Refine
Language
- English (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (3)
Keywords
- capacities (2)
- effectiveness (2)
- motivation (2)
- resources (2)
- risk governance (2)
- vulnerability (2)
- ACE I/D polymorphism (1)
- fetal sex (1)
- glycemic control during pregnancy (1)
- pregnancy (1)
Hypothesis/Introduction: We recently demonstrated that fetal sex may affect maternal glycaemic control in genetically prone mothers. We tested the hypothesis that fetal sex/fetal Y/X chromosomes might affect maternal glycaemic control during pregnancy depending on the maternal angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) I/D polymorphism.
Material and methods: One thousand, three hundred and thirty-two Caucasian women without pre-existing diabetes and pre-existing hypertension with singleton pregnancies delivering consecutively at the Charite obstetrics department were genotyped. Glycaemic control was analysed by measuring total glycated haemoglobin at birth. Correction for confounding factors and multiple testing was done.
Results: Maternal ACE I/D polymorphism showed significant interaction with fetal sex concerning maternal total glycated haemoglobin. Total glycated haemoglobin in DD mothers delivering boys was 6.42 +/- 0.70% vs. 6.21 +/- 0.66% in DD mother delivering girls (p < 0.005), whereas the II carrying mothers showed the opposite effect. II mothers delivering a girl had a higher (p = 0.044) total glycated haemoglobin at birth (6.40 +/- 0.80%) compared to II mothers delivering boys (6.21 +/- 0.81%). There was no interaction of the ACE I/D polymorphism and fetal sex with respect to new onset proteinuria, new onset edema and pregnancy-induced hypertension.
Conclusions: Maternal glycaemic control during the last weeks of pregnancy seems to be influenced by an interaction of the ACE I/D genotyp and fetal sex.
Recent policy changes highlight the need for citizens to take adaptive actions to reduce flood-related impacts. Here, we argue that these changes represent a wider behavioral turn in flood risk management (FRM). The behavioral turn is based on three fundamental assumptions: first, that the motivations of citizens to take adaptive actions can be well understood so that these motivations can be targeted in the practice of FRM; second, that private adaptive measures and actions are effective in reducing flood risk; and third, that individuals have the capacities to implement such measures. We assess the extent to which the assumptions can be supported by empirical evidence. We do this by engaging with three intellectual catchments. We turn to research by psychologists and other behavioral scientists which focus on the sociopsychological factors which influence individual motivations (Assumption 1). We engage with economists, engineers, and quantitative risk analysts who explore the extent to which individuals can reduce flood related impacts by quantifying the effectiveness and efficiency of household-level adaptive measures (Assumption 2). We converse with human geographers and sociologists who explore the types of capacities households require to adapt to and cope with threatening events (Assumption 3). We believe that an investigation of the behavioral turn is important because if the outlined assumptions do not hold, there is a risk of creating and strengthening inequalities in FRM. Therefore, we outline the current intellectual and empirical knowledge as well as future research needs. Generally, we argue that more collaboration across intellectual catchments is needed, that future research should be more theoretically grounded and become methodologically more rigorous and at the same time focus more explicitly on the normative underpinnings of the behavioral turn.
Recent policy changes highlight the need for citizens to take adaptive actions to reduce flood-related impacts. Here, we argue that these changes represent a wider behavioral turn in flood risk management (FRM). The behavioral turn is based on three fundamental assumptions: first, that the motivations of citizens to take adaptive actions can be well understood so that these motivations can be targeted in the practice of FRM; second, that private adaptive measures and actions are effective in reducing flood risk; and third, that individuals have the capacities to implement such measures. We assess the extent to which the assumptions can be supported by empirical evidence. We do this by engaging with three intellectual catchments. We turn to research by psychologists and other behavioral scientists which focus on the sociopsychological factors which influence individual motivations (Assumption 1). We engage with economists, engineers, and quantitative risk analysts who explore the extent to which individuals can reduce flood related impacts by quantifying the effectiveness and efficiency of household-level adaptive measures (Assumption 2). We converse with human geographers and sociologists who explore the types of capacities households require to adapt to and cope with threatening events (Assumption 3). We believe that an investigation of the behavioral turn is important because if the outlined assumptions do not hold, there is a risk of creating and strengthening inequalities in FRM. Therefore, we outline the current intellectual and empirical knowledge as well as future research needs. Generally, we argue that more collaboration across intellectual catchments is needed, that future research should be more theoretically grounded and become methodologically more rigorous and at the same time focus more explicitly on the normative underpinnings of the behavioral turn.