Cross-cultural dimensions of meaning in the evaluation of events in world history? Perceptions of historical calamities and progress in cross-cultural data from 30 societies

The universality versus culture specificity of quantitative evaluations (negative-positive) of 40 events in world history was addressed using World History Survey data collected from 5,800 university students in 30 countries/societies. Multidimensional scaling using generalized procrustean analysis indicated poor fit of data from the 30 countries to an overall mean configuration, indicating lack of universal agreement as to the associational meaning of events in world history. Hierarchical cluster analysis identified one Western and two non-Western country clusters for which adequate multidimensional fit was obtained after item deletions. A two-dimensional solution for the three country clusters was identified, where the primary dimension was historical calamities versus progress and a weak second dimension was modernity versus resistance to modernity. Factor analysis further reduced the item inventory to identify a single concept with structural equivalence across cultures, Historical Calamities, which included man-made and natural, intentional and unintentional, predominantly violent but also nonviolent calamities. Less robust factors were tentatively named as Historical Progress and Historical Resistance to Oppression. Historical Calamities and Historical Progress were at the individual level both significant and independent predictors of willingness to fight for one’s country in a hierarchical linear model that also identified significant country-level variation in these relationships. Consensus around calamity but disagreement as to what constitutes historical progress is discussed in relation to the political culture of nations and lay perceptions of history as catastrophe.

Seroprotection against tetanus in patients attending an emergency department in Belgium and evaluation of a bedside immunotest.

BACKGROUND: In most emergency departments, tetanus prophylaxis currently relies on vaccination history. Bedside evaluation of tetanus immunity may improve this process. OBJECTIVES: (i) To determine the seroprevalence of tetanus immunity; (ii) to evaluate the accuracy of vaccination history in assessing tetanus immunity; (iii) to identify factors predictive of seroprotection and incorrect history. METHOD: In a prospective observational study, tetanus immunity was assessed in 784 adults using Tétanos Quick Stick (TQS). A questionnaire was completed to obtain vaccination and general histories. Immunity assessed by TQS and by vaccination history were compared with anti-tetanus antibody levels measured by the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (seroprotection threshold >0.15 IU/ml). RESULTS: Overall, 64.2% of patients were protected according to TQS results. Four independent predictors of seroprotection were identified: young age, birthplace in Belgium, male sex and occupational medicine consultation. TQS performance was good: kappa=0.71, sensitivity 85.3%, specificity 87.2%, positive predictive value 92.1% and negative predictive value 77.2%. Seven hundred and sixty-two participants responded to the vaccination history: 23.4% said they were protected, 22.1% that they were not and 54.5% did not know. History performance was poor: kappa=0.27, sensitivity 60.3%, specificity 73.3%, positive predictive value 81.8% and negative predictive value 45.8%. Compared with history, TQS offered a significantly better sensitivity, negative and positive predictive values, but specificity was similar. No predictor of an incorrect history was identified. CONCLUSION: Lack of protective immunity against tetanus is frequent but poorly evaluated by history taking. Several demographic characteristics are good predictors of seroprotection. TQS could be a valuable tool in selected patients to improve tetanus prophylaxis in the emergency department.