PubMed · 11638677
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
E Kivalo. 1989. [Not Available].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11638677/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Keratinocytes of psoriatic skin show aberrant expression of membrane-bound CD14 (mCD14). In addition, soluble CD14 (sCD14) is elevated in the sera of psoriatic patients. The mechanisms leading to increased CD14 expression and secretion in psoriasis are poorly understood. A bi-allelic polymorphism in the promoter region of the CD14 gene controls CD14 expression on monocytes and sCD14 levels in the sera of healthy subjects. In this context, we explored the CD14 promoter region genotypes of 63 Finnish patients with psoriasis and 126 non-psoriatic controls using a new ARMS-PCR method. No differences in the CD14 genotype frequencies were found between the groups. Thus, our results suggest that the enhanced CD14 expression in psoriasis is not attributable to functional variants of CD14 (-159C/T).
BACKGROUND: Only a few studies are available of team supervision and its challenges to supervisors. A multiprofessional team supervision project was accomplished in 1995-1998 in one university hospital in Finland. Eighty-two practitioners from five wards participated in the project and 10 experienced supervisors implemented their team supervision. AIM: The aim of this qualitative study is to describe the experiences of five supervisor pairs (n=10) of multiprofessional team supervision. METHODS: Data were collected by semi-structured interviews from the supervisor pairs. The interviewing style was open and followed that of a guided conversation between supervisors and researcher. Interview data were analysed using thematic content analysis. FINDINGS: The factors that influenced team supervision were as follows: advanced knowledge of supervision and confidence in supervisors, commitment and motivation, interaction and collaborative relationships and the arrangements of team supervision. The positive effects of team supervision as identified by the supervisors were as follows: influence on interaction and human relationships in the work community, supervisees' strengthened professional identity and the development of multiprofessional practice. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors can promote or inhibit the achievements of team supervision. Regardless of all the difficulties related to team supervision, its effects on a work community are positive. For the supervisors, team supervision is a demanding and challenging but also a rewarding process.