Flexible work arrangements (FWAs) are widely implemented for organizational purposes including recruitment. Theoretically, these arrangements alter temporal and physical boundaries around work. However, the time and place dimensions are frequently confounded in research, making the separate and joint effect of each on various outcomes unclear. To determine the relative importance of FWA dimensions as anticipated resources, this study experimentally manipulates discretion over when (flextime) and where (flexplace) one is expected to work on anticipated organizational support (AOS) and organization attraction. Prospective employees (N = 130) participated in a 3 × 3 within‐subject experiment in which they rated nine hypothetical organizations that varied in flextime and flexplace. Results indicated main effects for both flextime and flexplace on both AOS and organization attraction with flextime having the stronger impact. Although the combination of a high level of both flextime and flexplace yielded the highest ratings of AOS and organization attraction, the interaction between flextime and flexplace was not statistically significant, suggesting flextime and flexplace have independent effects on recruitment outcomes. Relationships between flextime and flexplace and organizational attraction were slightly stronger for individuals who prefer to integrate their work and non‐work roles. Managerial implications and directions for future research are discussed. Practitioner points Potential applicants rate flextime without a required core time as significantly more supportive and attractive than flextime with core time. Potential applicants rate flextime with a required core time as significantly more supportive and attractive than no flextime. Potential applicants rate working from home 2 to 3 days a week as significantly more supportive and attractive than not being able to work from home at all. The supportiveness and attractiveness of flextime does not depend on the supportiveness or attractiveness of flexplace or vice versa.

Importance: Marijuana is the most commonly used dependent substance in pregnancy. The main active chemical of marijuana ) readily crosses the placenta, and cannabinoid receptors have been identified in fetal brain and placenta. As a result, prenatal marijuana use could potentially have detrimental impact on fetal development.Objective: This review aims to summarize the existing literature and current recommendations for marijuana use while pregnant or lactating. Evidence Acquisition: A PubMed literature search using the following terms was performed to gather relevant data: "cannabis," "cannabinoids," "marijuana," "fetal outcomes," "perinatal outcomes," "pregnancy," "lactation."Results: Available studies on marijuana exposure in pregnancy were reviewed and support some degree of developmental disruption, including an increased risk of fetal growth restriction and adverse neurodevelopmental consequences. However, much of the existing prenatal marijuana research was performed in the 1980s, when quantities of THC were lower and the frequency of use was less. Additionally, most human studies are also limited and conflicting as most studies have been observational or retrospective, relying primarily on patient self-report and confounded by polysubstance abuse and small sample sizes, precluding determination of a causal effect specific for marijuana. Given the paucity of evidence, it is currently recommended to avoid using marijuana while pregnant or when breastfeeding. Conclusion and Relevance:There is a critical need for research on effects in pregnancy using present-day THC doses. Once the adverse perinatal effects of marijuana exposure are identified and well characterized, patient education and antenatal surveillance can be developed to predict and mitigate its impact on maternal and fetal health.

IntroductionType 1 diabetes (T1D) in children and adolescents is increasing worldwide with a particular increase in children <5 years. Fewer than 1 in 6 children and adolescents achieve recommended glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) values.MethodsA pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial assessed the efficacy of a clinic-based structured educational group incorporating psychological approaches to improve long-term glycemic control, quality of life and psychosocial functioning in children and adolescents with T1D. 28 pediatric diabetes services were randomized to deliver the intervention or standard care. 362 children (8–16 years) with HbA1c≥8.5% were recruited. Outcomes were HbA1c at 12 and 24 months, hypoglycemia, admissions, self-management skills, intervention compliance, emotional and behavioral adjustment, and quality of life. A process evaluation collected data from key stakeholder groups in order to evaluate the feasibility of delivering the intervention.Results298/362 patients (82.3%) provided HbA1c at 12 months and 284/362 (78.5%) at 24 months. The intervention did not improve HbA1c at 12 months (intervention effect 0.11, 95% CI −0.28 to 0.50, p=0.584), or 24 months (intervention effect 0.03, 95% CI −0.36 to 0.41, p=0.891). There were no significant changes in remaining outcomes. 96/180 (53%) families in the intervention arm attended at least 1 module. The number of modules attended did not affect outcome. Reasons for low uptake included difficulties organizing groups and work and school commitments. Those with highest HbA1cs were less likely to attend. Mean cost of the intervention was £683 per child.ConclusionsSignificant challenges in the delivery of a structured education intervention using psychological techniques to enhance engagement and behavior change delivered by diabetes nurses and dietitians in routine clinical practice were found. The intervention did not improve HbA1c in children and adolescents with poor control.Trial registration numberISRCTN52537669, results.

