Search

This paper provides an introduction to issues surrounding the participation rights of young people in research and the implications of their growing involvement in research as well as providing a discourse on the ethical implications related to consent. The unique contribution of this paper is that it considers children's rights in respect to the increasing opportunities for young people to take part in evaluation research. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to acknowledge the growing involvement for young people in research and the implications of ensuring that their rights of participation are respected. Secondly, we will consider the children's rights legislation and our obligations as researchers to implement this. Finally, we will explore consent as an issue in its own right as well as the practicalities of accessing participants. This paper will postulate that any research about young people should involve and prioritize at all stages of the research process; including participation in decision-making. We conclude by identifying five key principles, which we believe can help to facilitate the fulfilment of post-primary pupils' ability to consent to participate in trials and evaluative research.

Objective: To assess differences between traditional paper bag ordering and online ordering from primary school canteens in terms of menu, usage and lunch order characteristics.Design: A cross-sectional study.Setting: New South Wales (NSW) primary schools that offered both paper bag and online canteen ordering.Participants: Students (aged 5-12 years) with a lunch order on the day of the observation.Results: Across the six school canteens, 59-90 % of all available items were listed on both the online and paper menus, with no significant differences in the nutritional quality ('Everyday'/'Occasional') or nutritional content (kJ/saturated fat/sugar/sodium) of menu items. In total, 387 student lunch orders were placed, containing 776 menu items. Most orders (68 %) were placed online. There were no significant differences between order modality in the quantity of items ordered or the cost of orders, or the nutritional quality of orders based on the classification system of the NSW Healthy School Canteen Strategy ('Everyday'/'Occasional'). However, nutritional analysis revealed that paper bag orders contained 222 fewer kJ than online orders (P = 0·001), 0·65 g less saturated fat (P = 0·04) and 4·7 g less sugar (P < 0·001).Conclusions: Online canteens are commonly used to order canteen lunches for primary school children. This is the first study to investigate differences between traditional paper bag ordering and online ordering in this setting. Given the rapid increase in the use of online ordering systems in schools and other food settings and their potential to deliver public health nutrition interventions, additional research is warranted to further investigate differences in ordering modalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The medical field is facing a physician-scientist shortage, threatening future medical research and development. Medical institutions can contribute to developing physician-scientists by stimulating students' involvement in research. In this study, a medical undergraduate teaching module to develop research skills and encourage interest in research was held in Chongqing, China. Undergraduate medical students at Chongqing Medical University completed research skills training. Before and after the training, an online, anonymous, self-reported questionnaire was administered. The self-reported questionnaire investigated students' demographic characteristics, students' perception of attitudes toward conducting research, research skills (e.g., identifying and utilizing information, critical appraisal of literature, paper writing, and understanding of research), and feedback on scientific research training. The module was implemented with 25 students from July 2019 to October 2019, and 96.0% (N = 24) of participants responded to the questionnaire both prior to and after the training. In the evaluation of research skills, results showed that use of appropriate tools for research (Z = -3.340, p < 0.01), students' ability to undertake a focused literature search (Z = -3.40, p < 0.01), identifying and utilizing information (Z = -3.34, p < 0.01), and paper-writing skills (Z = -3.49, p < 0.01) were significantly improved after the undergraduates participated in the scientific research training. A qualitative analysis of the feedback showed that students found that the training helped to enhance their knowledge, improve their study scores, and motivate them to conduct research in the future. Early scientific research ability training strengthened the research skills of medical undergraduates and motivated them to pursue research.

There is general consensus that teaching and learning centres have a positive impact on promoting and supporting a culture that values teaching and learning, yet there is limited evidence on how centres evaluate their work. For this purpose, a survey was developed and administered to the directors of 88 Canadian centres; 46 of which completed the survey. In this paper, we share centres' approaches to evaluation that emerged from the survey findings and the artifact analysis. By raising awareness of evaluation approaches, we are better positioned to identify further opportunities to develop a more systematic and coherent approach to evaluation.

Transparency in reporting is essential to scientific progress. No report should be considered complete without a full account of uncertainties, including those due to natural variation and measurement and model error and those incurred by handling problematic data, such as outliers. We randomly selected 132 papers published in 2019 from a list of 100 scientific journals to characterize the current state of uncertainty reporting in ecosystem studies. Each paper was evaluated for the extent to which it reported measures of uncertainty in any of four topic areas common to ecosystem studies: vegetation, soils, precipitation, and surface water. We found that most papers reported a minority of the uncertainty sources we deemed relevant. Papers on surface water reported the highest fraction of uncertainty sources (averaging 47% ± 5%), followed by soils (45% ± 4%), vegetation (32% ± 4%), and precipitation (21% ± 8%). A greater fraction of relevant uncertainty sources were reported when the topics were the primary focus of the paper (44% ± 3%) than when they were not (32% ± 4%). Sampling error—the uncertainty in replicate measurements—was the source most commonly reported in studies of vegetation (84%), soil mass (56%), and surface water (76% of papers). The source of measurement error most often reported was chemical analysis, with 41% of papers on surface water and 75% of papers on precipitation reporting this source, if applicable. In contrast, only 1 of 12 papers reporting chemistry of vegetation provided information on analytical uncertainty. Fewer papers reported what methods were used for handling missing or unusable data and observations below detection limits, but it was difficult to judge whether these sources were relevant if they were not mentioned. Finally, we found that a minority of the papers made all (21%) or some (an additional 21%) of their data available in online repositories, after correcting for a failure rate of 13% of the links. Clearly, there is room for improving the completeness and transparency of scientific reporting in ecosystem studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this research is to make a meta-evaluation of the program evaluation studies on teacher training programs in Turkey. Meta-evaluation is the process of revealing the deficiencies and errors of the research as the last stage of the program evaluation process. In this context, the steps of the meta-evaluation processes were followed methodically. In the in this research, 9 program evaluation studies conducted between 2010 and 2020 about teacher training programs, using any program evaluation approach and model, were meta-evaluated. The sampling method of the research is criterion sampling.. Research data was collected using the "Program Evaluation Standards Checklist" developed by the researchers. During the development of the relevant data collection tool, the "Program Evaluation Standards" created by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (JCSEE) were benefited. The studies included in the research were examined by 6 program experts who formed the meta-evaluation team. Each expert evaluated 3 studies using the checklist. Research data was analyzed using descriptive analysis method. Research findings indicate that the examined program evaluation studies meet the program evaluation standards by 55.67%. From this point, some suggestions that are believed to contribute to future program evaluation and meta-evaluation studies on teacher training were presented. [This study was an oral presentation in "International Pegem Conference on Education", Diyarbakir, Türkiye, 16-18 September 2020.]

