Prior to the H1 N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, it had been more than 40 years since an infectious virus had resulted in such substantial illness, hospitalizations, and deaths on a global scale (CDC, 2010). This can be attributed to improved prevention such as proper hygiene, as well as vaccinations and other drug therapies. However, as the H1 N1 pandemic illustrates, infections are sometimes unavoidable even when appropriate prevention methods are implemented. In clinical settings, patients present with various infections including common disorders such as flus and colds, as well as disorders that require more extensive treatment and care such as the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or tuberculosis (TB). As an advanced practice nurse, you must evaluate patients presenting with symptoms of infections and recommend appropriate drug treatments.
This week you begin to explore infections by considering issues surrounding the prevalence, management, and education about HIV/AIDS. You also examine viral and bacterial infections, as well as the appropriate use of antimicrobial agents.
By the end of this week, students will: Analyze reasons for the prevalence of HIV/AIDS Analyze ways health care professionals can change society’s perceptions of HIV/AIDS Analyze strategies to educate HIV positive patients on treatment and management Analyze categories of antimicrobial agents Differentiate between viral and bacterial infections Analyze the relationship between infections and antimicrobial agents Understand and apply key terms, concepts, and principles related to prescribing drugs to treat infections and infestations Drug Treatments for HIV/AIDS
While HIV/AIDS is still currently incurable, the prognosis for patients with this infectious disease has improved due to advancements in drug treatments. Consider the case of Kristy Aney. Kristy was diagnosed with HIV in 1992 and was told she would survive, at most, 10 more years. Despite unfavorable odds, Kristy is still alive 20 years later. Since her diagnosis, she has witnessed tremendous improvements in HIV/AIDS treatments which have helped patients live longer with fewer side effects. While she acknowledges that these drug treatments have kept her alive, she fears that improvements in drug therapy have led to more people becoming complacent about the disease (Idaho Statesmen, 2012). In fact, the number of people living with HIV/AIDS in the United States is higher than it has ever been (CDC, 2012). This poses the question: Is there a relationship between drug advancements, societal complacency, and infection?
Post an explanation of whether or not you think the prevalence of HIV cases might be attributed to increased complacency due to more advanced drug treatment options.Then, explain how health care professionals can help to change perceptions and increase awareness of the realities of the disease. Finally, describe strategies to educate HIV positive patients on medication adherence, as well as safe practices to reduce the risk of infecting others.
Describe the changes in the family structure since the nineteenth century with reference to appropriate research and the apparent decline of the extended family. Demonstrate knowledge of the diversity of families in contemporary Britain. In order to answer this question it is necessary to address the assumptions regarding the structure of the family pre and post industrialisation, focussing upon the research of historians and social scientists such as Laslett, Anderson, Young and Willmott. Sociologist Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) put forth the view that prior to industrialisation families were extended and lived a rural life with democratic gender relations. After industrialisation, society consisted of nuclear families who lived urbanised lives with women financially depended upon men. He describes post-industrial family units as ‘isolated’ as they are not “part of a wider system of kinship relationships” (Haralambos at al, 1995, pg335). He states that the decline of the extended family was due to industrialisation, as the requirements of skilled labour demanded geographical mobility (Abercrombie et al, 1995). Parsons’ theorizing has since been proven incorrect. The historian Peter Laslett actually found that between 1564 and 1821, only 10 percent of households contained members beyond their immediate family. He states that when couples married it was only a matter of a few years before both their parents died, which implies that there simply not enough members of a family to create an extended unit. He claims “There is no sign of the large, extended co-residential family group giving way to the small, nuclear, conjugal, household of modern industrial society” (Haralambos at al, 1995, pg338). Michael Anderson’s research also discredits the assumption of the rise of modern nuclear families during industrialisation and the death of the extended family. Anderson conducted an 1851 census of Preston and found that “23 percent of households contained kin other than the nuclear family” (Haralambos at al, 1995, pg339). He stated that the families worked as a support network with Grandparents looking after siblings whilst both parents worked. It also meant support during periods of ill health or unemployment and it produced a lower share of rent paid. It was what Haralmbos et al describe as a “mutual aid organisation” (1995, pg339). In the 1950’s, Young and Willmott’s study of Bethnal Green found that two out of three couples lived within three miles of their parents. They also discovered that close ties existed between female members of the family such as mother and daughter, with a “constant exchange of services such as washing, shopping and babysitting, between female relatives” (Haralambos at al, 1995, pg341). Young and Willmott described many families as “a combination of families who to some degree form one domestic unit” (Quoted in Haralambos at al, 1995, pg341). During Willmott and Young’s surveys and historical research, they produced three stages of the family based on their findings. The first stage is Pre-industrial, where the family acted as a ‘unit of production’ with everyone working together, in agriculture for example. This unit is similar to that of Parsons’ pre-industrial family, however it does not appear to be extended. This family structure is still seen in modern society, such as within rural farming areas. The second stage is the Early-industrial family which was extended, and acted as a support network similar to the families studied by Anderson. This is also inclusive of Willmott and Young’s Bethnal Green families in the 1950’s. The third stage is the Symmetrical Family, which is nuclear, home centred, with a shared responsibility concerning housework Willmott went on to carry out research in 1980’s London. He found a nuclear family, which is reliant upon kin for support but is still an independent family unit. This greatly contradicts Parsons’ view of an isolated nuclear family for modern society (Abercrombie et al, 1995, pg304). Robert and Rhona Rapoport however, state their research illustrates how the family structure is still evolving. Twenty percent of families in 1978 were married parents with one main breadwinner. The number of single-parent households has increased from 2.5 percent in 1961 to 10.1 percent in 1992 (Haralambos at al, 1995, pg348). Many factors could contribute to the cause of such a radical change in family structure. Legislation is one factor, as since the 1960’s it is easier to get a divorce, have an abortion, homosexuality is legal and the contraceptive pill is widely available. Women are much more financially independent, which means financial security is not the only reason for marriage. The fact that people are leaving it later to get married and cohabiting for longer periods suggests a higher expectation of marriage. Burgoyne and Clark found examples of couples in this situation in their study of Sheffield. They state that these individuals often view themselves as ‘pioneers of an alternative lifestyle’ (Quoted in Haralambos at al, 1995, pg347). Returning to the rise of single parenthood, the General Household Survey in 1990 found that their was not only a rise in single mothers who had divorced, but a rise from 16 percent to 34 percent of mothers who had never married (Haralambos at al, 1995, pg348). There are numerous arguments as to why this is the case, Haralmbos et al suggest many by Politicians such as John Selwyn Gummer, Peter Lilley and John Redwood who all stated a concern regarding the welfare state and the possibility of it encouraging single parent families (1995, pg349).>GET ANSWER