Major differences in organization and availability of health care and medicines for HIV/TB coinfected patients across Europe

OBJECTIVES The aim of the study was to investigate the organization and delivery of HIV and tuberculosis (TB) health care and to analyse potential differences between treatment centres in Eastern (EE) and Western Europe (WE). METHODS Thirty-eight European HIV and TB treatment centres participating in the TB:HIV study within EuroCoord completed a survey on health care management for coinfected patients in 2013 (EE: 17 respondents; WE:21; 76% of all TB:HIV centres). Descriptive statistics were obtained for regional comparisons. The reported data on health care strategies were compared with actual clinical practice at patient level via data derived from the TB:HIV study. RESULTS Respondent centres in EE comprised: Belarus (n = 3), Estonia (1), Georgia (1), Latvia (1), Lithuania (1), Poland (4), Romania (1), the Russian Federation (4) and Ukraine (1); those in WE comprised: Belgium (1), Denmark (1), France (1), Italy (7), Spain (2), Switzerland (1) and UK (8). Compared with WE, treatment of HIV and TB in EE are less often located at the same site (47% in EE versus 100% in WE; P < 0.001) and less often provided by the same doctors (41% versus 90%, respectively; P = 0.002), whereas regular screening of HIV-infected patients for TB (80% versus 40%, respectively; P = 0.037) and directly observed treatment (88% versus 20%, respectively; P < 0.001) were more common in EE. The reported availability of rifabutin and second- and third-line anti-TB drugs was lower, and opioid substitution therapy (OST) was available at fewer centres in EE compared with WE (53% versus 100%, respectively; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Major differences exist between EE and WE in relation to the organization and delivery of health care for HIV/TB-coinfected patients and the availability of anti-TB drugs and OST. Significant discrepancies between reported and actual clinical practices were found in EE.

European university-based study programmes in evaluation: characteristics and future challenges

This chapter examines the state of evaluation training programs at European universities in 2012. It summarises the results of a survey that was conducted among representatives of 15 programs located in Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Italy, France, The Netherlands, Romania, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. Some basic information about the programs are reported (e.g. organising body, degree offered, admission requirements, duration in months, price), as well as the programs’ core subjects and learning outcomes. The chapter discusses the challenges for university-based study programmes that arise from the current situation of the evaluation profession, and concludes with some thoughts on education and training as requirements for professionalisation in evaluation

Religious Diversity and Religious Vitality: New Measuring Strategies and Empirical Evidence

Quantitative studies of the conditions and consequences of religious diversity are based mostly on indices that measure the variety of religious membership in a particular region. However, this line of research has become stagnant, and the question of whether diversity affects religious vitality remains unanswered. This article attempts to shed new light on the discussion by measuring religious diversity differently and capturing religious vitality independently of membership figures. In particular, it contrasts the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index based on membership proportions with a second measure of diversity: an index of organizational diversity. Conversely, the dependent variable religious vitality is measured not by using rates of participation in religious organizations but via the Centrality of Religion Scale. Based on ecological and individual level data of forty-three local regions in Finland, Germany, and Slovenia and using multilevel analysis, our results suggest that religious diversity is related to religious vitality. However, the nature of this association differs across subgroups.

Castanea sativa in Europe: distribution, habitat, usage and threats

The sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) is the only native species of the genus in Europe. The broad diffusion and active management by man resulted in the establishment of the species at the limits of its potential ecological range, which makes it difficult to trace its original natural area. The present distribution ranges from North-Western Africa (e.g. Morocco) to North-Western Europe (southern England, Belgium) and from south-western Asia (e.g. Turkey) to Eastern Europe (e.g. Romania), the Caucasus (Georgia, Armenia) and the Caspian Sea. In Europe the main chestnut forests are concentrated in a few countries such as Italy, France and the Iberian Peninsula. The sweet chestnut has a remarkable multipurpose character, and may be managed for timber production (coppice and high forest) as well as for fruit production (traditional orchards), including a broad range of secondary products and ecosystem services.

Exil, espace et frontières dans l'oeuvre de Milan Kundera

Milan Kundera emigrierte 1975 nach Frankreich. Der Zeitpunkt seiner Emigration trifft mit jenem zusammen, in dem sich in seiner Arbeit Überlegungen zu Exil, Grenzen und Raum entwickeln. In seinen politischen Schriften hebt er die Veränderung der europäischen Grenzen nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg hervor sowie den Umstand, dass sich die Tschechoslowakei und Zentraleuropa in der Sowjetunion im „Exil“ befinden. In seinen Exilromanen bewegen sich die Figuren zwischen heimischem und exilischem Raum, und diese territoriale Grenzüberschreitung wird systematisch von einem metaphysischen Grenzübergang begleitet. Schliesslich zeigt Kundera in seinen Erwägungen zur Literatur, dass literarische Werke, um in ihrer ganzen Vielfalt berücksichtigt zu werden, in anderen Kulturräumen als ihrem eigenen zirkulieren müssen. Diese „Reise“ durch Kunderas Werk wird uns denn auch dazu bringen, über mögliche paradigmatische Figuren des zeitgenössischen Exils nachzudenken.

