Prenatal Substance Use and Perceptions of Parent and Partner Use Using the 4P’s Plus Screener

Maternal and Child Health Journal - Background Prenatal substance use screening is recommended. The 4 P’s Plus screener includes questions on perceived problematic substance use in parents...     

Action research methodology in clinical pharmacy: how to involve and change

Introduction The focus in clinical pharmacy practice is and has for the last 30–35 years been on changing the role of pharmacy staff into service orientation and patient counselling. One way of doing this is by involving staff in change process and as a researcher to take part in the change process by establishing partnerships with staff. On the background of the authors’ widespread action research (AR)-based experiences, recommendations and comments for how to conduct an AR-study is described, and one of their AR-based studies illustrate the methodology and the research methods used. Methodology AR is defined as an approach to research which is based on a problem-solving relationship between researchers and clients, which aims at both solving a problem and at collaboratively generating new knowledge. Research questions relevant in AR-studies are: what was the working process in this change oriented study? What learning and/or changes took place? What challenges/pitfalls had to be overcome? What were the influence/consequences for the involved parts? When to use If you want to implement new services and want to involve staff and others in the process, an AR methodology is very suitable. The basic advantages of doing AR-based studies are grounded in their participatory and democratic basis and their starting point in problems experienced in practice. Limitations Some of the limitations in AR-studies are that neither of the participants in a project steering group are the only ones to decide. Furthermore, the collective process makes the decision-making procedures relatively complex.

     

Characterization of membrane occupation and recognition nexus repeat containing 3, meiosis expressed gene 1 binding partner,in mouse male germ cells

Mammalian spermatogenesis is a well-organized process of cell development and differentiation. Meiosis expressed gene 1 (MEIG1) plays an essential role in the regulation of spermiogenesis. To explore potential mechanisms of MEIG1''s action, a yeast two-hybrid screen was conducted, and several potential binding partners were identified; one of them was membrane occupation and recognition nexus repeat containing 3 (MORN3). MORN3 mRNA is only abundant in mouse testis. In the testis, Morn3 mRNA is highly expressed in the spermiogenesis stage. Specific anti-MORN3 polyclonal antibody was generated against N-terminus of the full-length MORN3 protein, and MORN3 expression and localization was examined in vitro and in vivo. In transfected Chinese hamster ovary cells, the antibody specifically crossed-reacted the full-length MORN3 protein, and immunofluorescence staining revealed that MORN3 was localized throughout the cytoplasm. Among multiple mouse tissues, about 25 kDa protein, was identified only in the testis. The protein was highly expressed after day 20 of birth. Immunofluorescence staining on mixed testicular cells isolated from adult wild-type mice demonstrated that MORN3 was expressed in the acrosome in germ cells throughout spermiogenesis. The protein was also present in the manchette of elongating spermatids. The total MORN3 expression and acrosome localization were not changed in the Meig 1-deficient mice. However, its expression in manchette was dramatically reduced in the mutant mice. Our studies suggest that MORN3 is another regulator for spermatogenesis, probably together with MEIG1.     

Prevalence and Predictors of Quality of Recovery at Home After Day Surgery

Traditionally, major complications and unanticipated admission/readmission rates were used to assess outcome after day surgery. However, in view of the relative absence of major complications the quality of recovery (QOR) should be considered one of the principal endpoints after day surgery. In our study, the level of QOR is defined by a combination of the Global Surgical Recovery (GSR) Index and the Quality of Life (QOL).The aim of this study was to analyze prevalence and predictors of QOR after day surgery on the fourth postoperative day.Elective patients scheduled for day surgery from November 2008 to April 2010 were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. Outcome parameters were measured by using questionnaire packages at 2 time points: 1 week preoperatively and 4 days postoperatively. Primary outcome parameter is the QOR and is defined as good if the GSR index >80% as well as the postoperative QOL is unchanged or improved as compared with baseline. QOR is defined as poor if both the GSR index ≤80% and if the postoperative QOL is decreased as compared with baseline. QOR is defined as intermediate in all other cases. Three logistic regression analyses were performed to determine predictors for poor QOR after day surgery.A total of 1118 patients were included. A good QOR was noted in 17.3% of patients, an intermediate QOR in 34.8%, and a poor QOR in 47.8% 4 days after day surgery. The best predictor for poor QOR after day surgery was type of surgery. Other predictors were younger age, work status, and longer duration of surgery. A history of previous surgery, expected pain (by the patient) and high long-term surgical fear were significant predictors of poor QOR in only 1 of 3 prediction models.The QOR at home 4 days after day surgery was poor in the majority of patients and showed a significant procedure-specific variation. Patients at risk for poor QOR can be identified during the preoperative period based on type of surgery, age, work status, and the duration of the surgery.