The demand for Australian wool: a simultaneous equations model which permits endogenous switching
In: Working papers in econometrics and applied statistics 65
12 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Working papers in econometrics and applied statistics 65
In: History of Humanities, Band 6, Heft 2, S. 723-724
ISSN: 2379-3171
In: History of Humanities, Band 3, Heft 1, S. 113-136
ISSN: 2379-3171
In: Journal of Business of the University of Chicago, Band 23, Heft 2, S. 137
In: Peace research abstracts journal, Band 44, Heft 5, S. 253
ISSN: 0031-3599
In: American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Band 88, Heft 1, S. 249-266
SSRN
In: Journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Band 9, Heft 5, S. 703
Many migrant groups, particularly those that are politically and economically marginalised, such as asylum seekers and refugees (ASRs), face inequities in access to health care as well as poorer physical and mental health outcomes. The role of post-arrival experiences in contributing to these inequities is increasingly being explored, and it is suggested that being a migrant is itself a determinant of health outcomes. Drawing on the theoretical concept of structural vulnerability, this paper explores ASRs' experiences of health, wellbeing, and health practices in the context of their lived realities in Scotland. 24 semi-structured interviews were conducted with ASRs from Sub-Saharan Africa between January and December 2015. Data were explored using thematic analysis. Experience of the UK asylum system, both alone and in conjunction with other sources of vulnerability including racism, poverty, and language barriers had a negative and ongoing impact on the physical and mental health of ASRs. These impacts continued, even once refugee status was obtained. Efforts to engage ASRs in preventive health programmes and practices must take into account the ways in which the asylum system acts as a determinant of health, affecting both what it means to be healthy and what capacity individuals have to engage with their health. Political choices in how the asylum process is enacted have far-reaching implications for individual and population health.
BASE
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies show that high circulating cystatin C is associated with risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), independent of creatinine-based renal function measurements. It is unclear whether this relationship is causal, arises from residual confounding, and/or is a consequence of reverse causation. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to use Mendelian randomization to investigate whether cystatin C is causally related to CVD in the general population. METHODS: We incorporated participant data from 16 prospective cohorts (n = 76,481) with 37,126 measures of cystatin C and added genetic data from 43 studies (n = 252,216) with 63,292 CVD events. We used the common variant rs911119 in CST3 as an instrumental variable to investigate the causal role of cystatin C in CVD, including coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, and heart failure. RESULTS: Cystatin C concentrations were associated with CVD risk after adjusting for age, sex, and traditional risk factors (relative risk: 1.82 per doubling of cystatin C; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.56 to 2.13; p = 2.12 × 10(-14)). The minor allele of rs911119 was associated with decreased serum cystatin C (6.13% per allele; 95% CI: 5.75 to 6.50; p = 5.95 × 10(-211)), explaining 2.8% of the observed variation in cystatin C. Mendelian randomization analysis did not provide evidence for a causal role of cystatin C, with a causal relative risk for CVD of 1.00 per doubling cystatin C (95% CI: 0.82 to 1.22; p = 0.994), which was statistically different from the observational estimate (p = 1.6 × 10(-5)). A causal effect of cystatin C was not detected for any individual component of CVD. CONCLUSIONS: Mendelian randomization analyses did not support a causal role of cystatin C in the etiology of CVD. As such, therapeutics targeted at lowering circulating cystatin C are unlikely to be effective in preventing CVD. ; The individual study sponsor(s) had no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the paper for publication. Dr. Isgum is supported by research grants from Pie Medical Imaging, 3Mensio Medical Imaging B.V., the NWO and Foundation for Technological Sciences under Project 12726, The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, and the Dutch Cancer Society. Dr. Arpegård has received funding through the Stockholm County Council (combined clinical residency and PhD training program). Dr. Amouyel has received personal fees from Servier, Hoffman Laroche, Total, Genoscreen, Alzprotect, Fondation Plan Alzheimer, and Takeda outside of the submitted work; and has shares in Genoscreen. Dr. Morris is a Wellcome Trust Senior Fellow in Basic Biomedical Science under grant number WT098017. Dr. Worrall has received compensation for his role as deputy editor of the Journal of Neurology; and has received National Institutes of Health funding through the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (U-01 NS069208) and National Human Genome Research Institute (U-01 HG005160). Dr. Samani is supported by the British Heart