No abstract

The home numeracy environment (HNE) is often predictive of children's early mathematics skills, though the findings are mixed. Overall, research on kindergarten‐aged children demonstrates a relation between the HNE and early numeracy skills, whereas findings for preschool‐aged children are more equivocal. One potential reason for equivocality of these findings is that previous studies have not accounted for the way different practices may relate to children's mathematics skills at different ages. The purpose of the present study was to explore a potential reason for discrepancies in findings of the relation between the HNE and mathematics skills in preschool. Reports of HNE practices were collected from parents of 184 preschool children (71 three year olds and 113 four year olds) and children were assessed on their numeracy skills. Parents of 4‐year‐olds engaged in HNE activities more frequently than parents of 3‐year‐olds. Furthermore, more advanced HNE activities were correlated with numeracy performance of older children, but more basic HNE activities were not correlated with numeracy performance of either age group after accounting for parental education. These findings suggest that nuanced approaches in the way the HNE is measured at different ages may be needed in order to accurately assess relations between developmentally appropriate HNE activities and children's outcomes. Highlights The relation between specific home numeracy environment practices and children's numeracy skills were compared across preschool aged children (3 and 4 years old). Complex home numeracy environment practices were related to numeracy skills of older children, but basic home numeracy environment practices were only related to numeracy skills with younger children until controlling for parental education. More targeted measurement of the home numeracy environment may be needed in order to fully assess its impact on the development of mathematics cognition.

Although job stress models suggest that changing the work social environment to increase job resources improves psychological health, many intervention studies have weak designs and overlook influences of family caregiving demands. We tested the effects of an organizational intervention designed to increase supervisor social support for work and nonwork roles, and job control in a results-oriented work environment on the stress and psychological distress of health care employees who care for the elderly, while simultaneously considering their own family caregiving responsibilities. Using a group-randomized organizational field trial with an intent-to-treat design, 420 caregivers in 15 intervention extended-care nursing facilities were compared with 511 caregivers in 15 control facilities at 4 measurement times: preintervention and 6, 12, and 18 months. There were no main intervention effects showing improvements in stress and psychological distress when comparing intervention with control sites. Moderation analyses indicate that the intervention was more effective in reducing stress and psychological distress for caregivers who were also caring for other family members off the job (those with elders and those "sandwiched" with both child and elder caregiving responsibilities) compared with employees without caregiving demands. These findings extend previous studies by showing that the effect of organizational interventions designed to increase job resources to improve psychological health varies according to differences in nonwork caregiving demands. This research suggests that caregivers, especially those with "double-duty" elder caregiving at home and work and "triple-duty" responsibilities, including child care, may benefit from interventions designed to increase work-nonwork social support and job control. (PsycINFO Database Record

This article identifies three types of traps that can emerge when implementing workplace flexibility—altered work-life dynamics, reduced fairness perceptions, and weakened organizational culture—and provides core lessons for managers seeking a balanced flexibility approach. First managers must become flex savvy to understand the variation that exists in flexibility practices to align implementation with the workforce and organizational context. Second, implementing flexibility must not be treated as an accommodation but as a broader systemic organizational change empowering individuals and teams. The article provides a Work-smart case to highlight how to avoid traps and implement balanced workplace flexibility across multiple stakeholder interests.

The widespread nature of identified MRPs in this setting suggests that various approaches to minimizing these problems and mitigating the associated burden on the health care system are warranted.