to the combined hazards when using relative scales.

The combination of radon and smoking produces a synergistic risk of lung cancer. Lay understanding of this risk was examined from the perspectives of mental models theory, the psychometric approach to risk perception, and optimistic bias. As assessed by interview, participants (N= 50) had more extensive mental models for the risks of smoking than for the risks of radon or the combination of radon and smoking; 32% knew little or nothing about radon. Despite reading an informational brochure, their risk‐perception ratings of the three hazards showed no perception of the synergy between smoking and radon risk, although the combined hazard was rated as less familiar but more controllable than the average of the single hazards (p < .01). No evidence of optimistic bias for the health consequences of radon, or the combination of radon and smoking was observed. Participants appeared to be combining the single‐hazard risks subadditively to arrive at their combined‐hazard risk perceptions. Further research on the integration of perceived risks would be beneficial for designing optimal communications about synergistic risk.

The novel coronavirus (COVID‐19) has rapidly impacted all of our lives following its escalation to pandemic status on 11 March 2020. Government guidelines and restrictions implemented to mitigate the risk of COVID‐19 community transmission have forced radiation therapy departments to promptly adjust to the significant impact on our ability to deliver best clinical care. The inherent nature of our tri‐partied professions relies heavily on multidisciplinary teamwork and patient–clinician interactions. Teamwork and patient interaction are critical to the role of a radiation therapist. The aim of this paper is to describe the experience of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre's (Peter Mac) radiation therapy services during the preliminary stages of the COVID‐19 pandemic in minimising risk to patients, staff and our clinical service. Four critical areas were identified in developing risk mitigation strategies across our service: (a) Workforce planning, (b) Workforce communication, (c) Patient safety and wellbeing, and (d) Staff safety and wellbeing. Each of these initiatives had a focus on continuum of clinical care, whilst minimising risk of cross infection for our radiation therapy workforce and patients alike. Initiatives included, but were not limited to, establishing COVID‐Eclipse clinical protocols, remote access to local applications, implementation of Microsoft Teams, personal protective equipment (PPE) guidelines and virtual 'Division of Radiation Oncology' briefing/updates. The COVID‐19 pandemic has dictated change in conventional radiation therapy practice. It is hoped that by sharing our experiences, the radiation therapy profession will continue to learn, adapt and navigate this period together, to ensure optimal outcomes for ourselves and our patients.