Search

Background: Big data research requires public support. It has been argued that this can be achieved by public involvement and engagement to ensure that public views are at the centre of research projects. Researchers should aim to include diverse communities, including seldom‐heard voices, to ensure that a range of voices are heard and that research is meaningful to them. Objective: We explored how researchers involve and engage seldom‐heard communities around big data research. Methods: This is a qualitative study. Researchers who had experience of involving or engaging seldom‐heard communities in big data research were recruited. They were based in England (n = 5), Scotland (n = 4), Belgium (n = 2) and Canada (n = 1). Twelve semistructured interviews were conducted on Zoom. All interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed, and we used reflexive thematic analysis to analyse participants' experiences. Results: The analysis highlighted the complexity of involving and engaging seldom‐heard communities around big data research. Four themes were developed to represent participants' experiences: (1) abstraction and complexity of big data, (2) one size does not fit all, (3) working in partnership and (4) empowering the public contribution. Conclusion: The study offers researchers a better understanding of how to involve and engage seldom‐heard communities in a meaningful way around big data research. There is no one right approach, with involvement and engagement activities required to be project‐specific and dependent on the public contributors, researchers' needs, resources and time available. Patient and Public Involvement: Two public contributors are authors of the paper and they were involved in the study design, analysis and writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To describe the methods of the 2016 International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Smoking and Vaping (4CV) Survey, conducted in 2016 in Australia (AU), Canada (CA), England (EN) and the United States (US). Methods: The respondents were cigarette smokers, former smokers (quit within the previous 2 years), and at‐least‐weekly vapers, aged 18 years and older. Eligible cohort members from the ITC Four Country Survey (4C) were retained. New respondents were sampled by commercial firms from their panels. Where possible, ages 18–24 and vapers were oversampled. Data were collected online, and respondents were remunerated. Survey weights were calibrated to benchmarks from nationally representative surveys. Results: Response rates by country for new recruits once invited ranged from 15.2 to 49.6%. Sample sizes for smokers/former smokers were 1504 in AU, 3006 in CA, 3773 in EN and 2239 in the US. Sample sizes for additional vapers were 727 in CA, 551 in EN and 494 in the US. Conclusion: The International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey design and data collection methods allow analyses to examine prospectively the use of cigarettes and nicotine vaping products in jurisdictions with different regulatory policies. The effects on the sampling designs and response quality of recruiting the respondents from commercial panels are mitigated by the use of demographic and geographic quotas in sampling; by quality control measures; and by the construction of survey weights taking into account smoking/vaping status, sex, age, education and geography. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study was designed to collect and compare nurse staffing standards and staffing levels in six counties: the United States, Canada, England, Germany, Norway, and Sweden. Design: The study used descriptive information on staffing regulations and policies as well as actual staffing levels for registered nurses, licensed nurses, and nursing assistants across states, provinces, regions, and countries. Methods: Data were collected from Internet searches of staffing regulations and policies along with statistical data on actual staffing from reports and documents. Staffing data were converted to hours per resident day to facilitate comparisons across countries. Findings: We found wide variations in both nurse staffing standards and actual staffing levels within and across countries, although comparisons were difficult to make due to differences in measuring staffing, the vagueness of standards, and limited availability of actual staffing data. Both the standards and levels in most countries (except Norway and Sweden) were lower than the recommended levels by experts. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate the need for further attention to nurse staffing standards and levels in order to assure the quality of nursing home care. Clinical Relevance: A high quality of nursing home care requires adequate levels of nurse staffing, and nurse staffing standards have been shown to improve staffing levels. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 2011; XX:X, XXX-XXX. ©2011 Sigma Theta Tau International. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]