'Being-in-the-world-of-care' : the lived experiences of older people receiving community aged care packages in Queensland

It has been recognised in current literature that, in general, Australia’s population is ageing and that older people are increasingly choosing to continue to live in the community in their own homes for as long as possible. Such factors of social change are expected to lead to larger numbers of older people requiring community care services for longer periods. Despite this, there is little information available in the literature on the perceptions and experiences of older people regarding community-based care and support. This study explores the lived experience of a small group of older people living in South East Queensland who were receiving a level of care consistent with the Community Aged Care Package (CACP). It also sought to examine the impact and meaning of that care on the older person’s overall lifestyle, autonomy, and personal satisfaction. In-depth interviews were undertaken with these older people, and were analysed using Heidegger’s interpretive hermeneutical phenomenological approach. Shared narratives were then explored using Ricoeur’s narrative analysis framework. In order to sensitise the researcher to the unconscious or symbolic aspects of the care experience, Wolfensberger’s social role valorization theory (SRV) was also utilised during a third phase of analysis. Methodological rigour was strengthened within this study through the use of reflexivity and an in-depth member check discussion that was conducted with each participant. The interviews revealed there were significant differences in expectations, understanding, and perceptions between older people and their carers or service providers. The older person perceived care primarily in relational terms, and clearly preferred active participation in their care and a consistent relationship with a primary carer. Older people also sought to maintain their sense of autonomy, lifestyle, home environment, routines, and relationships, as closely as possible to those that existed prior to their requiring assistance. However, these expectations were not always supported by the care model. On the whole, service providers did not always understand what older people perceived was important within the care context. Carers seldom looked beyond the provision of assistance with specific daily tasks to consider the real impact of care on the older person. The study identified that older people reported a range of experiences when receiving care in their own homes. While some developed healthy and supportive connections with their carers, others experienced ageism, abuse, and exploitation. Unsatisfactory interactions at times resulted in a loss, to varying degrees, of their independence, their possessions, and their connectedness with others. There is therefore a need for service providers to pay more attention to the perceptions and self-perceived needs of older people, to avoid unintended or unnecessary negative impacts occurring within care provision. The study provides valuable information regarding the older person’s experience that will assist in supporting the further development and improvement of this model of care. It is proposed that these insights will enable CACPs to cater more closely to the actual needs and preferences of older people, and to avoid causing preventable harm to care recipients.

The desire for the construction industry to move towards lifecycle carbon emissions analysis

A significant reduction in carbon emissions is a global mission and the construction industry has an indispensable role to play as a major carbon dioxide (CO2) generator. Over the years, various building environmental assessment (BEA) models and concepts have been developed to promote environmentally responsible design and construction. However, limited attention has been placed on assessing and benchmarking the carbon emitted throughout the lifecycle of building facilities. This situation could undermine the construction industry’s potential to reduce its dependence on raw materials, recognise the negative impacts of producing new materials, and intensify the recycle and reuse process. In this paper, current BEA approaches adopted by the construction industry are first introduced. The focus of these models and concepts is then examined. Following a brief review of lifecycle analysis, the boundary in which a lifecycle carbon emission analysis should be set for a construction project is identified. The paper concludes by highlighting the potential barriers of applying lifecycle carbon emissions analysis in the construction industry. It is proposed that lifecycle carbon emission analysis can be integrated with existing BEA models to provide a more comprehensive and accurate evaluation on the cradle-to-grave environmental performance of a construction facility. In doing so, this can assist owners and clients to identify the optimum solution to maximise emissions reduction opportunities.

