scholarly journals Unhealthy assimilation or persistent health advantage? A longitudinal analysis of immigrant health in the United States

2017 ◽  
Vol 195 ◽  
pp. 105-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yao Lu ◽  
Nicole Denier ◽  
Julia Shu-Huah Wang ◽  
Neeraj Kaushal
Author(s):  
Barbara O'Byrne

Blended course delivery has wide applications across diverse educational settings. By definition, it is multimodal and involves multiple delivery formats. However, scant research has examined the impact of multimodal, blended delivery on university pedagogy. This chapter makes the case for close examination of the theoretical and pedagogical foundation of blended learning and proposes that research is needed to establish and validate the constructivist principles associated with blended learning. A longitudinal analysis of surveys and in-depth interviews with instructors from a distance education graduate school in the United States identified and contextualized features of learner-centered pedagogy linked to blended learning.


2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (5) ◽  
pp. 286-291
Author(s):  
Jonathan H. Watanabe ◽  
Jincheng Yang

Introduction: Concurrent opioid and benzodiazepine use (“double-threat”) and double-threat and muscle relaxant use (“triple-threat”) are postulated to increase morbidity versus opioids alone. Study objectives were to measure association between double- and triple-threat exposure and hospitalizations in a validated, nationally representative database of the United States. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the 2013 and 2014 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) longitudinal dataset and affiliated Prescribed Medicines Files. Association between 2013 and 2014 double- and triple-threat exposures and outcome of hospitalizations compared to nonusers, opioid users, and all combinations were assessed via logistic regression. The cohort surveyed in MEPS has been weighted to be reflective of the actual US population in the years 2013 and 2014. Logistic regression applying the subject-level MEPS survey weights was performed to measure association via odds ratios (ORs) of medication exposures with the outcome of all-cause hospitalization. Study subjects were categorized into exposure groups as nonusers (nonuse of opioids, benzodiazepines, or muscle relaxants), opioid users, benzodiazepine users, muscle relaxant users, “double-threat” users, and “triple-threat” users. Analyses were conducted using RStudio® 1.1.5 (Boston, MA) with α level = 0.05 for all comparisons. Results: Opioids, benzodiazepines, and muscle relaxants were used in 11.9% (38.4 million), 4.2% (13.5 million), and 3.4% (10.9 million) lives of the United States in 2013, respectively. Double-threat prevalence rose from 1.6% to 1.9% from 2013 to 2014. Triple-threat prevalence remained unchanged at 0.53%. Compared to nonusers, triple-threat patients increased hospitalization probability with ORs of 8.52 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.50-8.55) in 2013, 5.06 (95% CI: 5.04-5.08) in 2014, and 4.61 (95% CI: 4.59-4.63) in the 2013-2014 longitudinal analysis. Compared to nonusers, double-threat patients increased hospitalization probability with ORs of 5.71 (95% CI: 5.69-5.72) in 2013, 11.47 (95% CI: 11.44-11.49) in 2014, and 5.59 (95% CI: 5.57-5.60) in the longitudinal analysis. Conclusion: Concurrent opioid and benzodiazepine use and opioid, benzodiazepine, and muscle relaxant use were associated with increased hospitalization likelihood. Amplified efforts in surveillance, prescribing, monitoring, and deprescribing for concurrent opioid, benzodiazepine, and muscle relaxant use are needed to reduce this public health concern.


1982 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 375-384
Author(s):  
Patricia A. Hurley

If one were asked to describe the process of policy change in the United States in one word, that word would surely be ‘incremental’. Students of the Congressional process can point to a number of factors which account for delay in changes of policy; it is only recently that they have begun to examine the occasional departures from Congressional intractability in matter of public policy. This paper seeks to further our understanding of how internal legislative conditions can produce or inhibit policy change. While the first scholars to call attention to this phenomenon noted that policy changes followed critical realignments, others have made a more general case for the ability of Congress to pass important legislation, arguing that Congressional potential for policy change depends largely upon the interactive effects of both majority and minority size and unity. Policy changes have been enacted by those Congresses with large and/or cohesive majorities and small and/or disorganized minorities. These conditions often follow realigning elections, but occur at other times as well.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document