The results of a barrier analysis on complementary feeding practices among mothers in the Central River Division of the Gambia

Currently, the barriers to appropriate infant feeding practices are largely unknown in the Central River Division of the Gambia. A questionnaire was developed and implemented by a local Non Governmental Organization (NGO), the Gambia Food and Nutrition Agency, in order to gain more information and ultimately to improve the child mortality rate of the country. There were two participant groups: 88 Doers who are women who had adopted the appropriate complementary feeding practice guidelines as defined by the World Health Organization and 87 Non Doers who are women who had in some way strayed from the appropriate complementary feeding practice guidelines. The questionnaire included aspects of the Health Belief Model which can be used in the development of a future intervention. The Yes/No questions were analyzed using the Chi-square statistical method and the open-ended questions used a descriptive analysis method of evaluation. The constructs for perceived susceptibility, perceived action efficacy, perceived self efficacy, cues for action and perception of divine showed significant differences between the Doers and the Non Doers (p<0.05). The descriptive analysis revealed that both participant groups had a limited understanding of the preventative qualities of the adoption of appropriate complementary feeding practices. The women in both of groups also showed a strong perception of divine will. Women in the Central River Division perceive their husband and in-laws to be the most influential in the decision-making process regarding infant feeding practices. Recommendations for future interventions must acknowledge the importance and influence of the community surrounding the women in their adoption of the appropriate infant feeding practices. It would also be important to educate women about of the specific guidelines of the appropriate complementary feeding practices, specifically the delay in early initiation of complementary feeding. The results of this barrier analysis provide useful information to plan and implement an effective intervention to improve the child mortality rate in the Gambia. ^

Letters from Robert Hallowell Gardiner to his brother-in-law, William Tudor,

Four letters written during the Gardiner family’s journey through Maine and while they were settling in at Oaklands.

Letters from Robert Hallowell Gardiner to his brother-in-law, William Tudor,

Four letters in which Gardiner discusses progress of the church he was building on the estate and requests Tudor send him certain books from Boston.

Letters from Robert Hallowell Gardiner to his brother-in-law, William Tudor,

Four letters written from Oaklands. One letter from Emma expressing her grief and shock over the death of their father was finished by her husband, who described hearing the news from a friend, and Emma’s subsequent reaction. In other letters, Gardiner offers advice on resolving the elder William Tudor’s debts by selling off assets such as shares in the Boston Athenaeum and in a pew at Trinity Church. In one letter, Gardiner also offers his opinion regarding the prospects of Henry James (Harry) Tudor’s law career.

Letters from Robert Hallowell Gardiner to his brother-in-law, William Tudor,

Four letters regarding the Gardiner children as well as Delia Stewart’s constantly changing travel plans.

Letters from Robert Hallowell Gardiner to his brother-in-law, William Tudor,

Five letters regarding topics such as Delia Stewart’s travel plans, local Maine politics, and progress in the construction of a church on the estate. In one letter, Gardiner writes about attending the funeral of Bowdoin College President Jesse Appleton.

Letters from Robert Hallowell Gardiner to his brother-in-law, William Tudor,

Four letters regarding topics such as local Maine politics and various household items and books Tudor acquired on the Gardiner family’s behalf.

Letters from Robert Hallowell Gardiner to his brother-in-law, William Tudor,

One letter from Oaklands requesting Tudor come for a visit, and relaying anectdotes about the Gardiner and Stewart children. One letter written to Tudor in Brazil providing an update on family and local politics

Letter from Charles Stewart to his brother-in-law, William Tudor,

This letter was written aboard the U.S.S. Franklin. Stewart writes in detail about William’s brother Henry James (Harry) Tudor, and concerns about his character, particularly his "natural indolence and indifference." He notes that like his wife, Delia, Harry spends money irresponsibly. Stewart also writes he tried to interest Harry in the pursership of the Franklin, and had hoped he would be appointed to the Consulate of Tripoli or Tunis.

Letter from Robert Hallowell Gardinder to his brother-in-law, Frederic Tudor,

Letter written from Gardiner discussing matters of business and briefly mentioning happenings at Oaklands.

The European Court of Justice and process-oriented review. Research Paper in Law, 01/2012

Structuralism is a theory of U.S. constitutional adjudication according to which courts should seek to improve the decision-making process of the political branches of government so as to render it more democratic.1 In words of John Hart Ely, courts should exercise their judicial-review powers as a ‘representation-reinforcing’ mechanism.2 Structuralism advocates that courts must eliminate the elements of the political decision-making process that are at odds with the structure set out by the authors of the U.S. Constitution. The advantage of this approach, U.S. scholars posit, lies in the fact that it does not require courts to second-guess the policy decisions adopted by the political branches of government. Instead, they limit themselves to enforcing the constitutional structure within which those decisions must be adopted. Of course, this theory of constitutional adjudication, like all theories, has its shortcomings. For example, detractors of structuralism argue that it is difficult, if not impossible, to draw the dividing line between ‘substantive’ and ‘structural’ matters.3 In particular, they claim that, when identifying the ‘structure’ set out by the authors of the U.S. Constitution, courts necessarily base their determinations not on purely structural principles, but on a set of substantive values, evaluating concepts such as democracy, liberty and equality. 4 Without claiming that structuralism should be embraced by the ECJ as the leading theory of judicial review, the purpose of my contribution is to explore how recent case-law reveals that the ECJ has also striven to develop guiding principles which aim to improve the way in which the political institutions of the EU adopt their decisions. In those cases, the ECJ decided not to second-guess the appropriateness of the policy choices made by the EU legislator. Instead, it preferred to examine whether, in reaching an outcome, the EU political institutions had followed the procedural steps mandated by the authors of the Treaties. Stated simply, I argue that judicial deference in relation to ‘substantive outcomes’ has been counterbalanced by a strict ‘process review’. To that effect, I would like to discuss three recent rulings of the ECJ, delivered after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, where an EU policy measure was challenged indirectly, i.e. via the preliminary reference procedure, namely Vodafone, Volker und Markus Schecke and Test-Achats.5 Whilst in the former case the ECJ ruled that the questions raised by the referring court disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the challenged act, in the latter cases the challenged provisions of an EU act were declared invalid.