Infectious disease risks from dead bodies following natural disasters.

OBJECTIVE: To review existing literature to assess the risks of infection from dead bodies after a natural disaster occurs, including who is most at risk, what precautions should be taken, and how to safely dispose of the bodies. METHODS: Disease transmission requires the presence of an infectious agent, exposure to that agent, and a susceptible host. These elements were considered to characterize the infectious disease risk from dead bodies. Using the PubMed on-line databases of the National Library of Medicine of the United States of America, searching was done for relevant literature on the infection risks for public safety workers and funeral workers as well as for guidelines for the management of the dead and prevention of infection. A small but significant literature was also reviewed regarding the disposal of the dead and the contamination of groundwater by cemeteries. RESULTS: Victims of natural disasters usually die from trauma and are unlikely to have acute or "epidemic-causing" infections. This indicates that the risk that dead bodies pose for the public is extremely small. However, persons who are involved in close contact with the dead-such as military personnel, rescue workers, volunteers, and others-may be exposed to chronic infectious hazards, including hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, HIV, enteric pathogens, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Suitable precautions for these persons include training, use of body bags and disposable gloves, good hygiene practice, and vaccination for hepatitis B and tuberculosis. Disposal of bodies should respect local custom and practice where possible. When there are large numbers of victims, burial is likely to be the most appropriate method of disposal. There is little evidence of microbiological contamination of groundwater from burial. CONCLUSIONS: Concern that dead bodies are infectious can be considered a "natural" reaction by persons wanting to protect themselves from disease. However, clear information about the risks is needed so that responsible local authorities ensure that the bodies of disaster victims are handled appropriately and with due respect. This paper provides a source of information for those who are in the unfortunate position of managing those bodies.     

Dispelling myths about a new healthful food can be more motivating than promoting nutritional benefits: The case of Tofu

ObjectiveThis study examines what factors impact the adoption of certain types of healthy foods, such as Tofu, by future nutritional gatekeepers.DesignInformation on perceived facilitators and barriers to the utilization of barriers would be obtained via interviews and surveys.SettingIn-depth laddering interviews and an online survey during 2012 were utilized.SubjectsThe in-depth laddering interviews were conducted with 83 young women and new mothers (non-vegetarians and non-Asians) who were enthusiastic lovers of Tofu. 502 women from the target demographic (between 20 and 35, non-Asian) were recruited from a national panel and surveyed online in 2012.ResultsBased on the interviews, 21 primary reasons for trying Tofu (facilitators) and 10 reasons that might be preventative (barriers) were identified. A key finding was that facilitators were not motivating factors for why women adopted Tofu into their diets. Instead, barriers explained more than 44% of the variance for not adopting tofu.ConclusionsWhen encouraging nutritional gatekeepers to add Tofu to their household diets, it may be more effective to focus on changing the barriers. This study suggests that nutritionists and health practitioners may be more successful in encouraging the adoption of healthy new foods by dispelling their misconceptions rather than focusing on their nutritional benefits.     

Low-risk drinking guidelines: the scientific evidence.

In 1997 the Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario and Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse released updated guidelines for low-risk alcohol consumption. This paper presents the scientific rationale behind this statement. Important comprehensive overviews on the consequences of alcohol use were studied. Formal meta-analyses on morbidity and mortality were examined wherever possible. Individual elements from similar guidelines were investigated for their scientific foundation. Limited original analyses defined risk levels by average weekly consumption. The evidence reviewed demonstrated that placing limits on both daily intake and cumulative intake over the typical week is justifiable for the prevention of important causes of morbidity and mortality. Gender-specific limits on weekly consumption were also indicated. In these updated guidelines intended for primary prevention, days of abstinence are not necessarily recommended. Intoxication should be avoided and abstinence is sometimes advisable. Available evidence does not strongly favour one alcoholic beverage over another for cardiovascular health benefits.     

The role of randomization in clinical studies: myths and beliefs.

On the basis of a survey of the methodological literature, we analyze widespread views on randomization and the advantage of randomized over nonrandomized studies. These views follow from theoretical considerations and at least three types of empirical investigations into the results of published studies. Randomization is often credited with advantages that it does not possess or confer. Several popular theoretical arguments in favor of randomization are shown to be either incorrect or imprecise. The published empirical comparisons of randomized with nonrandomized studies have methodological weaknesses and do not give any convincing information about the value of carefully designed and conducted nonrandomized studies. Six arguments, most of which are pragmatic rather than epistemological, are given to support our belief that randomization should not be avoided without compelling need. We conclude that although there are good arguments in favor of randomization, these are not the ones usually found in the literature. The very negative view on nonrandomized studies sometimes encountered in biostatistics and medicine may be comprehensible from a historical, pragmatic, or educational viewpoint, but it is not well founded on epistemological grounds.     

