Advice and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for Citizen-Science Environmental Health Assessments.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Barzyk TM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5981999 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of the current study was to inquire the questions and concerns of people with epilepsy (PWE) about COVID-19 vaccines in order to provide a more realistic list of their frequently asked questions (FAQs).MethodsWe surveyed all the consecutive PWE or their care-givers who were referred to our neurology clinics (Shiraz University of Medical Sciences) during January-February 2022. We collected their questions and concerns in relation to COVID vaccines based on a predesigned brief questionnaire. Informed consent to participate in the study was obtained from the participants.ResultsIn total, 452 people participated in the study; 291 people (64.4%) did not have any questions or concerns with regard to the COVID-19 vaccination. Having any questions or concerns about COVID-19 vaccination was significantly associated with not being vaccinated. Questions and concerns about the adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines [seizure worsening, general adverse effects, long-term effects (e.g., infertility, cognitive dysfunction)] were by far the most common questions by people with epilepsy and their carers.ConclusionOur findings may be used by policy-makers to prepare appropriate educational materials to provide the best targeted and tailored information to people with epilepsy and their carers to convince them of the necessity and safety of COVID-19 vaccination. Such an educational material must include enough information on the associated adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines and should also discuss some other important issues such as indications of these vaccines in special populations and drug-vaccine interactions.
| S-EPMC9117255 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Over the last 10-20 years, international guidelines and consensus statements for the management of common allergic diseases (e.g. allergic rhinitis and asthma) have been developed and disseminated worldwide. However, their impact on knowledge and standard of clinical practice among primary care physicians and specialists is unknown. OBJECTIVE:To investigate need for an improvement in the dissemination of international guidelines for the diagnosis and management of allergic rhinitis. METHODS:Seven medical students who attended 3-day 1st International Basic Allergy Course (2010) took down all questions raised during the entire course. A systemic analysis of these questions was performed to identify areas for improvement in diagnosis and management of allergic diseases mainly in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region. RESULTS:268 participants, 143 males and 125 females, comprising Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) specialists (n = 106) and trainees (n = 34), general practitioners (n = 87), and other healthcare professionals (n = 41) attended the course. Of the 103 questions recorded, 59 were regarding treatment modalities in allergy practice such as immunotherapy (n = 38), pharmacologics (n = 15), nasal surgery (n = 2), and others (n = 4). 41 questions (39.8%) have answers based in the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma guidelines (2001 and 2008). Certain questions were selected for further analysis because they appeared to be (a) more commonly asked (e.g. immunotherapy) or (b) were deemed to be challenging or, even controversial (e.g. food allergy and differential diagnosis between vasovagal and anaphylaxis reaction), as the recommendations in current international guidelines were less well-defined. CONCLUSION:Our study identified several problems that, if tackled, could help minimize confusion and provide better care for patients suffering from allergic diseases especially in the ASEAN region.
| S-EPMC3921870 | biostudies-other
Project description:Using chlorophyll (Chl) a fluorescence many aspects of the photosynthetic apparatus can be studied, both in vitro and, noninvasively, in vivo. Complementary techniques can help to interpret changes in the Chl a fluorescence kinetics. Kalaji et al. (Photosynth Res 122:121-158, 2014a) addressed several questions about instruments, methods and applications based on Chl a fluorescence. Here, additional Chl a fluorescence-related topics are discussed again in a question and answer format. Examples are the effect of connectivity on photochemical quenching, the correction of F V /F M values for PSI fluorescence, the energy partitioning concept, the interpretation of the complementary area, probing the donor side of PSII, the assignment of bands of 77 K fluorescence emission spectra to fluorescence emitters, the relationship between prompt and delayed fluorescence, potential problems when sampling tree canopies, the use of fluorescence parameters in QTL studies, the use of Chl a fluorescence in biosensor applications and the application of neural network approaches for the analysis of fluorescence measurements. The answers draw on knowledge from different Chl a fluorescence analysis domains, yielding in several cases new insights.
| S-EPMC5357263 | biostudies-other
Project description:As telehealth gains momentum as a service delivery model in the United States within the rehabilitation professions, regulatory and legal questions arise. This article examines the following questions: Is there a need to secure licenses in two states (i.e., where the practitioner resides, and where the client is located), before engaging in telehealth?Do state laws differ concerning if and how telehealth can occur?Do any states expressly disallow telehealth?Can services delivered through telehealth be billed the same way as services provided in-person?If practitioners fulfill the requirements to maintain licensure (e.g., continuing education obligations) in their state of residence, do they also need to fulfill the requirements to maintain licensure for the state in which the client resides?Will professional malpractice insurance cover services delivered through telehealth?Does a sole practitioner need to abide by HIPAA regulations?Responses to these questions are offered to raise awareness of the regulatory and legal implications associated with the use of a telehealth service delivery model within the professions of occupational therapy, physical therapy, speech-language pathology and audiology.
| S-EPMC4296804 | biostudies-other
Project description:Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are commonly used oral factor Xa inhibitors in recent years. However, in some special clinical situations, the appropriate use of these anticoagulants may be of concern. In this article, we address the 5 commonly asked questions regarding their use for the treatment of venous thromboembolism, including in the setting of obesity, renal impairment, gastrointestinal (GI) malignancy, catheter-related thrombosis, and drug-drug interactions. Data on the use of DOACs in the presence of significant obesity or renal failure are mainly observational. Some DOACs are shown to have an increased risk of bleeding in patients with unresected luminal GI malignancy but not others, so selection of appropriate patients is the key. Furthermore, literature on the use of DOACs for catheter-related thrombosis or when drug-drug interactions are of concern is limited, and more research is welcome.
