Psychosocial aspects in cardiac rehabilitation: From theory to practice. A position paper from the Cardiac Rehabilitation Section of the European Association of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation of the European Society of Cardiology

A large body of empirical research shows that psychosocial risk factors (PSRFs) such as low socio-economic status, social isolation, stress, type-D personality, depression and anxiety increase the risk of incident coronary heart disease (CHD) and also contribute to poorer health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and prognosis in patients with established CHD. PSRFs may also act as barriers to lifestyle changes and treatment adherence and may moderate the effects of cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Furthermore, there appears to be a bidirectional interaction between PSRFs and the cardiovascular system. Stress, anxiety and depression affect the cardiovascular system through immune, neuroendocrine and behavioural pathways. In turn, CHD and its associated treatments may lead to distress in patients, including anxiety and depression. In clinical practice, PSRFs can be assessed with single-item screening questions, standardised questionnaires, or structured clinical interviews. Psychotherapy and medication can be considered to alleviate any PSRF-related symptoms and to enhance HRQoL, but the evidence for a definite beneficial effect on cardiac endpoints is inconclusive. A multimodal behavioural intervention, integrating counselling for PSRFs and coping with illness should be included within comprehensive CR. Patients with clinically significant symptoms of distress should be referred for psychological counselling or psychologically focused interventions and/or psychopharmacological treatment. To conclude, the success of CR may critically depend on the interdependence of the body and mind and this interaction needs to be reflected through the assessment and management of PSRFs in line with robust scientific evidence, by trained staff, integrated within the core CR team.

Ethics in science: enhancing the democratisation of knowledge production in transdisciplinary research partnerships for sustainable development

Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful individual and social mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Indeed, concepts of sustainable development imply a transformation of science towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production and the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal. This means to open the process of scientific knowledge production while simultaneously empowering people to implement their own visions for sustainable development. Advocates of sustainability science support this transformation. In transdisciplinary practice, they advance equity and accountability in the access to and production of knowledge at the science–society interface. UNESCO points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer. Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity. To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route – i.e., the learning and adaptation process – followed in concrete cases. The transdisciplinary Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1998–2013) is a case ripe for such examination. Understanding transdisciplinarity as an integrative approach, I highlight ESAPP’s three key principles for a more democratised knowledge production for sustainable development: (1) integration of scientific and “non-scientific” knowledge systems; (2) integration of social actors and institutions; and (3) integrative learning processes. The analysis reveals ESAPP’s achievements in contributing to more democratic knowledge production and South ownership in the realm of sustainable development.

Knowledge as a resource: enhancing the democratisation of knowledge production in transdisciplinary research partnerships for sustainable development

Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful individual and social mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Indeed, concepts of sustainable development imply a transformation of science (Lubchenco 1998; WBGU 2011 and 2012) towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production as a contribution to the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal (UNESCO 2005). This means to open the process of scientific knowledge production while simultaneously empowering people to implement their own visions for sustainable development. Advocates of sustainability science support this transformation. In transdisciplinary practice, they advance equity and accountability in the access to and production of knowledge at the science–society interface (Hirsch Hadorn et al 2006; Hirsch Hadorn et al 2008; Jäger 2009; Adger and Jordan 2009; KFPE 2012). UNESCO (2010) points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer (Standing and Taylor 2007; Zingerli 2010). Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity (Wiesmann et al 2011). To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route (Mukhopadhyay et al 2006) – i.e., the learning and adaptation process – followed in concrete cases. The transdisciplinary Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1998–2013) is a case ripe for such examination. Understanding transdisciplinarity as an integrative approach (Pohl et al 2008; Stock and Burton 2011), I highlight ESAPP’s three key principles for a more democratised knowledge production for sustainable development: (1) integration of scientific and “non-scientific” knowledge systems; (2) integration of social actors and institutions; and (3) integrative learning processes. The analysis reveals ESAPP’s achievements in contributing to more democratic knowledge production and South ownership in the realm of sustainable development.

The Jewish Historical Society of England : Jews in the Canary Islands being a calendar of Jewish cases extracted from the records of the Canariote Inquisition in the collection of the Marquess of Bute

by Lucien Wolf. Transl. from the Spanish and ed. with an introd. and notes

Challenges and opportunities related to the creation of a unique society of specialists in general internal medicine in 2015

A common training plan in general internal medicine was a brave enterprise started in 2011 in accordance with the common objectives of the Swiss Society of General Medicine and the Swiss Society of Internal Medicine. The next challenge will be the dissolution of the two Societies and therefore the creation of an unique new association in 2015. This is an extraordinary opportunity to bring together the specific qualities of each association and to create a new society. Issues, objectives and secondary benefits expected from the creation of the largest national society of a medical discipline are explored as a joint discussion in this article.

Refugee Settlement in Australia: Policy, Scholarship and the Production of Knowledge, 1952 − 2013

Since 1947, Australia has formally resettled more than 750,000 refugees. During that time, researchers have successfully completed more than 150 Masters and doctoral theses and published more than 900 articles, books and reports about issues of refugee settlement in Australia, with about half of them being published in the past 10 years. In this paper, we discuss the development of the production of knowledge about refugee resettlement. We identify trends in the literature, such as the emergence of an ethno-specific focus, and the concern with settlement's psychological and emotional impact, and relate them to policy changes. We suggest that scholars need critically to take stock of the knowledge produced so far and be more cognisant of the international scholarly debate.