The psychosocial factors influencing aggressive driving behaviour

Many drivers in highly motorised countries believe that aggressive driving is increasing. While the prevalence of the behaviour is difficult to reliably identify, the consequences of on-road aggression can be severe, with extreme cases resulting in property damage, injury and even death. This research program was undertaken to explore the nature of aggressive driving from within the framework of relevant psychological theory in order to enhance our understanding of the behaviour and to inform the development of relevant interventions. To guide the research a provisional ‘working’ definition of aggressive driving was proposed encapsulating the recurrent characteristics of the behaviour cited in the literature. The definition was: “aggressive driving is any on-road behaviour adopted by a driver that is intended to cause physical or psychological harm to another road user and is associated with feelings of frustration, anger or threat”. Two main theoretical perspectives informed the program of research. The first was Shinar’s (1998) frustration-aggression model, which identifies both the person-related and situational characteristics that contribute to aggressive driving, as well as proposing that aggressive behaviours can serve either an ‘instrumental’ or ‘hostile’ function. The second main perspective was Anderson and Bushman’s (2002) General Aggression Model. In contrast to Shinar’s model, the General Aggression Model reflects a broader perspective on human aggression that facilitates a more comprehensive examination of the emotional and cognitive aspects of aggressive behaviour. Study One (n = 48) examined aggressive driving behaviour from the perspective of young drivers as an at-risk group and involved conducting six focus groups, with eight participants in each. Qualitative analyses identified multiple situational and person-related factors that contribute to on-road aggression. Consistent with human aggression theory, examination of self-reported experiences of aggressive driving identified key psychological elements and processes that are experienced during on-road aggression. Participants cited several emotions experienced during an on-road incident: annoyance, frustration, anger, threat and excitement. Findings also suggest that off-road generated stress may transfer to the on-road environment, at times having severe consequences including crash involvement. Young drivers also appeared quick to experience negative attributions about the other driver, some having additional thoughts of taking action. Additionally, the results showed little difference between males and females in the severity of behavioural responses they were prepared to adopt, although females appeared more likely to displace their negative emotions. Following the self-reported on-road incident, evidence was also found of a post-event influence, with females being more likely to experience ongoing emotional effects after the event. This finding was evidenced by ruminating thoughts or distraction from tasks. However, the impact of such a post-event influence on later behaviours or interpersonal interactions appears to be minimal. Study Two involved the quantitative analysis of n = 926 surveys completed by a wide age range of drivers from across Queensland. The study aimed to explore the relationships between the theoretical components of aggressive driving that were identified in the literature review, and refined based on the findings of Study One. Regression analyses were used to examine participant emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses to two differing on-road scenarios whilst exploring the proposed theoretical framework. A number of socio-demographic, state and trait person-related variables such as age, pre-study emotions, trait aggression and problem-solving style were found to predict the likelihood of a negative emotional response such as frustration, anger, perceived threat, negative attributions and the likelihood of adopting either an instrumental or hostile behaviour in response to Scenarios One and Two. Complex relationships were found to exist between the variables, however, they were interpretable based on the literature review findings. Factor analysis revealed evidence supporting Shinar’s (1998) dichotomous description of on-road aggressive behaviours as being instrumental or hostile. The second stage of Study Two used logistic regression to examine the factors that predicted the potentially hostile aggressive drivers (n = 88) within the sample. These drivers were those who indicated a preparedness to engage in direct acts of interpersonal aggression on the road. Young, male drivers 17–24 years of age were more likely to be classified as potentially hostile aggressive drivers. Young drivers (17–24 years) also scored significantly higher than other drivers on all subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992) and on the ‘negative problem orientation’ and ‘impulsive careless style’ subscales of the Social Problem Solving Inventory – Revised (D’Zurilla, Nezu & Maydeu-Olivares, 2002). The potentially hostile aggressive drivers were also significantly more likely to engage in speeding and drink/drug driving behaviour. With regard to the emotional, cognitive and behavioural variables examined, the potentially hostile aggressive driver group also scored significantly higher than the ‘other driver’ group on most variables examined in the proposed theoretical framework. The variables contained in the framework of aggressive driving reliably distinguished potentially hostile aggressive drivers from other drivers (Nagalkerke R2 = .39). Study Three used a case study approach to conduct an in-depth examination of the psychosocial characteristics of n = 10 (9 males and 1 female) self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers. The self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers were aged 24–55 years of age. A large proportion of these drivers reported a Year 10 education or better and average–above average incomes. As a group, the drivers reported committing a number of speeding and unlicensed driving offences in the past three years and extensive histories of violations outside of this period. Considerable evidence was also