Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences

About: Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences is a education organization based out in Oslo, Norway. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 1420 authors who have published 3508 publications receiving 77843 citations.

World Health Organization reference values for human semen characteristics

Abstract: BACKGROUND Semen quality is taken as a surrogate measure of male fecundity in clinical andrology, male fertility, reproductive toxicology, epidemiology and pregnancy risk assessments. Reference intervals for values of semen parameters from a fertile population could provide data from which prognosis of fertility or diagnosis of infertility can be extrapolated. METHODS Semen samples from over 4500 men in 14 countries on four continents were obtained from retrospective and prospective analyses on fertile men, men of unknown fertility status and men selected as normozoospermic. Men whose partners had a time-to-pregnancy (TTP) of < or =12 months were chosen as individuals to provide reference distributions for semen parameters. Distributions were also generated for a population assumed to represent the general population. RESULTS The following one-sided lower reference limits, the fifth centiles (with 95th percent confidence intervals), were generated from men whose partners had TTP < or = 12 months: semen volume, 1.5 ml (1.4-1.7); total sperm number, 39 million per ejaculate (33-46); sperm concentration, 15 million per ml (12-16); vitality, 58% live (55-63); progressive motility, 32% (31-34); total (progressive + non-progressive) motility, 40% (38-42); morphologically normal forms, 4.0% (3.0-4.0). Semen quality of the reference population was superior to that of the men from the general population and normozoospermic men. CONCLUSIONS The data represent sound reference distributions of semen characteristics of fertile men in a number of countries. They provide an appropriate tool in conjunction with clinical data to evaluate a patient's semen quality and prospects for fertility.

A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers

Abstract: The gap between research and practice or policy is often described as a problem. To identify new barriers of and facilitators to the use of evidence by policymakers, and assess the state of research in this area, we updated a systematic review. Systematic review. We searched online databases including Medline, Embase, SocSci Abstracts, CDS, DARE, Psychlit, Cochrane Library, NHSEED, HTA, PAIS, IBSS (Search dates: July 2000 - September 2012). Studies were included if they were primary research or systematic reviews about factors affecting the use of evidence in policy. Studies were coded to extract data on methods, topic, focus, results and population. 145 new studies were identified, of which over half were published after 2010. Thirteen systematic reviews were included. Compared with the original review, a much wider range of policy topics was found. Although still primarily in the health field, studies were also drawn from criminal justice, traffic policy, drug policy, and partnership working. The most frequently reported barriers to evidence uptake were poor access to good quality relevant research, and lack of timely research output. The most frequently reported facilitators were collaboration between researchers and policymakers, and improved relationships and skills. There is an increasing amount of research into new models of knowledge transfer, and evaluations of interventions such as knowledge brokerage. Timely access to good quality and relevant research evidence, collaborations with policymakers and relationship- and skills-building with policymakers are reported to be the most important factors in influencing the use of evidence. Although investigations into the use of evidence have spread beyond the health field and into more countries, the main barriers and facilitators remained the same as in the earlier review. Few studies provide clear definitions of policy, evidence or policymaker. Nor are empirical data about policy processes or implementation of policy widely available. It is therefore difficult to describe the role of evidence and other factors influencing policy. Future research and policy priorities should aim to illuminate these concepts and processes, target the factors identified in this review, and consider new methods of overcoming the barriers described.

Risk factors for serious fall related injury in elderly women living at home.

Abstract: Objectives: To study whether balance, function, and other health status indicators can predict serious fall related injury in elderly women living at home. Methods: In this prospective study, the authors took a random sample of 307 women aged 75 years and over (mean 80.8 years, response rate 74.5%), living in the community. Serious fall injuries which occurred over a period of during one year were recorded, together with baseline registrations of health, function, and tests of walking and balance. Results: In all, 155 women (50.5%) fell one or more times. One hundred and fifty six (51%) of the 308 falls resulted in a fall related injury, 74 (24%) in a serious fall related injury, and 40 falls (13%) resulted in fractures. The presence of rheumatic disorders, inability to rise from the floor, arthrosis of the hip, having had more than one fall during the one year follow up period, and an increased tendency to sway in the frontal plane when doing a calculation task were independent and significant predictors for serious fall related injury (fractures included). The independent predictors of fall induced fractures were experiencing more than one fall in the follow up period, cognitive impairment, and receiving care from professional or other. Conclusion: The study suggests that rheumatic disorders and the inability to get up from lying on the floor were the strongest independent risk factors for serious fall related injury. Experiencing more than one fall in the follow up period and cognitive impairment are the strongest independent predictors for fall induced fractures. Age was not a significant predictor of serious fall related injury. Assessment of these markers is feasible in a clinical setting and is a useful way of identifying those who are at risk of serious fall related injuries.