CarterThe purpose of this form is to provide readers of your manuscript with information about your other interests that could influence how they receive and understand your work. The form is designed to be completed electronically and stored electronically. It contains programming that allows appropriate data display. Each author should submit a separate form and is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the submitted information. The form is in six parts. Identifying information.The work under consideration for publication.This section asks for information about the work that you have submitted for publication. The time frame for this reporting is that of the work itself, from the initial conception and planning to the present. The requested information is about resources that you received, either directly or indirectly (via your institution), to enable you to complete the work. Checking "No" means that you did the work without receiving any financial support from any third party --that is, the work was supported by funds from the same institution that pays your salary and that institution did not receive third-party funds with which to pay you. If you or your institution received funds from a third party to support the work, such as a government granting agency, charitable foundation or commercial sponsor, check "Yes". Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work.This section asks about your financial relationships with entities in the bio-medical arena that could be perceived to influence, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work. You should disclose interactions with ANY entity that could be considered broadly relevant to the work. For example, if your article is about testing an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antagonist in lung cancer, you should report all associations with entities pursuing diagnostic or therapeutic strategies in cancer in general, not just in the area of EGFR or lung cancer.Report all sources of revenue paid (or promised to be paid) directly to you or your institution on your behalf over the 36 months prior to submission of the work. This should include all monies from sources with relevance to the submitted work, not just monies from the entity that sponsored the research. Please note that your interactions with the work's sponsor that are outside the submitted work should also be listed here. If there is any question, it is usually better to disclose a relationship than not to do so.For grants you have received for work outside the submitted work, you should disclose support ONLY from entities that could be perceived to be affected financially by the published work, such as drug companies, or foundations supported by entities that could be perceived to have a financial stake in the outcome. Public funding sources, such as government agencies, charitable foundations or academic institutions, need not be disclosed. For example, if a government agency sponsored a study in which you have been involved and d...
The results demonstrated that food supply interventions to promote nutrition across all domains of the school environment can be implemented successfully.
Objective: The present paper reports on a quality improvement activity examining implementation of A Better Choice Healthy Food and Drink Supply Strategy for Queensland Health Facilities (A Better Choice). A Better Choice is a policy to increase supply and promotion of healthy foods and drinks and decrease supply and promotion of energy-dense, nutrient-poor choices in all food supply areas including food outlets, staff dining rooms, vending machines, tea trolleys, coffee carts, leased premises, catering, fundraising, promotion and advertising. Design: An online survey targeted 278 facility managers to collect self-reported quantitative and qualitative data. Telephone interviews were sought concurrently with the twenty-five A Better Choice district contact officers to gather qualitative information. Setting: Public sector-owned and -operated health facilities in Queensland, Australia. Subjects: One hundred and thirty-four facility managers and twenty-four district contact officers participated with response rates of 48?2 % and 96?0 %, respectively. Results: Of facility managers, 78?4 % reported implementation of more than half of the A Better Choice requirements including 24?6 % who reported full strategy implementation. Reported implementation was highest in food outlets, staff dining rooms, tea trolleys, coffee carts, internal catering and drink vending machines. Reported implementation was more problematic in snack vending machines, external catering, leased premises and fundraising. Conclusions: Despite methodological challenges, the study suggests that policy approaches to improve the food and drink supply can be implemented successfully in public-sector health facilities, although results can be limited in some areas. A Better Choice may provide a model for improving food supply in other health and workplace settings. Keywords Food supply Hospitals Health centres Health facilities Obesity AustraliaAt the time of the present study (2009), Queensland Health provided a range of services for 4?33 million people through fifteen Health Service Districts across the state (1,2) . Queensland has an area of 1?73 million square kilometres, which makes it the second largest state in Australia and approximately seven times the size of Great Britain (3) . More than 50 % of Queensland's population lives in regional and remote areas outside the greater metropolitan area of Brisbane; it is the most decentralised state in Australia (3) . There were 67 947 full-time equivalent employees in Queensland Health, which represented approximately one-third of the Queensland public-sector workforce (4) .Queensland Health has a clear leadership role in promoting healthy lifestyles throughout the state and this is increasingly important with the rising prevalence of lifestyle-related chronic disease (5) . The most recent data in Queensland indicate that at least 16 % of the total disease burden is due to measurable risk factors with dietary determinants (high blood pressure, high cholesterol, overweight and obesity, and low fru...
There is a vast spectrum of pathology that afflicts the floor of mouth in children. These span inflammatory conditions, vascular malformations, developmental anomalies, benign tumors and malignancies. While this area is readily evaluated on clinical exam, imaging is often performed to better characterize the disorder prior to management. The imaging modalities most frequently utilized are US, CT and MR. The purpose of this article is to describe the primary conditions that occur in this location in children so that radiologists may provide an appropriate differential diagnosis. These include ranula, venolymphatic malformation, dermoid, teratoma, foregut duplication cyst, hairy polyp, thyroglossal duct cyst and rhabdomyosarcoma. For each pathological condition, there will be a focus on describing its imaging manifestation. Floor of mouth anatomy, imaging approach during both prenatal and postnatal life and etiologies will be discussed. Surgical considerations and operative photographs will also be presented.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.