What Can We Learn from Police Data About Timeliness in Rape and Serious Sexual Offence Investigations in England and Wales?

The issue of timeliness in rape and other serious sexual offence investigations has been raised in a number of inspections and reviews, and there are policy imperatives to decrease delays, but there has been little exploration of police data to understand what contributes to them and enable practical recommendations or options. This paper explores what official data from two police forces participating in Operation Soteria Bluestone tell us about the timelines of these investigations, what this reveals about the gaps in policing data, and what additional knowledge can be gained from qualitative methodologies, in this instance case file analysis and case reviews.

What can We Learn from Police Data About Timeliness in Rape and Serious Sexual Offence Investigations in England and Wales?

The issue of timeliness in rape and other serious sexual offence investigations has been raised in a number of inspections and reviews, and there are policy imperatives to decrease delays, but there has been little exploration of police data to understand what contributes to them and enable practical recommendations or options. This paper explores what official data from two police forces participating in Operation Soteria Bluestone tell us about the timelines of these investigations, what this reveals about the gaps in policing data, and what additional knowledge can be gained from qualitative methodologies, in this instance case file analysis and case reviews.

Towards Ethical International Research Partnerships in Gender-Based Violence Research: Insights From Research Partners in Kenya

Research with survivors of gender-based violence in low- and middle-income countries is important to improve understanding of experiences of violence and the policies that can help combat it. But this research also implies risks for survivors, such as re-traumatization, safety concerns, and feelings of exploitation. These risks are magnified if research is undertaken by researchers from high-income countries, whose positionality produces power inequalities affecting both participants and research partners. This article describes the ethical challenges of international gender-based violence research from the perspective of Kenyan researchers and organizations and identifies recommendations about how to prevent them.

Cognitive function in 6- to 12-year-old offspring of women with Type 1 diabetes

AIMS

Maternal diabetes is a recognized risk factor for congenital malformation, perinatal morbidity and obesity in later childhood. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of maternal diabetes on cognitive function in offspring.

METHODS

Participants were 6- to 12-year-old offspring of women with Type 1 diabetes. All women received their antenatal care and delivered at one university hospital. HbA(1c) was monitored monthly throughout pregnancy and cognitive function was assessed using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, version 4.

RESULTS

We present results in 40 offspring. There was no difference in overall full-scale IQ compared with UK normative data. However, working memory was poorer than other parts of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children version 4 test and significantly lower compared with UK normative data [8.4 (2.2) vs. 10.1 (3.2), P < 0.01]. We found no correlation between measurement of digit span or HbA(1c) at any stage during pregnancy (r = -0.225 to 0.002), gestational age at delivery (r = -0.178) or infant birthweight ratio (r = -0.176). There was no relationship between working memory score and maternal hypoglycaemia episodes or maternal duration of diabetes. Comparing infants born before (n = 9) or after 37 weeks' gestation, digit span was non-significantly lower [7.9 (1.8) vs. 8.6 (2.4)].

DISCUSSION

These results suggest offspring of women with Type 1 diabetes have normal overall cognitive function but poorer working memory. We have been unable to identify specific risk factors. Further larger studies are required to increase the understanding of this memory defect and identify any modifiable risk factors.

Implementing the International Health Regulations (2005) in Europe

The adoption of the International Health Regulations (2005) (also referred to as IHR(2005) or the revised Regulations) provides a remarkable new legal tool for the protection of international public health. Upon entry into force on 15 June 2007, Article 2 (‘Purpose and scope‘) provides that the overall focus of the efforts of States Parties (and World Health Organization's efforts) under the revised Regulations will be to prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with the public health risks and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic. Health measures under the revised Regulations will be implemented with respect for travellers’ human rights, with several specific new requirements in this area. To comply with the IHR (2005), States Parties (WHO member states that will be bound by the IHR(2005)) will have to have core public health capacities in disease surveillance and response, as well as additional capacities at designated international ports, airports and land crossings. This unique collective commitment will require close collaboration between WHO and the States Parties, but also intersectoral collaboration within the States themselves, including collaboration among different administrative or governmental levels, a particular issue for federal states, and horizontally across ministries and disciplines. Collaboration among States Parties is a key aspect of the revised Regulations, whether among neighbours, or with trading partners, members of regional economic integration organisations or other regional groups, or simply members of the international community. This collaboration is particularly relevant for the Member States of the European Union.

Implementing the International Health Regulations (2005) in Europe

The adoption of the International Health Regulations (2005) (also referred to as IHR(2005) or the revised Regulations) provides a remarkable new legal tool for the protection of international public health. Upon entry into force on 15 June 2007, Article 2 ('Purpose and scope') provides that the overall focus of the efforts of States Parties (and World Health Organization's efforts under the revised Regulations will be to prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with the public health risks and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic. Health measures under the revised Regulations will be implemented with respect for travellers' human rights, with several specific new requirements in this area. To comply with the IHR(2005), States Parties (WHO member states that will be bound by the IHR(2005)) will have to have core public health capacities in disease surveillance and response, as well as additional capacities at designated international ports, airports and land crossings. This unique collective commitment will require close collaboration between WHO and the States Parties, but also intersectoral collaboration within the States themselves, including collaboration among different administrative or governmental levels, a particular issue for federal states, and horizontally across ministries and disciplines. Collaboration among States Parties is a key aspect of the revised Regulations, whether among neighbours, or with trading partners, members of regional economic integration organisations or other regional groups, or simply members of the international community. This collaboration is particularly relevant for the Member States of the European Union.

[Detection of meningococcal meningitis epidemics in Africa: a new recommendation]

In sub-Saharan Africa, the control of meningococcal meningitis epidemics relies on early epidemic detection and mass vaccination. However, experience shows that interventions are often initiated too late to have a significant impact on the epidemic. A new recommendation drafted by participants of a consensus meeting proposes an alert threshold and an epidemic threshold based on the weekly number or incidence of meningitis cases, according to the population size and the epidemic risk, resulting in indicators with high sensitivity and specificity for the detection of an emerging epidemic. Meningitis outbreak investigations must include an assessment of the quality of epidemiologic surveillance. The new recommendation is published in English and French in the Weekly Epidemiologic Record [12]. The success of this consensus meeting shows the value of integrating results from surveillance, field experience and operational research for designing new health strategies.