Abundance and biomass of zooplankton from 1986-1994 collected in front of Constanta city, Black Sea

The Est Constanta 1986-1994 dataset contains zooplankton data collected allong a 5 station transect in front of the city Constanta (44°10'N, 28°41.5'E - EC1; 44°10'N, 28°47'E - EC2; 44°10'N, 28°54'E - EC3; 44°10'N, 29°08'E - EC4; 44°10'N, 29°22'E - EC5). Zooplankton sampling was undertaken at 5 stations where samples were collected using a Juday closing net in the 0-10, 10-25, 25-50m layer (depending also on the water masses). The dataset includes samples analysed for mesozooplankton species composition and abundance. Sampling volume was estimated by multiplying the mouth area with the wire length. Taxon-specific mesozooplankton abundance was count under microscope. Total abundance is the sum of the counted individuals. Total biomass Fodder, Rotifera , Ctenophora and Noctiluca was estimated using a tabel with wet weight for each species an stage.

Abundance of mesozooplankton in the western part of the Black Sea in summer 1998 during the National Monitoring Programme

The dataset is based on samples collected in the summer of 1998 in the Western Black Sea in front of Bulgaria coast. The whole dataset is composed of 69 samples (from 22 stations of National Monitoring Grid) with data of mesozooplankton species composition abundance and biomass. Samples were collected in discrete layers 0-10, 0-20, 0-50, 10-25, 25-50, 50-100 and from bottom up to the surface at depths depending on water column stratification and the thermocline depth. Zooplankton samples were collected with vertical closing Juday net,diameter - 36cm, mesh size 150 µm. Tows were performed from surface down to bottom meters depths in discrete layers. Samples were preserved by a 4% formaldehyde sea water buffered solution. Sampling volume was estimated by multiplying the mouth area with the wire length. Mesozooplankton abundance: The collected material was analysed using the method of Domov (1959). Samples were brought to volume of 25-30 ml depending upon zooplankton density and mixed intensively until all organisms were distributed randomly in the sample volume. After that 5 ml of sample was taken and poured in the counting chamber which is a rectangle form for taxomomic identification and count. Large (> 1 mm body length) and not abundant species were calculated in whole sample. Counting and measuring of organisms were made in the Dimov chamber under the stereomicroscope to the lowest taxon possible. Taxonomic identification was done at the Institute of Oceanology by Lyudmila Kamburska using the relevant taxonomic literature (Mordukhay-Boltovskoy, F.D. (Ed.). 1968, 1969,1972). Taxon-specific abundance: The collected material was analysed using the method of Domov (1959). Samples were brought to volume of 25-30 ml depending upon zooplankton density and mixed intensively until all organisms were distributed randomly in the sample volume. After that 5 ml of sample was taken and poured in the counting chamber which is a rectangle form for taxomomic identification and count. Copepods and Cladoceras were identified and enumerated; the other mesozooplankters were identified and enumerated at higher taxonomic level (commonly named as mesozooplankton groups). Large (> 1 mm body length) and not abundant species were calculated in whole sample. Counting and measuring of organisms were made in the Dimov chamber under the stereomicroscope to the lowest taxon possible. Taxonomic identification was done at the Institute of Oceanology by Lyudmila Kamburska using the relevant taxonomic literature (Mordukhay-Boltovskoy, F.D. (Ed.). 1968, 1969,1972).

Abundance of mesozooplankton in the western part of the Black Sea in summer 2001 during the National Monitoring Programme of the Bulgarian Institute of Oceanography

The dataset is based on samples collected in the summer of 2001 in the Western Black Sea in front of Bulgaria coast (transects at c. Kaliakra and c. Galata). The whole dataset is composed of 26 samples (from 10 stations of National Monitoring Grid) with data of mesozooplankton species composition abundance and biomass. Samples were collected in discrete layers 0-10, 10-20, 10-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-90. Zooplankton samples were collected with vertical closing Juday net,diameter - 36cm, mesh size 150 µm. Tows were performed from surface down to bottom meters depths in discrete layers. Samples were preserved by a 4% formaldehyde sea water buffered solution. Sampling volume was estimated by multiplying the mouth area with the wire length. Mesozooplankton abundance: The collected material was analysed using the method of Domov (1959). Samples were brought to volume of 25-30 ml depending upon zooplankton density and mixed intensively until all organisms were distributed randomly in the sample volume. After that 5 ml of sample was taken and poured in the counting chamber which is a rectangle form for taxomomic identification and count. Large (> 1 mm body length) and not abundant species were calculated in whole sample. Counting and measuring of organisms were made in the Dimov chamber under the stereomicroscope to the lowest taxon possible. Taxonomic identification was done at the Institute of Oceanology by Lyudmila Kamburska and Kremena Stefanova using the relevant taxonomic literature (Mordukhay-Boltovskoy, F.D. (Ed.). 1968, 1969,1972). Taxon-specific abundance: The collected material was analysed using the method of Domov (1959). Samples were brought to volume of 25-30 ml depending upon zooplankton density and mixed intensively until all organisms were distributed randomly in the sample volume. After that 5 ml of sample was taken and poured in the counting chamber which is a rectangle form for taxomomic identification and count. Copepods and Cladoceras were identified and enumerated; the other mesozooplankters were identified and enumerated at higher taxonomic level (commonly named as mesozooplankton groups). Large (> 1 mm body length) and not abundant species were calculated in whole sample. Counting and measuring of organisms were made in the Dimov chamber under the stereomicroscope to the lowest taxon possible. Taxonomic identification was done at the Institute of Oceanology by Lyudmila Kamburska and Kremena Stefanova using the relevant taxonomic literature (Mordukhay-Boltovskoy, F.D. (Ed.). 1968, 1969,1972).