| 1. |
- Granqvist, Pehr, et al.
(author)
-
Disorganized attachment in infancy : a review of the phenomenon and its implications for clinicians and policy-makers
- 2017
-
In: Attachment & Human Development. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1461-6734 .- 1469-2988. ; 19:6, s. 534-558
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Disorganized/Disoriented (D) attachment has seen widespread interest from policy makers, practitioners, and clinicians in recent years. However, some of this interest seems to have been based on some false assumptions that (1) attachment measures can be used as definitive assessments of the individual in forensic/child protection settings and that disorganized attachment (2) reliably indicates child maltreatment, (3) is a strong predictor of pathology, and (4) represents a fixed or static trait of the child, impervious to development or help. This paper summarizes the evidence showing that these four assumptions are false and misleading. The paper reviews what is known about disorganized infant attachment and clarifies the implications of the classification for clinical and welfare practice with children. In particular, the difference between disorganized attachment and attachment disorder is examined, and a strong case is made for the value of attachment theory for supportive work with families and for the development and evaluation of evidence-based caregiving interventions.
|
|
| 2. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(author)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
In: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
|
|
| 3. |
- Kanai, M, et al.
(author)
-
- 2023
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 4. |
- Giunta, Riccardo E, et al.
(author)
-
ESPRAS Survey on Breast Reconstruction in Europe. : ESPRAS Umfrage zur Brustrekonstruktion in Europa.
- 2021
-
In: Handchirurgie, Mikrochirurgie, plastische Chirurgie : Organ der Deutschsprachigen Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Handchirurgie : Organ der Deutschsprachigen Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Mikrochirurgie der Peripheren Nerven und Gefasse : Organ der V.... - : Georg Thieme Verlag KG. - 1439-3980. ; 53:4, s. 340-348
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The European Leadership Forum (ELF) of the European Society of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery (ESPRAS) previously identified the need for harmonisation of breast reconstruction standards in Europe, in order to strengthen the role of plastic surgeons. This study aims to survey the status, current trends and potential regional differences in the practice of breast reconstruction in Europe, with emphasis on equity and access.A largescale web-based questionnaire was sent to consultant plastic and reconstructive surgeons, who are experienced in breast reconstruction and with understanding of the national situation in their country. Suitable participants were identified via the Executive Committee (ExCo) of ESPRAS and national delegates of ESPRAS. The results were evaluated and related to evidence-based literature.A total of 33 participants from 29 European countries participated in this study. Overall, the incidence of breast reconstruction was reported to be relatively low across Europe, comparable to other large geographic regions, such as North America. Equity of provision and access to breast reconstruction was distributed evenly within Europe, with geographic regions potentially affecting the type of reconstruction offered. Standard practices with regard to radiotherapy differed between countries and a clear demand for European guidelines on breast reconstruction was reported.This study identified distinct lack of consistency in international practice patterns across European countries and a strong demand for consistent European guidance. Large-scale and multi-centre European clinical trials are required to further elucidate the presented areas of interest and to define European standard operating procedures.
|
|
| 5. |
- Scott, Alister, et al.
(author)
-
UK National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-on : Work Package Report 10: Tools, Applications, Benefits and Linkages for Ecosystem Science (TABLES)
- 2014
-
Reports (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Over an 18 month period, the Tools: Applications, Benefits and Linkages for Ecosystems (TABLES) project has worked at the interface of research, policy and practice, crossing different disciplines, sectors and professions, to embed the value of nature more effectively into policies, programmes, plans or projects and thus improve decision -making processes and outcomes.Our main focus has been on translating the 12 principles of the Ecosystem Approach into comprehensive advice within which a set of tools can utilise an Ecosystem Services Framework . The interdisciplinary TABLES team, consisting of academics, professionals in practice, community members and policy makers, championed co-production and social learning strategies using member expertise and experience within diverse case studies. These span the environment, business, local community and planning sectors; all of which are trying to mainstream an Ecosystem Approach to some extent.The project addresses the recommendations of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UK NEA, 2011a, 1303) to integrate ecosystem services and the wider values of the natural environment within a context of policy and decision-making and tools leading to a superior basis for future decision-making.
|
|
