37 resultados para New France--Description and travel


Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

BACKGROUND Kidney recipients maintaining a prolonged allograft survival in the absence of immunosuppressive drugs and without evidence of rejection are supposed to be exceptional. The ERA-EDTA-DESCARTES working group together with Nantes University launched a European-wide survey to identify new patients, describe them and estimate their frequency for the first time. METHODS Seventeen coordinators distributed a questionnaire in 256 transplant centres and 28 countries in order to report as many 'operationally tolerant' patients (TOL; defined as having a serum creatinine <1.7 mg/dL and proteinuria <1 g/day or g/g creatinine despite at least 1 year without any immunosuppressive drug) and 'almost tolerant' patients (minimally immunosuppressed patients (MIS) receiving low-dose steroids) as possible. We reported their number and the total number of kidney transplants performed at each centre to calculate their frequency. RESULTS One hundred and forty-seven questionnaires were returned and we identified 66 TOL (61 with complete data) and 34 MIS patients. Of the 61 TOL patients, 26 were previously described by the Nantes group and 35 new patients are presented here. Most of them were noncompliant patients. At data collection, 31/35 patients were alive and 22/31 still TOL. For the remaining 9/31, 2 were restarted on immunosuppressive drugs and 7 had rising creatinine of whom 3 resumed dialysis. Considering all patients, 10-year death-censored graft survival post-immunosuppression weaning reached 85% in TOL patients and 100% in MIS patients. With 218 913 kidney recipients surveyed, cumulative incidences of operational tolerance and almost tolerance were estimated at 3 and 1.5 per 10 000 kidney recipients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS In kidney transplantation, operational tolerance and almost tolerance are infrequent findings associated with excellent long-term death-censored graft survival.

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

The challenges of research ethics and methodologies have been reflected on extensively, but – aside from the context of feminist methodologies – less so in relation to research on particular migration sites such as in transit, detention centres, at the borders or within migration administration. First attempts in this direction have been made (Düvell et al. 2010, Fresia et al. 2005, Riedner 2014, van Liempt/Bilger2009), however, more reflection and theorization is needed, considering the contested nature of these temporal and volatile sites. In this workshop, we thus aim at examining methodological as well as ethical questions that arise during field work: We attempt to reflect the power relations involved in the research process, the ethics of research design, the dissemination of research results, the question of gaining access to and – whenever necessary – staying in contact with our research subjects. How can we negotiate informed consent with subjects whose life is currently marked by transit and insecurity concerning their own future, and who are in an uncertain situation in which substantial information (legal, social, cultural etc.) is likely to be missing? How do we deal with the dilemma of possibly contributing to knowledge production that might facilitate removals and deportations in the future, considering that the reception of the results is not in the hands of the researchers? How do we deal with the anticipated as well as unexpected impacts of our research on social and political practice? Regarding fieldwork in state institutions, how do we negotiate the multiple loyalties we often find ourselves faced with as social researchers, both with the excluded migrants and with the authorities implementing the exclusions – two groupings considered to be opposite to each other (Lavanchy 2013)? Which different roles do researchers need to take on? The aim of our workshop is first and foremost to exchange experiences on fieldwork with others doing qualitative research on related topics and to consider its possible implications – including affective dimensions – for all participants involved in the research process: the migrants, the security staff of detention centres, its social workers, border police and bureaucrats and, last but not least, the researchers themselves. Furthermore, we generally wish to reflect upon the question of how best to conduct research in this contested field, applying an interdisciplinary perspective.