Explore the vast range of titles available.

An expanding policy framework aimed at monitoring alcohol consumption during pregnancy has emerged. The primary justification is prevention of harm from what is termed ‘prenatal alcohol exposure’ (PAE), by enabling more extensive diagnosis of the disability labelled fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD). Here we focus on proposals to include biomarkers as a PAE ‘screening tool’, specifically those found in meconium (the first newborn excrement), which are discussed as an ‘objective’ measure of PAE.We ask the overarching question, ‘Can routine screening of meconium to establish PAE be ethically or legally justified’, and we answer, ‘No’. To reach this conclusion, we discuss three areas. First, we consider the reasons why meconium screening should not be deemed ‘typical’ within the scope of accepted screening tools. We argue that given the aim and necessary timing of the screen, it cannot achieve what it promises. Second, we outline why patient autonomy and consent are not properly accounted for and cannot be reconciled with the ‘routinisation’ of the proposed ‘screening’. Last, we outline why the benefit of such a screen is not clear, focusing on the significance of trust in healthcare professionals (HCP) for the best interests of the future child and pregnant woman.While recognising the adverse effects of heavy alcohol consumption during pregnancy, we emphasise the case for robust ethical, legal and social considerations and the central need for trust between HCP and patients in maternity care. We conclude the permissibility of meconium screening has not been proven, and it is not justified.

In December 2017, the House of Commons Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee put out a call for submissions to an Inquiry that would consider the evidence-base for early intervention policies, with a particular focus on ‘Adverse Childhood Experiences’ or ACEs. This article analyses those submissions and the transcripts of the Inquiry’s oral sessions in the belief that they constitute a useful window through which to explore the types of claims being made in ACEs discourse. Our aim is to assess whether the ACEs phenomenon represents a continuity with what has been termed the ‘first three years movement’ (Thornton, 2011a, 2011b) – social policy and philanthropic activism which focuses on the earliest years of life in the name of preventing social problems ‘down the line’. In particular, we consider constructions of parents as determinate of these social problems through their influence on their children and the ways in which these are gendered in new ways.

Section 13(5) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 requires fertility clinics, before offering regulated treatment services, to take account of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment and any other child affected by that birth. This paper presents the findings of an empirical study examining the impact on practice of the controversial reform of this section in 2008. While the broad values underpinning section 13(5) appear well embedded in clinic staffs engagement with ethical issues, there is little evidence that practice has been influenced by the 2008 amendments. A complex picture emerged regarding the implementation of section 13(5), particularly in its interaction with other factors, such as funding criteria and professional norms around counselling, implying a higher level of ongoing attention to likely parenting ability — particularly that of single women — than might be expected from a reading of the statute and guidance alone.

Le terme « parent hélicoptère » est aujourd’hui très présent dans les discours public et professionnel sur l’éducation des enfants, ainsi que dans la culture de façon plus générale, particulièrement en Amérique du Nord et au Royaume-Uni. Un petit nombre de travaux sociologiques ont mis en évidence le caractère paradoxal de ce phénomène, qui réside dans une inquiétude souvent exagérée envers l’investissement « excessif » de ces parents dits « hélicoptères » auprès de leurs enfants, au sein même d’une culture de la parentalité intensive. Cet article développe ces travaux de deux manières. Nous resituons d’abord l’utilisation désormais omniprésente du terme « parent hélicoptère » et les qualificatifs qui y sont associés en examinant ses antécédents discursifs dans la terminologie du XXe siècle — comme l’overparenting (surparentalité), le smothering (parent poule ou parent qui couve) ou le coddling (dorlotement) — et en soulignant leur coexistence avec les récits de « mauvaises mères », considérées comme distantes et non impliquées. Ensuite, en analysant l’utilisation du terme helicopter parent faite dans les médias britanniques depuis la fin du XXe siècle, nous analysons comment se construisent les préoccupations actuelles concernant le surinvestissement des parents dans l’éducation de leurs enfants. Nous avons observé que les thèmes les plus récurrents de la couverture médiatique concernaient l’amour parental qui a mal tourné (gone wrong), la pression parentale (parental pushiness), ainsi que la classe sociale du parent hélicoptère. Notre analyse suggère que l’expression « parent hélicoptère » peut être mieux comprise comme un aspect du langage vernaculaire du XXIe siècle qui exprime une certaine aversion envers les résultats perçus d’une parentalité intensive, mais qui laisse intactes les prémisses concernant la responsabilité parentale en matière de pathologies individuelles et sociales. Nous concluons que, pour les sociologues, une caractéristique importante du parent hélicoptère est qu’il est généralement perçu comme un parent « à problèmes » issu de la classe moyenne, et nous suggérons que cette construction de l’origine sociale des défaillances parentales est une question importante à prendre en considération à l’avenir dans les études sur la culture de la parentalité.