Translating epoetin research into practice: the role of government and the use of scientific evidence

Spending for epoetin is Medicare's single largest drug expenditure. We chronicle the evolution of epoetin policy based on a lack of well-designed post-Food and Drug Administration approval studies demonstrating clinical benefit; congressional/federal agency reliance on clinical practice guidelines that might have misinterpreted evidence supporting causality; and the premature translation of research into practice and policy. Were the right choices made? Epoetin showcases the risk and benefit conundrum created when evidentiary standards are relaxed. Our review concludes with broad-based policy recommendations for the newly implemented Medicare Part D program.     

Admissibility of scientific evidence post-Daubert.

Proof of medical causation is the key element in cases involving alleged radiation injury. Until 1993, the use of scientific testimony in the courtroom was governed by the Frye doctrine requiring that a theory be "generally accepted" before it can be the basis of an expert's opinion. Applying that rule trial courts adopted a "let it all in" approach resulting in a near overdose of pseudoscience presented to juries. With its decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court announced a new five-factor, non-exclusive test for federal district courts to consider when assessing the opinion of scientific experts. The Court further directed that the trial courts, acting as a gatekeeper for expert evidence, must evaluate whether there is an adequate "fit" between the expert's data and the opinion offered. This article examines how the Daubert standard has been implemented in federal court to combat junk science. Examples from recent case law dealing with operational health physics issues are presented as an illustration of the use of the five-factor test to challenge questionable testimony on causation. Guidance is offered to prospective expert witnesses in radiation-related litigation to insure that proposed testimony will be admissible in district court.     

Framing and tone-of-voice of disaster media coverage: The aftermath of the Enschede fireworks disaster in the Netherlands

In 2000 disaster struck Enschede in The Netherlands. Due to explosions at a fireworks facility 22 people were killed. This study aims to describe the developments in the media coverage of this disaster from a media amplification perspective. Media amplification was assumed to have taken place in case: (1) events in the aftermath of the disaster resulted in increased media coverage, (2) the media framed the disaster in terms of conflict and responsibility and (3) the framing was in a negative tone-of-voice regarding governmental authorities. Content analysis was performed on 3942 articles, derived from four newspapers. Three peaks in the magnitude of the coverage were distinguished. The content of the coverage during these peaks differed from the period of gradual coverage decline. During the peaks, coverage more often was framed in terms of conflict and responsibility, government was referred to more often and the tone-of-voice on government was less positive. It was concluded that the media coverage of the Enschede fireworks met the conditions of media amplification. It is discussed whether the media coverage was such that the public's risk perception might have been affected.     

Rating the strength of scientific evidence: relevance for quality improvement programs.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize an extensive review of systems for grading the quality of research articles and rating the strength of bodies of evidence, and to highlight for health professionals and decision-makers concerned with quality measurement and improvement the available "best practices" tools by which these steps can be accomplished. DESIGN: Drawing on an extensive review of checklists, questionnaires, and other tools in the field of evidence-based practice, this paper discusses clinical, management, and policy rationales for rating strength of evidence in a quality improvement context, and documents best practices methods for these tasks. RESULTS: After review of 121 systems for grading the quality of articles, 19 systems, mostly STUDY DESIGN: specific, met a priori scientific standards for grading systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and diagnostic tests; eight systems (of 40 reviewed) met similar standards for rating the overall strength of evidence. All can be used as is or adapted for particular types of evidence reports or systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Formally grading study quality and rating overall strength of evidence, using sound instruments and procedures, can produce reasonable levels of confidence about the science base for parts of quality improvement programs. With such information, health care professionals and administrators concerned with quality improvement can understand better the level of science (versus only clinical consensus or opinion) that supports practice guidelines, review criteria, and assessments that feed into quality assurance and improvement programs. New systems are appearing and research is needed to confirm the conceptual and practical underpinnings of these grading and rating systems, but the need for those developing systematic reviews, practice guidelines, and quality or audit criteria to understand and undertake these steps is becoming increasingly clear.