Foundation (BHF); and is a National Institute for Health Research Senior Investigator. Dr. Nelson is supported by the BHF. Dr. Franco works in ErasmusAGE, a center for aging research across the life course funded by Nestlé Nutrition (Nestec Ltd.), Metagenics Inc., and AXA; Nestlé Nutrition (Nestec Ltd.), Metagenics Inc., and AXA had no role in design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. Dr. Patel is supported by a BHF Intermediate Fellowship. Dr. Koenig has received funds through NGFNplus, project number 01GS0834; has received research grants from Abbott, Roche Diagnostics, Beckmann, and Singulex; has received honorarium for lectures from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Amgen, and Actavis; and has served as a consultant for Novartis, Pfizer, The Medicines Company, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Jukema is an Established Clinical Investigator of the Netherlands Heart Foundation (grant 2001 D 032). Dr. Svensson has received a grant from the Swedish Society of Medicine (SLS-412071). Dr. Kivimaki has received funding through the Medical Research Council (K013351), Economic and Social Research Council, and National Institutes of Health (HL36310). Dr. Dehghan is supported by a Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) grant (VENI, 916.12.154) and the EUR Fellowship; and has received consultancy and research support from Metagenics Inc. (outside the scope of this work). Dr. Ingelsson is supported by grants from Göran Gustafsson Foundation, Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation (20140422), Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation (Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse), European Research Council (ERC-StG-335395), Swedish Diabetes Foundation (Diabetesfonden; grant no. 2013-024), and the Swedish Research Council (VR; grant no. 2012-1397). Dr. de Bakker is an employee of Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Ärnlöv was funded by the Swedish Research Council (2012-1727, 2012-2215), Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, Thuréus Foundation, the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, Dalarna University, and Uppsala University. Dr. Asselbergs is supported by a Dekker scholarship-Junior Staff Member 2014T001–Netherlands Heart Foundation and UCL Hospitals National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement n° HEALTH-F2-2013-601456 (CVgenes-at-target). All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose. ; Peer-reviewed ; Publisher Version
BASE
Background High plasma HDL cholesterol is associated with reduced risk of myocardial infarction, but whether this association is causal is unclear. Exploiting the fact that genotypes are randomly assigned at meiosis, are independent of non-genetic confounding, and are unmodifi ed by disease processes, mendelian random isation can be used to test the hypothesis that the association of a plasma biomarker with disease is causal. Methods We performed two mendelian randomisation analyses. First, we used as an instrument a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the endothelial lipase gene (LIPG Asn396Ser) and tested this SNP in 20 studies (20 913 myocardial infarction cases, 95 407 controls). Second, we used as an instrument a genetic score consisting of 14 common SNPs that exclusively associate with HDL cholesterol and tested this score in up to 12 482 cases of myocardial infarction and 41 331 controls. As a positive control, we also tested a genetic score of 13 common SNPs exclusively associated with LDL cholesterol. Findings Carriers of the LIPG 396Ser allele (2·6% frequency) had higher HDL cholesterol (0·14 mmol/L higher, p=8×10– ¹³) but similar levels of other lipid and non-lipid risk factors for myocardial infarction compared with noncarriers. This diff erence in HDL cholesterol is expected to decrease risk of myocardial infarction by 13% (odds ratio [OR] 0·87, 95% CI 0·84–0·91). However, we noted that the 396Ser allele was not associated with risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0·99, 95% CI 0·88–1·11, p=0·85). From observational epidemiology, an increase of 1 SD in HDL cholesterol was associated with reduced risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0·62, 95% CI 0·58–0·66). However, a 1 SD increase in HDL cholesterol due to genetic score was not associated with risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0·93, 95% CI 0·68–1·26, p=0·63). For LDL cholesterol, the estimate from observational epidemiology (a 1 SD increase in LDL cholesterol associated with OR 1·54, 95% CI 1·45–1·63) was concordant with that from genetic score (OR 2·13, 95% CI 1·69–2·69, p=2×10– ¹⁰). Interpretation Some genetic mechanisms that raise plasma HDL cholesterol do not seem to lower risk of myocardial infarction. These data challenge the concept that raising of plasma HDL cholesterol will uniformly translate into reductions in risk of myocardial infarction. Funding US National Institutes of Health, The Wellcome Trust, European Union, British Heart Foundation, and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. ; 115770
BASE
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
BASE
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long- term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
BASE