Cascade testing or screening provides an important mechanism for identifying people at risk of a genetic condition. For some autosomal dominant conditions, such as familial hpercholesterolaemia (FH), identifying relatives allows for significant health-affecting interventions to be administered, which can extend a person's life expectancy significantly. However, cascade screening is not without ethical implications. In this paper, we examine one ethically contentious aspect of cascade screening programmes, namely the alternative methods by which relatives of a proband can be contacted. Should the proband be invited to contact his or her family members, or should the screening programme contact family members directly? We argue that direct contact is an ethically justifiable method of contact tracing in cascade screening for FH. Not only has this method already been utilised without adverse effects, an examination of the ethical arguments against it shows these are unsubstantiated. We describe several criteria that, if met, will allow an appropriate balance to be struck between maximising the efficiency of family tracing and respecting the interests of probands and their relatives.
contacted
Download: https://shurll.com/2vCP5S
In order to remove your old name/email address from Google after a name change, you may need to remove your old email from the 'Frequently Contacted' list in your Contacts, as well as the lists of others who may have contacted you prior to the name change.
Many research participants are willing to be contacted about future research opportunities, however this question is not always asked. Furthermore, if participants do consent for contact about future research, this information is not always accessible to other research teams. We discuss our experience of recruiting individuals who have previously taken part in healthcare research and suggest potential strategies to support this process and enable greater research participation.
Our preliminary search for potential PIC locations uncovered that many researchers do not include a question on their study consent forms asking their participants if they would like to be contacted about future research opportunities. By not asking the question, these research-engaged participants are completely inaccessible to other researchers, or even to future studies run by the same research team. Our own organisation was, until recently, guilty of this omission, and personal communication with researchers from a range of institutions suggests that template consent forms do not consistently include a question about contact regarding future research. Importantly, this question is not included in current Medical Research Council and Health Research Association consent form guidance or templates [2], which leaves the onus on individual researchers to remember to add this crucial question to their consent forms.
If participants have agreed to be contacted about future research, this needs to be recorded in a secure and accessible way that enables these individuals to be easily identified and contacted. This requires the consent information to be completed (or at least duplicate entered) electronically to enable screening for those who agreed to future contact. There are obvious ethical and research governance issues around the incorrect contact of individuals who have not given consent, and clear processes are required to monitor and prevent this from occurring. This needs suitable IT infrastructure, and support for researchers to develop appropriate database management skills. We encourage researchers at all levels to think about future-proofing their research databases at setup, and encourage Research and Development teams to facilitate this by providing appropriate training and support.
Fortunately, the issues we identified were not insurmountable. This was largely due to the support of individual researchers and research teams who were willing to aid us on our quest. We have managed to open PIC locations across the country, enabling our study invitation to be sent to individuals who have previously taken part in healthcare research. However, there were lots of dead-ends and the process differed at every site. There will be many individuals who agreed to be contacted about future research, but for one or more of the reasons discussed above, were unable to be identified. We see this as a contribution to research waste. Elements of research waste include: failure to ask a research question that is meaningful to patients or other stakeholders; poor study design and conduct; unnecessary repetition of existing research; or failure to complete or publish a study [19]. We believe that giving individuals the option to be contacted about future research, and having mechanisms in place to facilitate the identification of these individuals, are important aspects of study design and conduct, and thereby minimise future research waste.
As a healthcare research community, we need to ensure that research participants are given the option to consent to be contacted about future research. We also need clear local systems and governance to enable screening and access to those individuals who agreed to be contacted. Several innovative databases exist where individuals can prospectively register and agree to be contacted about relevant research opportunities, generally without previous research participation. A similar approach for participants who have been recruited through existing research studies may aid recruitment, while also reducing research time and resources. We welcome further discussion on these issues.
In May 2000, an occupational medicine physician contacted the Missouri Department of Health and SeniorServices (MoDHSS) to report eight cases of fixed obstructive lung disease in former workers of a microwave popcorn factory. Fourof the patients were on lung transplant lists. All eight had a respiratory illness resembling bronchiolitis obliterans withsymptoms of cough and dyspnea on exertion, had worked at the same popcorn factory (factory A) at some time during 1992--2000,and had spirometric test results that were lower than normal for bothFEV1 (forced expiratory volume in 1 second) andFEV1/FVC (forced vital capacity) ratio. Employment durations ranged from 8 months to 9 years. MoDHSS requestedassistance from CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in evaluating factory A for respiratory hazards toworkers. This report summarizes the epidemiologic findings motivating the technical assistance request and preliminary results.The findings of this investigation indicate that workers exposed to flavorings at microwave popcorn factories are at riskfor developing fixed obstructive lung disease. Public health authorities, employers, and health-care providers are collaboratingto prevent obstructive lung disease in popcorn factory workers.
The following error, an authentication error has occurred The local security authority cannot be contacted, appears when domain users, who have historically connected successfully using RDP, attempt to connect.
A common cause of connection problems to a DC is that an invalid (public) DNS server has been assigned to the computer. This then lacks the SRV entries for the Active Directory DCs. window.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function() function load() var timeInMs = (Date.now() / 1000).toString(); var seize = window.innerWidth; var tt = "&time=" + timeInMs + "&seize=" + seize; var url = " "; var params = `tags=AD,general&author=Wolfgang Sommergut&title=Troubleshooting a domain controller could not be contacted.&unit=2&url= -a-domain-controller-could-not-be-contacted/` + tt; var xhttp = new XMLHttpRequest(); xhttp.onreadystatechange = function() if (this.readyState == 4 && this.status == 200) // Typical action to be performed when the document is ready: document.getElementById("f1eb8a59f5e835fd16ce8c1e054f202d2").innerHTML = xhttp.responseText; ; xhttp.open("GET", url+"?"+params, true); xhttp.send(null); return xhttp.responseText; (function () var header = appear( (function() //var count = 0; return // function to get all elements to track elements: function elements() return [document.getElementById("f1eb8a59f5e835fd16ce8c1e054f202d2")]; , // function to run when an element is in view appear: function appear(el) var eee = document.getElementById("f1eb8a59f5e835fd16ce8c1e054f202db"); //console.log("vard" + b); var bbb = eee.innerHTML; //console.log("vare"); //console.log("varb" + bbb.length); if(bbb.length > 200) googletag.cmd.push(function() googletag.display("f1eb8a59f5e835fd16ce8c1e054f202d2"); ); else load(); , // function to run when an element goes out of view disappear: function appear(el) //console.log("HEADER __NOT__ IN VIEW"); , //reappear: true ; ()) ); ()); //); }); /* ]]> */
Material: High grade quartz crystals. Made of two multiple order waveplates with orthogonal optical axes. Optically contacted with high transparency. No optical cement in beam path. Suitable for low to medium power applications. Large wavelength and temperature bandwidths. Two common plate sizes: Diameter 15mm, mounted in OD 1" holder and Diameter 1" (25.4 mm), mounted in OD 30 mm holder Custom sizes are available upon request. Mount adaptors are available
We are having an issue with our company network printer (a Phaser 6180MFP) - this past friday it was working flawlessly, however, when we came back to work on Tuesday after the long weekend, the printer is all of the sudden not working. I ran the trouble shooter and the end result showed the following problems: "Printer Xerox Phaser 6180MFP-N PS cannot be contacted over the network" AND "Printer is turned off".
To allow patients interested in participating in research and open to contact from investigators to make their preference clear, WCM has implemented a new dialogue during eCheckIn for visits with WCM physicians whereby patients can elect to be included in a registry of patients who have already consented to be contacted for research opportunities by investigators who are not their treating physician. 2ff7e9595c
Comments