2 resultados para job interviews
em Duke University
Resumo:
AIMS: To assess the impact of involuntary job loss due to plant closure or layoff on relapse to smoking and smoking intensity among older workers. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, SAMPLE: Data come from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative survey of older Americans aged 51-61 in 1991 followed every 2 years beginning in 1992. The 3052 participants who were working at the initial wave and had any history of smoking comprise the main sample. METHODS: Primary outcomes are smoking relapse at wave 2 (1994) among baseline former smokers, and smoking quantity at wave 2 among baseline current smokers. As reported at the wave 2 follow-up, 6.8% of the sample experienced an involuntary job loss between waves 1 and 2. FINDINGS: Older workers have over two times greater odds of relapse subsequent to involuntary job loss than those who did not. Further, those who were current smokers prior to displacement that did not obtain new employment were found to be smoking more cigarettes, on average, post-job loss. CONCLUSIONS: The stress of job loss, along with other significant changes associated with leaving one's job, which would tend to increase cigarette consumption, must outweigh the financial hardship which would tend to reduce consumption. This highlights job loss as an important health risk factor for older smokers.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: When the nature and direction of research results affect their chances of publication, a distortion of the evidence base - termed publication bias - results. Despite considerable recent efforts to implement measures to reduce the non-publication of trials, publication bias is still a major problem in medical research. The objective of our study was to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to prevent or reduce publication bias. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the scholarly literature and extracted data from articles. Further, we performed semi-structured interviews with stakeholders. We performed an inductive thematic analysis to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 39 articles. Thirty-four of 89 invited interview partners agreed to be interviewed. We clustered interventions into four categories: prospective trial registration, incentives for reporting in peer-reviewed journals or research reports, public availability of individual patient-level data, and peer-review/editorial processes. Barriers we identified included economic and personal interests, lack of financial resources for a global comprehensive trial registry, and different legal systems. Facilitators identified included: raising awareness of the effects of publication bias, providing incentives to make data publically available, and implementing laws to enforce prospective registration and reporting of clinical trial results. CONCLUSIONS: Publication bias is a complex problem that reflects the complex system in which it occurs. The cooperation amongst stakeholders to increase public awareness of the problem, better tailoring of incentives to publish, and ultimately legislative regulations have the greatest potential for reducing publication bias.