Supplemental Material for Behind Bars but Connected to Family: Evidence for the Benefits of Family Contact During Incarceration

Keyword(s):  
2021 ◽  
pp. jech-2020-214843
Author(s):  
Laura W Stoff ◽  
Lisa M Bates ◽  
Sidney Ruth Schuler ◽  
Lynette M Renner ◽  
Darin J Erickson ◽  
...  

BackgroundIntimate partner violence (IPV) is high among married women in Bangladesh. Social isolation is a well-established correlate of women’s exposure to IPV, but the role of such factors in low-income and middle-income countries is not well understood. In this study, we explore whether social connection is protective against IPV among married women in rural Bangladesh.MethodsData were drawn from a multistage, stratified, population-based longitudinal sample of 3355 married women in rural Bangladesh, who were surveyed on individual and contextual risk factors of IPV. Negative binomial regression models were used to estimate the association between three different domains of social connection (natal family contact, female companionship and instrumental social support), measured at baseline in 2013, and the risk of three different forms of IPV (psychological, physical and sexual), approximately 10 months later, adjusted for woman’s level of education, spouse’s level of education, level of household wealth, age and age of marriage.ResultsAdjusted models showed that instrumental social support was associated with a lower risk of past year psychological IPV (risk ratio (RR)=0.84, 95% CI 0.769 to 0.914), sexual IPV (RR=0.90, 95% CI 0.822 to 0.997) and physical IPV (RR=0.81, 95% CI 0.718 to 0.937). Natal family contact was also associated with a lower risk of each type of IPV, but not in a graded fashion. Less consistent associations were observed with female companionship.ConclusionOur findings suggest that social connection, particularly in the form of instrumental support, may protect married women in rural Bangladesh from experiencing IPV.


2017 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 132-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel H. Farr ◽  
Yelena Ravvina ◽  
Harold D. Grotevant

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Margaret Kertesz ◽  
Cathy Humphreys ◽  
Tatiana Corrales

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1980 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-55
Author(s):  
Margaret A. Keller ◽  
Rouben Aftandelians ◽  
James D. Connor

One hundred patients with clinical pertussis were studied to determine the etiology of pertussis syndrome. Forty-two (42%) of the patients had either Bordetella pertussis or Bordetella parapertussis isolated from the nasopharynx. In an additional 36 (36%) patients, B pertussis was isolated from the nasopharynx of the associated index case or family contact case. Thus, Bordetella was isolated from 78 (78%) of the patients or from their immediate family group. Of the 22 culture-negative patients residing in culture-negative families, 12 had serologic evidence of Bordetella infection and another was from a family group in which two members were seropositive. Therefore, 91 patients (91%) had bacteriologic or serologic evidence of Bordetella infection themselves or within their families. Viral cultures were obtained on 75 of the patients. Adenoviruses were isolated from 33% of those with positive cultures for B pertussis and from 14% of those with negative cultures. In the group without direct or indirect, bacteriologic or serologic evidence of Bordetella infection, the adenoviral isolation rate (13%) was not significantly different from the adenoviral isolation rate (33%) in patients with a positive bacterial culture. These data do not support a role for adenovirus alone in causing pertussis syndrome.


2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 314-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy G. La Vigne ◽  
Rebecca L. Naser ◽  
Lisa E. Brooks ◽  
Jennifer L. Castro
Keyword(s):  

2005 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra G. Resnick ◽  
Robert A. Rosenheck ◽  
Lisa Dixon ◽  
Anthony F. Lehman

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 265-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leopold-Michael Marzi

We should use the word “Health Care Safety” instead of “Patient Safety,” because in cases of malpractice the people who are in charge of treatment of patients can be “second victims.” The typical damage case occurs to an above-average employee in a risk-prone discipline after working in the job for 20 years often between Friday afternoon and Sunday more often in the months of January, March or July due to a preceding communication error and a missing assertiveness of a person who is involved in the case. Very often, health professionals do not know how to react in case of malpractice or emergency from a legal point of view. The patient or his family contact a lawyer immediately, but who helps the health professionals to cope with the case? The Vienna General Hospital (VGH) is one of the biggest in the world. In 1999, the project “Risk Management” was initiated by the Legal Department. The aim at this time was: “Minus 50% concerning cases and more than 50% less costs in the next ten years (2000–2010).” In 2010, the aim was reached and the positive trend is still continuing, but how did it work? The VGH in cooperation with the Vienna Insurance Group created a complete new form of quick help in case of emergency: the so-called “Legal Emergency Kit.” It represents a handy plastic case on which a paragraph is stamped. A special checklist tells what to do in case of legal emergency. The legal practitioner of the VGH can be called at any time via mobile phone. The malpractice cases are analysed in a retrospective damage analysis, which helps to avoid errors and damages in the future.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document