BREAKING CODES: MAKING THEORIES ON MENSTRUATION ACCESSIBLE THROUGH THIRD-WAVE FEMINISM

Men and women respond to situations according to their community’s social codes. With menstruation, people adhere to “menstrual codes”. Within academic communities, people adhere to “academic codes”. This report paper investigates performances of academic codes and menstrual codes. Implications of gender identity and race are missing and/or minimal in past feminist work regarding menstruation. This paper includes considerations for gender identity and race. Within the examination of academic codes, this paper discusses the inhibitive process of idea creation within the academic sphere, and the limitations to the predominant ways of knowledge sharing within, and outside of, the academic community. The digital project (www.hu.mtu.edu/~creynolds) is one example of how academic and menstrual codes can be broken. The report and project provide a broadly accessible deconstruction of menstrual advertising and academic theories while fostering conversations on menstruation through the sharing of knowledge with others, regardless of gender, race, or academic standing.

Interpretation of primary care physicians' attitude regarding rotavirus immunisation using diffusion of innovation theories

To evaluate primary care physicians' attitude towards implementation of rotavirus (RV) immunisation into the Swiss immunisation schedule, an eight-question internet-based questionnaire was sent to the 3799 subscribers of InfoVac, a nationwide web-based expert network on immunisation issues, which reaches >95% of paediatricians and smaller proportions of other primary care physicians. Five demographic variables were also inquired. Descriptive statistics and multivariate analyses for the main outcome "acceptance of routine RV immunisation" and other variables were performed. Diffusion of innovation theory was used for data assessment. Nine-hundred seventy-seven questionnaires were returned (26%). Fifty percent of participants were paediatricians. Routine RV immunisation was supported by 146 participants (15%; so called early adopters), dismissed by 620 (64%), leaving 211 (21%) undecided. However, when asked whether they would recommend RV vaccination to parents if it were officially recommended by the federal authorities and reimbursed, 467 (48.5%; so called early majority) agreed to recommend RV immunisation. Multivariate analysis revealed that physicians who would immunise their own child (OR: 5.1; 95% CI: 4.1-6.3), hospital-based physicians (OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.1-2.3) and physicians from the French (OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.2-2.3) and Italian speaking areas of Switzerland (OR: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.1-5.8) were more likely to support RV immunisation. Diffusion of innovation theory predicts a >80% implementation if approximately 50% of a given population support an innovation. Introduction of RV immunisation in Switzerland is likely to be successful, if (i) the federal authorities issue an official recommendation and (ii) costs are covered by basic health care insurance.