found of exposure to a range of developmental risk factors for aggression that may have contributed to the driver’s on-road expression of aggression. These drivers scored significantly higher on the Aggression Questionnaire subscales and Social Problem Solving Inventory Revised subscales, ‘negative problem orientation’ and ‘impulsive/careless style’, than the general sample of drivers included in Study Two. The hostile aggressive driver also scored significantly higher on the Barrett Impulsivity Scale – 11 (Patton, Stanford & Barratt, 1995) measure of impulsivity than a male ‘inmate’, or female ‘general psychiatric’ comparison group. Using the Carlson Psychological Survey (Carlson, 1982), the self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers scored equal or higher scores than the comparison group of incarcerated individuals on the subscale measures of chemical abuse, thought disturbance, anti-social tendencies and self-depreciation. Using the Carlson Psychological Survey personality profiles, seven participants were profiled ‘markedly anti-social’, two were profiled ‘negative-explosive’ and one was profiled as ‘self-centred’. Qualitative analysis of the ten case study self-reports of on-road hostile aggression revealed a similar range of on-road situational factors to those identified in the literature review and Study One. Six of the case studies reported off-road generated stress that they believed contributed to the episodes of aggressive driving they recalled. Intense ‘anger’ or ‘rage’ were most frequently used to describe the emotions experienced in response to the perceived provocation. Less frequently ‘excitement’ and ‘fear’ were cited as relevant emotions. Notably, five of the case studies experienced difficulty articulating their emotions, suggesting emotional difficulties. Consistent with Study Two, these drivers reported negative attributions and most had thoughts of aggressive actions they would like to take. Similarly, these drivers adopted both instrumental and hostile aggressive behaviours during the self-reported incident. Nine participants showed little or no remorse for their behaviour and these drivers also appeared to exhibit low levels of personal insight. Interestingly, few incidents were brought to the attention of the authorities. Further, examination of the person-related characteristics of these drivers indicated that they may be more likely to have come from difficult or dysfunctional backgrounds and to have a history of anti-social behaviours on and off the road. The research program has several key theoretical implications. While many of the findings supported Shinar’s (1998) frustration-aggression model, two key areas of difference emerged. Firstly, aggressive driving behaviour does not always appear to be frustration driven, but can also be driven by feelings of excitation (consistent with the tenets of the General Aggression Model). Secondly, while the findings supported a distinction being made between instrumental and hostile aggressive behaviours, the characteristics of these two types of behaviours require more examination. For example, Shinar (1998) proposes that a driver will adopt an instrumental aggressive behaviour when their progress is impeded if it allows them to achieve their immediate goals (e.g. reaching their destination as quickly as possible); whereas they will engage in hostile aggressive behaviour if their path to their goal is blocked. However, the current results question this assertion, since many of the hostile aggressive drivers studied appeared prepared to engage in hostile acts irrespective of whether their goal was blocked or not. In fact, their behaviour appeared to be characterised by a preparedness to abandon their immediate goals (even if for a short period of time) in order to express their aggression. The use of the General Aggression Model enabled an examination of the three components of the ‘present internal state’ comprising emotions, cognitions and arousal and how these influence the likelihood of a person responding aggressively to an on-road situation. This provided a detailed insight into both the cognitive and emotional aspects of aggressive driving that have important implications for the design of relevant countermeasures. For example, the findings highlighted the potential value of utilising Cognitive Behavioural Therapy with aggressive drivers, particularly the more hostile offenders. Similarly, educational efforts need to be mindful of the way that person-related factors appear to influence one’s perception of another driver’s behaviour as aggressive or benign. Those drivers with a predisposition for aggression were more likely to perceive aggression or ‘wrong doing’ in an ambiguous on-road situation and respond with instrumental and/or hostile behaviour, highlighting the importance of perceptual processes in aggressive driving behaviour.

Inhibition of activated fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 in endometrial cancer cells induces cell death despite PTEN abrogation

KRAS activation and PTEN inactivation are frequent events in endometrial tumorigenesis, occurring in 10% to 30% and 26% to 80% of endometrial cancers, respectively. Because we have recently shown activating mutations in fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) in 16% of endometrioid endometrial cancers, we sought to determine the genetic context in which FGFR2 mutations occur. Analysis of 116 primary endometrioid endometrial cancers revealed that FGFR2 and KRAS mutations were mutually exclusive, whereas FGFR2 mutations were seen concomitantly with PTEN mutations. Here, we show that shRNA knockdown of FGFR2 or treatment with a pan-FGFR inhibitor, PD173074, resulted in cell cycle arrest and induction of cell death in endometrial cancer cells with activating mutations in FGFR2. This cell death in response to FGFR2 inhibition occurred within the context of loss-of-function mutations in PTEN and constitutive AKT phosphorylation, and was associated with a marked reduction in extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 activation. Together, these data suggest that inhibition of FGFR2 may be a viable therapeutic option in endometrial tumors possessing activating mutations in FGFR2, despite the frequent abrogation of PTEN in this cancer type.