How can hospitals change practice to better implement smoking cessation interventions? A systematic review

Smoking cessation reduces the risk of death, improves recovery, and reduces the risk of hospital readmission. Evidence and policy support hospital admission as an ideal time to deliver smoking-cessation interventions. However, this is not well implemented in practice. In this systematic review, the authors summarize the literature on smoking-cessation implementation strategies and evaluate their success to guide the implementation of best-practice smoking interventions into hospital settings. The CINAHL Complete, Embase, MEDLINE Complete, and PsycInfo databases were searched using terms associated with the following topics: smoking cessation, hospitals, and implementation. In total, 14,287 original records were identified and screened, resulting in 63 eligible articles from 56 studies. Data were extracted on the study characteristics, implementation strategies, and implementation outcomes. Implementation outcomes were guided by Proctor and colleagues' framework and included acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability. The findings demonstrate that studies predominantly focused on the training of staff to achieve implementation. Brief implementation approaches using a small number of implementation strategies were less successful and poorly sustained compared with well resourced and multicomponent approaches. Although brief implementation approaches may be viewed as advantageous because they are less resource-intensive, their capacity to change practice in a sustained way lacks evidence. Attempts to change clinician behavior or introduce new models of care are challenging in a short time frame, and implementation efforts should be designed for long-term success. There is a need to embrace strategic, well planned implementation approaches to embed smoking-cessation interventions into hospitals and to reap and sustain the benefits for people who smoke.     

Fokus Neurochirurgische Intensivmedizin 2021/2022

Die Anaesthesiologie -     

Asylum,Refuge, and Justice in Health

We are, as of May 2019, witnessing yet another “caravan” of people fleeing violence in Latin America, bonding together to reach the territory of safer states in the North. Similarly, in the fall of 2015, Europe experienced the movement of many refugees fleeing war, persecution, and grave human rights violations in Syria. These new waves of people on the move have raised anew important questions about asylum and refuge: who should be able to claim asylum? Should the fear of persecution be sufficient, or do asylum seekers need to show that they have actually suffered it? And maybe most controversially, how should asylum‐granting states respond to the plight of those asking for asylum on their territory? The moral principles guiding asylum and refuge are different from the rules usually regulating immigration, which are based on the principle of territorial sovereignty that allows nation‐states to discriminate and select among those who hope to immigrate. Asylum and refuge instead call upon nation‐states to provide refugees with a new home, protect human rights, and over time, provide access to the social, political and civic rights that characterize membership. Included in the list of human rights, I will argue, is the provision of the means for individual physical and psychological well‐being.     

Heritable Genome Editing in a Global Context: National and International Policy Challenges

A central problem for the international governance of heritable germline gene editing is that there are important differences in attitudes and values as well as ethical and health care considerations around the world. These differences are reflected in a complicated and diverse regulatory landscape. Several publications have discussed whether reproductive uses would be legally permissible in individual countries and whether clinical applications could emerge in the context of regulatory gaps and gray areas. Systematic comparative studies that explore issues related to the governance of this technology from different national and international perspectives are needed to address the lack of knowledge in this area. In this research report, we contribute to filling this gap by presenting views of stakeholders in the United Kingdom on challenges to the governance of heritable genome editing. We present findings from a multistakeholder study conducted in the United Kingdom between October 2016 and January 2018 and funded by the Wellcome Trust. This research included interviews, literature analysis, and a workshop. We involved leading U.K. scientists, in vitro fertilization clinicians, and representatives from regulatory bodies, patient organizations, and other civil societal organizations, as well as fertility companies. Part one of this article explores stakeholder perceptions of possible global developments in heritable genome editing and associated risks and governance challenges. Part two presents a range of policy options that were generated during the workshop in relation to the challenges discussed in part one.     

The effect of immediate postpartum levonorgestrel contraceptive implant use on breastfeeding and infant growth: a randomized controlled trial

Objective

This study assessed whether immediate postpartum insertion of levonorgestrel contraceptive implants is associated with a difference in infant growth from birth to 6 months, onset of lactogenesis, or breastfeeding continuation at 3 and 6 months postpartum compared to delayed insertion at 6 to 8 weeks postpartum.

Application of the Draft NIOSH Occupational Exposure Banding Process to Bisphenol A: A case study

Bisphenol A is a commercially important chemical used to make polycarbonate plastic, epoxy resins, and other specialty products. Despite an extensive body of in vitro, animal and human observational studies on the effects of exposure to bisphenol A, no authoritative bodies in the U.S. have adopted or recommended occupational exposure limits for bisphenol A. In 2017, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health published a Draft process for assigning health-protective occupational exposure bands, i.e., an airborne concentration range, to chemicals lacking an occupational exposure limit. Occupational exposure banding is a systematic process that uses both quantitative and qualitative toxicity information on selected health effect endpoints to assign an occupational exposure band for a chemical. The Draft process proposes three methodological tiers of increasing complexity for assigning an occupational exposure band. We applied Tier 1 (based on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling) and Tier 2 (based on authoritative sources/reviews) to assign an occupational exposure band to bisphenol A. Under both Tier 1 and 2, the occupational exposure band for bisphenol A was “E” (<0.01?mg/m³), an assignment based on eye damage. “E” is the lowest exposure concentration range, reserved for chemicals with high potential toxicity. If eye damage was excluded in assigning an air concentration exposure range, then bisphenol A would band as “D” (>0.01 to 0.1?mg/m³) under Tier 1 (based on reproductive toxicity and respiratory/skin sensitization) and under Tier 2 (based on specific target organ toxicity-repeated exposure). In summary, Tiers 1 and 2 gave the same occupational exposure band for bisphenol A when eye damage was included (“E”) or excluded (“D”) as an endpoint.