| S-EPMC9821165 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11367894 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChat Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT), a generative artificial intelligence chatbot, may have broad applications in healthcare delivery and patient education due to its ability to provide human-like responses to a wide range of patient queries. However, there is limited evidence regarding its ability to provide reliable and useful information on orthopaedic procedures. This study seeks to evaluate the accuracy and relevance of responses provided by ChatGPT to frequently asked questions (FAQs) regarding total knee replacement (TKR).MethodsA list of 50 clinically-relevant FAQs regarding TKR was collated. Each question was individually entered as a prompt to ChatGPT (version 3.5), and the first response generated was recorded. Responses were then reviewed by two independent orthopaedic surgeons and graded on a Likert scale for their factual accuracy and relevance. These responses were then classified into accurate versus inaccurate and relevant versus irrelevant responses using preset thresholds on the Likert scale.ResultsMost responses were accurate, while all responses were relevant. Of the 50 FAQs, 44/50 (88%) of ChatGPT responses were classified as accurate, achieving a mean Likert grade of 4.6/5 for factual accuracy. On the other hand, 50/50 (100%) of responses were classified as relevant, achieving a mean Likert grade of 4.9/5 for relevance.ConclusionChatGPT performed well in providing accurate and relevant responses to FAQs regarding TKR, demonstrating great potential as a tool for patient education. However, it is not infallible and can occasionally provide inaccurate medical information. Patients and clinicians intending to utilize this technology should be mindful of its limitations and ensure adequate supervision and verification of information provided.
| S-EPMC10986046 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Citizen science offers a potentially cost-effective way for researchers to obtain large data sets over large spatial scales. However, it is not used widely to support biological data collection for fisheries stock assessments. Overfishing of demersal fishes along 1,000 km of the west Australian coast led to restrictive management to recover stocks. This diminished opportunities for scientists to cost-effectively monitor stock recovery via fishery-dependent sampling, particularly of the recreational fishing sector. As fishery-independent methods would be too expensive and logistically-challenging to implement, a citizen science program, Send us your skeletons (SUYS), was developed. SUYS asks recreational fishers to voluntarily donate fish skeletons of important species from their catch to allow biological data extraction by scientists to produce age structures and conduct stock assessment analyses. During SUYS, recreational fisher involvement, sample sizes and spatial and temporal coverage of samples have dramatically increased, while the collection cost per skeleton has declined substantially. SUYS is ensuring sampling objectives for stock assessments are achieved via fishery-dependent collection and reliable and timely scientific advice can be provided to managers. The program is also encouraging public ownership through involvement in the monitoring process, which can lead to greater acceptance of management decisions.
| S-EPMC5384193 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Systematic-review methodologies provide objectivity and transparency to the process of collecting and synthesizing scientific evidence in reaching conclusions on specific research questions. There is increasing interest in applying these procedures to address environmental health questions. OBJECTIVES: The goal was to develop a systematic-review framework to address environmental health questions by extending approaches developed for clinical medicine to handle the breadth of data relevant to environmental health sciences (e.g., human, animal, and mechanistic studies). METHODS: The Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) adapted guidance from authorities on systematic-review and sought advice during development of the OHAT Approach through consultation with technical experts in systematic review and human health assessments, as well as scientific advisory groups and the public. The method was refined by considering expert and public comments and through application to case studies. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Here we present a seven-step framework for systematic review and evidence integration for reaching hazard identification conclusions: 1) problem formulation and protocol development, 2) search for and select studies for inclusion, 3) extract data from studies, 4) assess the quality or risk of bias of individual studies, 5) rate the confidence in the body of evidence, 6) translate the confidence ratings into levels of evidence, and 7) integrate the information from different evidence streams (human, animal, and "other relevant data" including mechanistic or in vitro studies) to develop hazard identification conclusions. CONCLUSION: The principles of systematic review can be successfully applied to environmental health questions to provide greater objectivity and transparency to the process of developing conclusions.
| S-EPMC4080517 | biostudies-other
Project description:In 2014, atypical myopathy (AM) was linked to Acer pseudoplatanus (sycamore maple) in Europe. The emergence of this seasonal intoxication caused by a native tree has raised many questions. This manuscript aims at answering the five most frequently asked questions (FAQs) regarding (1) identification of toxic trees; reduction of risk at the level of (2) pastures and (3) equids; (4) the risk associated with pastures with sycamores that have always been used without horses being poisoned and (5) the length of the risk periods. Answers were found in a literature review and data gathered by AM surveillance networks. A guide is offered to differentiate common maple trees (FAQ1). In order to reduce the risk of AM at pasture level: Avoid humid pastures; permanent pasturing; spreading of manure for pasture with sycamores in the vicinity and avoid sycamore maple trees around pasture (FAQ2). To reduce the risk of AM at horse level: Reduce pasturing time according to weather conditions and to less than six hours a day during risk periods for horses on risk pasture; provide supplementary feeds including toxin-free forage; water from the distribution network; vitamins and a salt block (FAQ3). All pastures with a sycamore tree in the vicinity are at risk (FAQ4). Ninety-four percent of cases occur over two 3-month periods, starting in October and in March, for cases resulting from seeds and seedlings ingestion, respectively (FAQ5).
| S-EPMC7071031 | biostudies-literature