UNASSIGNED: The social work profession is in a precarious situation regarding licensure. Test takers of color are struggling to pass social work licensure exams at rates comparable to their White counterparts, per data released by the Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB). As a nation, we are required to meet the needs of our increasingly diverse population. Yet the recruitment and retention of a diverse body of social workers is unlikely to be actualized if disparities persist in these exams. Given ASWB\'s monopoly on social work exams and the likelihood that many states will continue to require the exams for licensure, we sought to explore public responses to the data released, using the National Association of Social Work (NASW) as our starting point. As the nation\'s largest association of social workers, having local chapters within each state, NASW serves as an area of connection between social workers nationwide.
UNASSIGNED: We utilized content analysis to explore emerging themes and conduct a review of the state chapter\'s public responses to exam pass rate data.
UNASSIGNED: A variety of state chapter\'s responses, with few states engaging in advocacy efforts or taking action to facilitate change.
UNASSIGNED: Advocacy efforts play a pivotal role in the restructuring of fragmented systems. This study revisits seemingly ignored disparities diverse test takers may face, while also serving as a call-to-action in advocacy engagement. We conclude with a set of advocacy practice guidelines for use in the promotion of equitable licensing opportunities for all test takers.

The COVID-19 pandemic has required close examination of workforce-related stressors that over decades have contributed to widespread burnout, negative health outcomes, including mental health outcomes, and the loss of the well-educated professionals who are the future of the nursing profession. In the United States and globally, evidence points to factors known to diminish well-being, including inequities, issues of minority status, persistent discrimination, and demanding work environments. The American Academy of Nursing (AAN), dedicated to organizational excellence, nursing leadership and evidence-based policy, develops statements reflecting its mission and those of its nursing affiliates and corporate member, The American Nurses Association. Within nursing, despite the efforts of its members toward advancement, professional fulfillment is often constrained by the systems in which nurses practice and workplace factors over which they have little control. Action by key organizations to initiate changes at systems levels in workplace safety, to increase professional mobility, and propel policies that increase access to health care resources could improve nurse well-being. This paper proposes recommendations from the AAN Expert Panels on Building Health Care System Excellence, Psychiatric Mental Health and Substance Use, and Global Health Expert Panels for the American Academy of Nursing to leverage related policy in the arenas of government and professional/healthcare organizations. Transforming health care work environments and advancing nurse well-being and equity can be accomplished through key, innovative policy changes. These will be achieved through collaboration among associations, organizations, nonprofit groups, and with the public and the media.

Hospitals faced unprecedented scarcity of resources without parallel in modern times during the COVID-19 pandemic. This scarcity led healthcare systems and states to develop or modify scarce resource allocation guidelines that could be implemented during \"crisis standards of care\" (CSC). CSC describes a significant change in healthcare operations and the level of care provided during a public health emergency.
Our study provides a comprehensive examination of the latest CSC guidelines in the western region of the USA, where Alaska and Idaho declared CSC, focusing on ethical issues and health disparities.
Mixed-methods survey study of physicians and/or ethicists and review of healthcare system and state allocation guidelines.
Ten physicians and/or ethicists who participated in scarce resource allocation guideline development from seven healthcare systems or three state-appointed committees from the western region of the USA including Alaska, California, Idaho, Oregon, and California.
All sites surveyed developed allocation guidelines, but only four (40%) were operationalized either statewide or for specific scarce resources. Most guidelines included comorbidities (70%), and half included adjustments for socioeconomic disadvantage (50%), while only one included specific priority groups (10%). Allocation tiebreakers included the life cycle principle and random number generators. Six guidelines evolved over time, removing restrictions such as age, severity of illness, and comorbidities. Additional palliative care (20%) and ethics (50%) resources were planned by some guidelines.
Allocation guidelines are essential to support clinicians during public health emergencies; however, significant deficits and differences in guidelines were identified that may perpetuate structural inequities and racism. While a universal triage protocol that is equally accepted by all communities is unlikely, the lack of regional agreement on standards with justification and transparency has the potential to erode public trust and perpetuate inequity.

The management of older cancer patients remains difficult because of data paucity. Radiation oncologists need to identify potential issues which could affect treatment of those patients. A workshop was organized in Barcelona among international radiation oncologists with special interest in the management of older cancer patients on April 22, 2018. The following consensus was reached: 1. Older cancer patients often faced unconscious discriminating bias from cancer specialists and institutions because of their chronological age. 2. Advances in radiotherapy techniques have allowed patients with multiple co-morbidities precluding surgery or systemic therapy to achieve potential cure in early disease stages. 3. The lack of biomarkers for frailty remains an impediment to future research. 4. Access to healthcare insurance and daily transportation remains an issue in many countries; 5. Hypofractionation, brachytherapy, or stereotactic techniques may be ideally suited for older cancer patients to minimize transportation issues and to improve tolerance to radiotherapy. 6. Patients with locally advanced disease who are mentally and physically fit should receive combined therapy for potential cure. 7. The role of systemic therapy alone or combined with radiotherapy for frail patients needs to be defined in future clinical trials because of targeted agents or immunotherapy may be less toxic compared to conventional chemotherapy.

This systematic review identified assessment guidelines for osteoporosis that incorporate FRAX. The rationale for intervention thresholds is given in a minority of papers. Intervention thresholds (fixed or age-dependent) need to be country-specific.
In most assessment guidelines, treatment for osteoporosis is recommended in individuals with prior fragility fractures, especially fractures at spine and hip. However, for those without prior fractures, the intervention thresholds can be derived using different methods. The aim of this report was to undertake a systematic review of the available information on the use of FRAX® in assessment guidelines, in particular the setting of thresholds and their validation.
We identified 120 guidelines or academic papers that incorporated FRAX of which 38 provided no clear statement on how the fracture probabilities derived are to be used in decision-making in clinical practice. The remainder recommended a fixed intervention threshold (n = 58), most commonly as a component of more complex guidance (e.g. bone mineral density (BMD) thresholds) or an age-dependent threshold (n = 22). Two guidelines have adopted both age-dependent and fixed thresholds.
Fixed probability thresholds have ranged from 4 to 20 % for a major fracture and 1.3-5 % for hip fracture. More than one half (39) of the 58 publications identified utilised a threshold probability of 20 % for a major osteoporotic fracture, many of which also mention a hip fracture probability of 3 % as an alternative intervention threshold. In nearly all instances, no rationale is provided other than that this was the threshold used by the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA. Where undertaken, fixed probability thresholds have been determined from tests of discrimination (Hong Kong), health economic assessment (USA, Switzerland), to match the prevalence of osteoporosis (China) or to align with pre-existing guidelines or reimbursement criteria (Japan, Poland). Age-dependent intervention thresholds, first developed by the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG), are based on the rationale that if a woman with a prior fragility fracture is eligible for treatment, then, at any given age, a man or woman with the same fracture probability but in the absence of a previous fracture (i.e. at the \'fracture threshold\') should also be eligible. Under current NOGG guidelines, based on age-dependent probability thresholds, inequalities in access to therapy arise especially at older ages (≥70 years) depending on the presence or absence of a prior fracture. An alternative threshold using a hybrid model reduces this disparity.
The use of FRAX (fixed or age-dependent thresholds) as the gateway to assessment identifies individuals at high risk more effectively than the use of BMD. However, the setting of intervention thresholds needs to be country-specific.