Search results1 – 2 of 2
In history, alcohol has most commonly been constructed as a problem that affects individuals, not others. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of historical…
In history, alcohol has most commonly been constructed as a problem that affects individuals, not others. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of historical and contemporary research on alcohol's harms to others and aims to give a rationale for the current increasing interest in this field of research.
This paper reviews the recent literature published on alcohol's harm to others and contextualises this through a discussion of historical and present-day cultural positions on alcohol.
Alcohol was rarely linked to harms to others until the early Temperance movement, but this waned in the early twentieth century. Increasing prosperity post the Second World War led to the relaxation of licensing laws, which coincided with an increasing focus on individualism and consumer capitalism. New public health research identified lifestyle factors, including drinking, as problems that were controllable through health promotion and individual behaviour change. Constructing drinkers as deviant or unwell led to individualised policies. Powerful groups such as the alcohol industry and the government encourage the construction of alcohol as an individual problem, not one that affects others.
While only a limited amount of international research has been undertaken on alcohol's harm to others in history, very recently this issue has begun to elicit some government attention. Recent research shows that there are many harms and costs, broadly distributed, constituting well-accepted reasons why regulation and effective public health measures should be implemented to respond to alcohol's harm to others. The epidemiology of both nuisance and serious harms illustrates a spectrum of problems. The prevalence of externalities that exist and the range of people who experience them underscore the reasons that alcohol's harm to others should become a focus of government concern and action into the future.
– The purpose of this paper is to compare four different additive manufacturing (AM) processes to assess their suitability in the context of upper extremity splinting.
The purpose of this paper is to compare four different additive manufacturing (AM) processes to assess their suitability in the context of upper extremity splinting.
This paper describes the design characteristics and subsequent fabrication of six different wrist splints using four different AM processes: laser sintering (LS), fused deposition modelling (FDM), stereolithography (SLA) and polyjet material jetting via Objet Connex. The suitability of each process was then compared against competing designs and processes from traditional splinting. The splints were created using a digital design workflow that combined recognised clinical best practice with design for AM principles.
Research concluded that, based on currently available technology, FDM was considered the least suitable AM process for upper extremity splinting. LS, SLA and material jetting show promise for future applications, but further research and development into AM processes, materials and splint design optimisation is required if the full potential is to be realised.
Unlike previous work that has applied AM processes to replicate traditional splint designs, the splints described are based on a digital design for AM workflow, incorporating novel features and physical properties not previously possible in clinical splinting. The benefits of AM for customised splint fabrication have been summarised. A range of AM processes have also been evaluated for splinting, exposing the limitations of existing technology, demonstrating novel and advantageous design features and opportunities for future research.