Science

Publication Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • (2009) Grulich, Andrew; Templeton, David; Jin, Feng Yi; Prestage, Garrett; Donovan, Basil; Imrie, John; Kippax, Susan; Cunningham, Philip; Kaldor, John; Mindel, Adrian; Cunningham, Anthony
    Journal Article
    BACKGROUND: Circumcision status was examined as an independent risk factor for sexually transmissible infections (STIs) in the Health in Men cohort of homosexual men in Sydney. METHODS: From 2001 through 2004, 1427 initially human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-negative men were enrolled and followed up until mid-2007. All participants were offered annual STI testing. The history of STIs was collected at baseline, and information on sexual risk behaviors was collected every 6 months. At annual face-to-face visits, participants reported STI diagnoses received during the previous year. RESULTS: Circumcision was not associated with prevalent or incident herpes simplex virus 1, herpes simplex virus 2, or self-reported genital warts. There was also no independent association of circumcision with incident urethral gonorrhea or chlamydia. Being circumcised was associated with a significantly reduced risk of incident (hazard ratio, 0.35 [95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.84]) but not prevalent (odds ratio, 0.71 [95% confidence interval, 0.35-1.44]) syphilis. The association was somewhat stronger among men who reported predominantly insertive unprotected anal intercourse (hazard ratio, 0.10 [95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.82]). CONCLUSIONS: These are the first prospective data obtained from homosexual men to assess circumcision status as a risk factor for STIs. Circumcised men were at reduced risk of incident syphilis but no other prevalent or incident STIs. Circumcision is unlikely to have a substantial public health impact in reducing acquisition of most STIs in homosexual men.

  • (2009) Quinnell, Rosanne; Russell, Carol; Thompson, Rachel; Nancy, Marshall; Cowley, Jill
    Conference Paper
    A raft of models and definitions of SoTL exist and the best appear to transcend disciplinary contexts, and are sufficiently robust for academics to measure scholarly practices. Critical engagement with the scholarly literature is necessary for academics to gain a realistic view of where their work practices are situated within the scholarly domain. Because academic staff are disciplinary experts they are best placed to comment on whether the models of scholarship describe the scholarship of learning and teaching within the context of their own disciplines as well as within the confines of the Australian higher education sector. This paper pushes the existing debates on reconciling what evidence of scholarship in the disciplines actually is and what is considered valid, and in doing so uncovers why the process of reconciliation, between current practice and supporting evidence, remains elusive. Higher education academics need to identify and reconcile tacit disciplinary knowledge with their SoTL approach in order to unpack the complexity and value of their practices. Enabling academic staff to annotate their activities, roles and accomplishments and then map these items onto the various models of scholarship will enrich the status of scholarship of teaching and learning within the higher education sector.