Background/Objective: Students’ taste preferences, cooking skills, and cultural backgrounds impact their use of food access resources on campus. Meal kits include pre-sorted ingredients, which could address food waste and help to prepare meals with unfamiliar ingredients. The objective of this exploratory pilot study was to develop and investigate the impact of culturally relevant meal kits on cooking skills, food waste, and food security tailored to UC Davis students. Methods: Meal kits included ingredients found at the campus food pantry. Three culturally relevant recipes were selected: High-Protein Avocado Toast, Mexican-Inspired Quinoa Bowl, and a Korean Vegetable Stir-Fry. Students were randomly assigned to the intervention meal kit group (n = 50), while the comparison recipe card group received a digital recipe card (n = 25). Data were collected through pre- and post-surveys administered online, in addition to open-ended, qualitative feedback through surveys after each meal kit or recipe card. Results: Thirty-two participants in the meal kit group and four participants in the recipe card group completed all study measures. Both groups experienced an increase in being classified as high food security over the three-week intervention period (+13% in the intervention group and +75% in the comparison group). Further, the intervention group improved cooking self-efficacy (+1.2 points; p < 0.01) and food waste practices. Participants appreciated the meal kits’ ease of preparation, clear instructions, and minimal cooking steps. Conclusions: The preliminary findings of this exploratory pilot study highlight the potential importance of culturally relevant interventions to address food security and promote healthier eating habits among college students. However, more research is needed with a larger, more diverse sample over a longer duration.

Our aim was to determine the effect of wearing a surgical mask on the number and type of dictation errors in unedited radiology reports. IRB review was waived for this prospective matched-pairs study in which no patient data was used. Model radiology reports (n = 40) simulated those typical for an academic medical center. Six randomized radiologists dictated using speech-recognition software with and without a surgical mask. Dictations were compared to model reports and errors were classified according to type and severity. A statistical model was used to demonstrate that error rates for all types of errors were greater when masks are worn compared to when they are not (unmasked: 21.7 ± 4.9 errors per 1000 words, masked: 27.1 ± 2.2 errors per 1000 words; adjusted p < 0.0001). A sensitivity analysis was performed, excluding a reader with a large number of errors. The sensitivity analysis found a similar difference in error rates for all types of errors, although significance was attenuated (unmasked: 16.9 ± 1.9 errors per 1000 words, masked: 20.1 ± 2.2 errors per 1000 words; adjusted p = 0.054). We conclude that wearing a mask results in a near-significant increase in the rate of dictation errors in unedited radiology reports created with speech-recognition, although this difference may be accentuated in some groups of radiologists. Additionally, we find that most errors are minor single incorrect words and are unlikely to result in a medically relevant misunderstanding.

The law governing assisted conception in the United Kingdom (UK) (the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990) mandates through section 13(5) that clinicians make 'child welfare' assessments before proceeding with treatment. In the 1990 Act, section 13(5) stated that assessment should take into account 'the need ... for a father', but in section 13(5) of a revised Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act in 2008 the words 'a father' were replaced with 'supportive parenting' in order to signal official recognition of same-sex parents. This article challenges the idea that this might be seen as an unequivocally progressive development through reference to a growing body of scholarship that critically evaluates the attention that policy makers have come to pay to 'parenting'. It discusses the sociopolitical context that gave rise to section 13(5) and the pressures that led to its reform. Findings from an interview study with members of staff who work in assisted conception clinics in the UK are then discussed, focusing on staff's perceptions of the new policy, the meanings they ascribe to the term 'supportive parenting' and their opinions about the responsibility they are given under law for child welfare. The article concludes that professionals' understandings of their role resonate strongly with the wider realities of the oversight of parent-child relations considered characteristic of policies on parenting.

We investigated the accuracy of CEUS for characterizing cystic and solid kidney lesions in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Cystic lesions are assessed using Bosniak criteria for computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); however, in patients with moderate to severe kidney disease, CT and MRI contrast agents may be contraindicated. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is a safe alternative for characterizing these lesions, but data on its performance among CKD patients are limited. We performed flash replenishment CEUS in 60 CKD patients (73 lesions). Final analysis included 53 patients (63 lesions). Four readers, blinded to true diagnosis, interpreted each lesion. Reader evaluations were compared to true lesion classifications. Performance metrics were calculated to assess malignant and benign diagnoses. Reader agreement was evaluated using Bowker’s symmetry test. Combined reader sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for diagnosing malignant lesions were 71%, 75%, 45%, and 90%, respectively. Sensitivity (81%) and specificity (83%) were highest in CKD IV/V patients when grouped by CKD stage. Combined reader sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for diagnosing benign lesions were 70%, 86%, 91%, and 61%, respectively. Again, in CKD IV/V patients, sensitivity (81%), specificity (95%), and PPV (98%) were highest. Inter-reader diagnostic agreement varied from 72% to 90%. In CKD patients, CEUS is a potential low-risk option for screening kidney lesions. CEUS may be particularly beneficial for CKD IV/V patients, where kidney preservation techniques are highly relevant.