Mature Women Exposes \/\/FREE\\\\
Methods: The study population included women aged 15-25 years registered with the Clinical Practice Research Datalink General Practice OnLine Database in the United Kingdom (UK), who received at least one HPV-16/18-vaccine dose between 1st September 2008 and 30th June 2011. Exposed women had the first day of gestation between 30 days before and 45 days (90 days for the extended exposure period) after any HPV-16/18-vaccine dose. Non-exposed women had the first day of gestation 120 days-18 months after the last dose. SA defined as foetal loss between weeks 1 and 23 of gestation (UK definition).
mature women exposes
Results: The frequency of SA was 11.6% (among 207 exposed) and 9.0% (632 non-exposed), women: hazard ratio (HR) adjusted for age at first day of gestation 1.30 (95% confidence interval: 0.79-2.12). Sensitivity analysis per number of doses administered (-30 to +45-day risk period) showed a HR for SA of 1.11 (0.64-1.91) for 18/178 women with one dose during the risk period versus 2.55 (1.09-5.93) in 6/29 women with two doses within a 4-5 weeks period. The proportion of pre-term/full-term/postterm deliveries, small/large for gestational age infants, and birth defects was not significantly different between exposed and non-exposed women. Results were consistent using a (United States) SA definition of foetal loss between weeks 1-19 and/or the extended risk period.
Conclusion: There was no evidence of an increased risk of SA and other adverse pregnancy outcomes in young women inadvertently HPV-16/18-vaccinated around gestation. Nevertheless, women who are pregnant or trying to become pregnant are advised to postpone vaccination until completion of pregnancy.
However, while older people are quite well protected against poverty, there are clear differences between men and women across much of the EU. The figure below illustrates these gender differences for different age groups. A value above zero in the figure indicates a higher share of women threatened by poverty or social exclusion as compared to men in the same age group.
In contrast, when looking at women above age 65, a substantially higher risk of poverty or social exclusion than for their male counterparts becomes apparent. For the EU as a whole, this gender gap amounts to more than four percentage points for people between age 65 and 74, and increases to over six percentage points for those above age 75.
The often substantial gender gaps in pensions reflect the gender gaps in remuneration, working hours and duration of working lives that women faced during their working lives. Pay differences may be rooted in education and skills levels, as well as various forms of gender segregation and discrimination. Household and caring duties relating to children and frail older relatives fall mostly upon women who experience more career interruptions and part time work than men as a result. Finally, the statutory retirement age for women is still lower than that of men in some pension systems, which leads to shorter contributory periods and can result in lower benefits.
Further, the fact that older women often live alone tend to exacerbate their precarious economic situation as they cannot share costs which are not fully proportionate to household size (e.g., housing, insurance, electricity). 40 percent of women above age 65 live in a single household in the EU compared to only 19 percent of elderly men.
Nevertheless, women continue to have low-paid jobs, to work part-time and to interrupt their careers for reasons of care duties. Thus gender differences in old age poverty will not disappear in the foreseeable future; this would require much more determined efforts to achieve equal opportunities for women and men with regard to employment and professional careers.
Research by Chao, in which the Kaiser Permanente Database was used and AD cases were found using similar case identification and ascertainment methods, showed an increased risk of Grave's and Hashimoto diseases combined and a decreased risk of type 1 diabetes after 4 vHPV vaccination.13 A study by Arnheim-Dahlström using healthcare registers from Denmark and Sweden, on the contrary, found an increased risk of type 1 diabetes after 4 vHPV vaccination.14 However, both authors concluded that there was no clear evidence of a safety signal following vaccination with 4vHPV, because no cluster of disease onset in relation to vaccination timing was found and no significant increased risk of most other conditions was found in vaccinated women. Moreover, in a follow-up review of the study by Chao, the authors concluded that many of the confirmed incident Grave's disease cases were actually prevalent cases.15 A recent observational study carried out in a cohort of approximately 4 million women aged 10 to 44 years in Denmark did not find an increased risk of multiple sclerosis or other demyelinating diseases after 4 vHPV vaccination.16 Additionally, other observational studies did not find any increased risk of AD in the 4 vHPV vaccinated group compared to an unvaccinated group.17-19
Since the introduction of the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth), experiences of age discrimination in employment among mature age workers have featured prominently in the complaints of age discrimination received by the Australian Human Rights Commission. In 2008-09, I undertook a series of consultations with peak bodies including age-based community groups, legal service providers, business groups, unions, academics and relevant government departments. As well I undertook research to learn more about the barriers to employment facing mature age workers.
A number of general themes emerged including mature age workers' access to appropriate skills and training, the ability to balance unpaid caring work, issues of law reform and the lack of detailed Australian research into these issues. One of the foremost barriers that emerged was that of unlawful age discrimination - and this in the face of one of the most significant demographic shifts in modern human history where populations across the globe are ageing.
In part four we explore the ways age discrimination can manifest itself in the everyday working lives of mature age workers. This can include recruitment processes and - where mature age workers are employed - access to training, promotions and flexible work practices and issues with insecure employment, targeted restructures and age-based bullying.
The purpose of this paper is to look at and raise awareness of the issues of ageism and unlawful age discrimination against mature age workers within the workplace. So why is the focus on mature age workers and employment?
In examining the issues facing mature age workers we are not advocating that mature age workers be forced to work for longer. Rather, we are talking about enabling the choices of those people who need or wish to work, to do so without discriminatory barriers.
Also in focusing on mature age workers we are not implying that unlawful age discrimination is more or less acceptable against young people than for mature age workers. What we argue for is the elimination of unlawful age discrimination so that people of all ages are judged on their merit.
In our research and consultations, a number of people noted that this ageist culture appears to be invisible, accepted and largely unacknowledged within our community. The attitudes that employers and recruiters may hold in relation to mature age workers are reflected in and reinforced by the negative attitudes to older age that we see in our general community. Another woman who wrote to the Commission told us:
Firstly, the Age Discrimination Act gives workers the ability to complain to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unfair treatment based on age and to have their complaint conciliated. For mature age workers who are denied employment, offered less beneficial terms and conditions of employment or who have been unfairly dismissed because of their age, the ability to bring a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission significantly expands their rights within the workplace.
Age-based discrimination will only be unlawful if it falls within one of the protected areas of public life outlined in the Age Discrimination Act. While this paper is concerned mainly with age discrimination against mature age workers in the area of employment, the Age Discrimination Act also covers other areas. These include:
We heard that discriminatory recruitment practices can contribute to one of the most difficult barriers facing mature age workers - their inability to re-enter the workforce. For example, someone might accept a voluntary redundancy assuming they will quite easily be able to find another job, only to discover they just cannot get back into the job market. If one considers that as of July 2010, 38% of long term job-seekers are over the age of 40 years, discriminatory recruitment practices like these not only represent a serious problem to mature age workers but have implications for the productivity of our nation as a whole.
Even in situations where mature age workers are in employment, forms of age discrimination can be found. We have heard that mature age workers can be viewed by managers and co-workers as less efficient, less trainable and less valuable than people who are younger than them. In the workplace these types of stereotypes can have a number of consequences in regards to:
Age discrimination can also be used to trap mature age workers in more precarious or vulnerable forms of employment like casual or temporary arrangements. As one mature age worker, who wrote to the Commission, observed:
Redundancy and restructure practices can also be used by some employers to demote or force mature age workers out of the workplace. Research suggests that, when businesses restructure, mature age workers are often targeted. See the following examples: 041b061a72