Localized prostate cancer in Norway, the United States, and Spain: between-country differences of variables before treatment among patients eligible for curative treatment

Between-country differences in medical and sociodemographic variables, and patient-related outcomes (PROs) before treatment might explain published variations of side effects after radical prostatecomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RAD) for prostate cancer (PCa). This hypothesis was tested among 1908 patients from the United States, Spain, and Norway. Significant between-country differences were observed for most factors investigated before treatment. The observations should be considered in comparison of the frequency and severity of internationally published studies. Background: In men with PCa, large variations of PROs after RP or high-dose RAD might be related to betweencountry differences of medical and sociodemographic variables, and differences in PROs before treatment in the sexual and urinary domains. Patients and Methods: In 1908 patients with localized PCa from Norway, the United States, or Spain, the relation between medical (prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, cT-category) and sociodemographic variables (age, education, marital status) before treatment was investigated. Using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaire, PROs before treatment within the sexual and urinary domains were also considered. Results: Compared with the European patients, American patients were younger, fewer had comorbid conditions, and more had a high education level. Fifty-three percent of the US men eligible for RP had low-risk tumors compared with 42% and 31% among the Norwegian and the Spanish patients, respectively. Among the Spanish RAD patients, 54% had had low-risk tumors compared with 34% of the American and 21% of the Norwegian men planned for RAD, respectively. Compared with the European patients, significantly fewer US patients reported moderate or severe sexual dysfunction and related problems. In most subgroups, the number of patients with sexual or urinary dysfunction exceeded that of patients with bother related to the reported dysfunction. Conclusion: Statistically significant between-country differences were observed in medical and sociodemographic variables, and in PROs before treatment within the sexual and urinary domains. Large differences between reported dysfunction and related problems within the sexual and urinary domains indicate that dysfunction and bother should be reported separately in addition to calculation of summary scores. The documented differences, not at least regarding PROs, might in part explain the large variation of side effects after treatment evident in the medical literature

The determinants of contractual choice for private involvement in infrastructure projects in the United States

Reliance on private partners to help provide infrastructure investment and service delivery is increasing in the United States. Numerous studies have examined the determinants of the degree of private participation in infrastructure projects as governed by contract type. We depart from this simple public/private dichotomy by examining a rich set of contractual arrangements. We utilize both municipal and state-level data on 472 projects of various types completed between 1985 and 2008. Our estimates indicate that infrastructure characteristics, particularly those that reflect stand alone versus network characteristics, are key factors influencing the extent of private participation. Fiscal variables, such as a jurisdiction’s relative debt level, and basic controls, such as population and locality of government, increase the degree of private participation, while a greater tax burden reduces private participation.

Emergency Management and Wildland-Urban Interface Fires in the United States of America

FEMA's mission is to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a Nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards.

Emergency Management in the United States of America

Core capabilities are under the above mission areas as outlined in the National Preparedness Goal. Planning, Public Information and Warning, and Operational Coordination cut across all five mission areas. Without these three cross-cutting capabilities, the other capabilities might not be achieved or could be weakened. Other core capabilities are aligned under a specific mission area, based on where it had the most relevance. Core capabilities alignment: Prevention capabilities focus on things related to preventing an imminent terrorist attack; by imminent, we mean an attack that is about to happen ; Protection capabilities focus on security— making sure things, systems, and people are protected ; Mitigation capabilities focus on risk, resilience and building a culture of preparedness; Response capabilities focus on meeting a community’s immediate needs when disaster strikes and finally, recovery capabilities focus on getting communities back on their feet.