DISCUSSION: Twenty scientists from regions across the world developed this Expert Consensus Statement to address the use of HIV science by the criminal justice system. A detailed analysis of the best available scientific and medical research data on HIV transmission, treatment effectiveness and forensic phylogenetic evidence was performed and described so it may be better understood in criminal law contexts. Description of the possibility of HIV transmission was limited to acts most often at issue in criminal cases. The possibility of HIV transmission during a single, specific act was positioned along a continuum of risk, noting that the possibility of HIV transmission varies according to a range of intersecting factors including viral load, condom use, and other risk reduction practices. Current evidence suggests the possibility of HIV transmission during a single episode of sex, biting or spitting ranges from no possibility to low possibility. Further research considered the positive health impact of modern antiretroviral therapies that have improved the life expectancy of most people living with HIV to a point similar to their HIV-negative counterparts, transforming HIV infection into a chronic, manageable health condition. Lastly, consideration of the use of scientific evidence in court found that phylogenetic analysis alone cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that one person infected another although it can be used to exonerate a defendant.
CONCLUSIONS: The application of up-to-date scientific evidence in criminal cases has the potential to limit unjust prosecutions and convictions. The authors recommend that caution be exercised when considering prosecution, and encourage governments and those working in legal and judicial systems to pay close attention to the significant advances in HIV science that have occurred over the last three decades to ensure current scientific knowledge informs application of the law in cases related to HIV.
METHODS: This multi-center, cross-sectional web-based questionnaire survey was conducted on HCWs during the outbreak of COVID-19 from August 2020 to January 2021. HCWs working in hospitals from 48 different countries were invited to participate in an online anonymous survey that investigated sociodemographic data, psychological distress, burnout and structural empowerment (SE) based on Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale 21 (DASS-21), Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and Conditions for work effectiveness questionnaire (CWEQ_II), respectively. Predictors of the total scores of DASS-21, MBI and CWEQ-II were assessed using unadjusted and adjusted binary logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: Out of the 1030 HCWs enrolled in this survey, all completed the sociodemographic section (response rate 100%) A total of 730 (70.9%) HCWs completed the DASS-21 questionnaire, 852 (82.6%) completed the MBI questionnaire, and 712 (69.1%) completed the CWEQ-II questionnaire. The results indicate that 360 out of 730 responders (49.3%) reported severe or extremely severe levels of stress, anxiety, and depression. Additionally, 422 out of 851 responders (49.6%) reported a high level of burnout, while 268 out of 712 responders (37.6%) reported a high level of structural empowerment based on the DASS-21, MBI, and CWEQ-II scales, respectively. In addition, the analysis showed that HCWs working in the COVID-19 areas experienced significantly higher symptoms of severe stress, anxiety, depression and higher levels of burnout compared to those working in other areas. The results also revealed that direct work with COVID-19 patients, lower work experience, and high workload during the outbreak of COVID-19 increase the risks of negative psychological consequences.
CONCLUSION: Health professionals had high levels of burnout and psychological symptoms during the COVID-19 emergency. Monitoring and timely treatment of these conditions is needed.
METHODS: The American Heart Association, through its Statistics Committee, continuously monitors and evaluates sources of data on heart disease and stroke in the United States to provide the most current information available in the annual Statistical Update. The 2022 Statistical Update is the product of a full year's worth of effort by dedicated volunteer clinicians and scientists, committed government professionals, and American Heart Association staff members. This year's edition includes data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population and an enhanced focus on social determinants of health, adverse pregnancy outcomes, vascular contributions to brain health, and the global burden of cardiovascular disease and healthy life expectancy.
RESULTS: Each of the chapters in the Statistical Update focuses on a different topic related to heart disease and stroke statistics.
CONCLUSIONS: The Statistical Update represents a critical resource for the lay public, policymakers, media professionals, clinicians, health care administrators, researchers, health advocates, and others seeking the best available data on these factors and conditions.
METHODS: The American Heart Association, through its Statistics Committee, continuously monitors and evaluates sources of data on heart disease and stroke in the United States to provide the most current information available in the annual Statistical Update. The 2021 Statistical Update is the product of a full year's worth of effort by dedicated volunteer clinicians and scientists, committed government professionals, and American Heart Association staff members. This year's edition includes data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population, an enhanced focus on social determinants of health, adverse pregnancy outcomes, vascular contributions to brain health, the global burden of cardiovascular disease, and further evidence-based approaches to changing behaviors related to cardiovascular disease.
RESULTS: Each of the 27 chapters in the Statistical Update focuses on a different topic related to heart disease and stroke statistics.
CONCLUSIONS: The Statistical Update represents a critical resource for the lay public, policy makers, media professionals, clinicians, health care administrators, researchers, health advocates, and others seeking the best available data on these factors and conditions.
METHODS: A committee of 61 well-known metabolic and bariatric surgeons from 24 countries was created to participate in the Delphi consensus. The committee voted on 45 statements regarding recommendations and controversies around fasting after MBS. An agreement/disagreement ≥ of 70.0% was regarded as consensus.
RESULTS: The experts reached a consensus on 40 out of 45 statements after two rounds of voting. One hundred percent of the experts believed that fasting needs special nutritional support in patients who underwent MBS. The decision regarding fasting must be coordinated among the surgeon, the nutritionist and the patient. At any time after MBS, 96.7% advised stopping fasting in the presence of persistent symptoms of intolerance. Seventy percent of the experts recommended delaying fasting after MBS for 6 to 12 months after combined and malabsorptive procedures according to the patient's situation and surgeon's experience, and 90.1% felt that proton pump inhibitors should be continued in patients who start fasting less than 6 months after MBS. There was consensus that fasting may help in weight loss, improvement/remission of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, dyslipidemia, hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus among 88.5%, 90.2%, 88.5%, 85.2% and 85.2% of experts, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Experts voted and reached a consensus on 40 statements covering various aspects of fasting after MBS.