Impact assessment research has developed theory-based approaches to trace the societal impact of scientific research. Impact assessment typically starts from the perspective of a research investment, organization, or project. Research users, non-academic actors involved in knowledge production, translation, and application, are well represented in many of these approaches. Researcher users are usually positioned as contributors to research, recipients of research outputs, or beneficiaries of research-driven outcomes. This paper argues that impact assessment would benefit from a more comprehensive understanding and analysis of research valorization processes from the user perspective. The first half of the paper reviews key impact assessment literature to identify how research users are positioned and portrayed in relation to valorization processes. In the second half of the paper, we use the results of this review to propose a set of principles to guide a systematic approach to constructing user perspectives on research impact. We suggest four concepts for operationalization of this approach. The paper concludes that the addition of a more comprehensive research user perspective on research valorization would complement and enhance existing impact assessment approaches.

This paper examines the quality evaluations of the Greek Universities highlighting those which offer a full-fledged study program of primary education. There are eight principles-criteria according to which each university is evaluated. For each principle, scores may range from 1 (noncompliance with the principle) to 4 (fully compliance). I present and compare results of the Greek university evaluations completed by the Hellenic Quality Assurance and Accreditation Agency (HQA). Surprisingly, no university has been graded as non-compliant in any of the eight principles-criteria. These evaluations are performed by an alleged "external" and "independent" committee. For all practical purposes, they are, nevertheless, based on subjective and biased opinions of academics affiliated with international universities with links to Greece and its universities. Independent and evidence-based evaluations paint a different picture. Universities which get perfect scores in the quality evaluation processes perform badly in the pertinent international ranking systems. As a case study, their primary education departments have lower research performance with high variability between faculty members and departments. Given that one criterion of evaluating quality is research, then not all Greek universities can be evaluated as highly performing research institutions, either in absolute or relevant terms. This criterion of quality is not satisfied by the primary education departments of Greek universities. According to this evidence, using the HQA as an agency to assess and accredit quality is useless. It should be abolished. A new system should be based on objective criteria such as independent teaching evaluations and research performance. These do not require any committee to evaluate performance and can be constructed on evidence-based policy. The latter relies solely on rigorously established objective facts.

The quality of a research study application sends a distinct signal to the institutional review board (IRB) about the skills, capacities, preparation, communication, experience, and resources of its authors. However, efforts to research and define IRB application quality have been insufficient. Inattention to the quality of an IRB application is consequential because the application precedes IRB review, and perceptions of quality between the two may be interrelated and interdependent. Without a clear understanding of quality, IRBs do not know how to define quality and researchers do not know how to achieve quality. This position has not been systematically studied to date, and future research could provide much-needed empirical validation. This paper lays the conceptual groundwork for future investigation into what constitutes quality in an IRB application. It includes a landscape review of multidisciplinary research on quality, as well as a discussion of quality frameworks analogous to research with human participants that exist in the published literature. It also examines the background and significance of federal research regulations, regulatory burdens, researchers' regulatory literacy, and the roles and responsibilities of IRB professionals within this ecosystem.

This paper is concerned with the process of selecting between the increasingly popular bi-factor model and the second-order factor model in measurement research. It is indicated that in certain settings widely used in empirical studies, the second-order model is nested in the bi-factor model and obtained from the latter after imposing appropriate parameter constraints. These restrictions can be directly tested within the framework of the latent variable modeling methodology employing widely circulated software. The outlined model selection procedure provides a readily applied means of choosing between the two models of growing interest to measurement scholars, and is illustrated using numerical data.

Although encompassing a variety of research approaches, qualitative research in music education shares the assumption that reality is socially constructed; it takes this construction to be based on the specific perspective of the individual human; and it considers epistemology and ontology to be different fields of study. The posthuman theory of agential realism, on the other hand, argues that the world is becoming through intra-actions; it decentres the individual humanist subject; and it studies onto-epistemology -- practices of knowing-in-being. Considering these fundamental differences, the quality criteria of qualitative research are not applicable to posthuman music education research. Nevertheless, posthuman research is concerned with the ethics of research and how to response-ably and ethically take part in the world's becoming. Thus, the emerging field of posthuman music education research must develop other ways of evaluating research beyond the quality criteria found in qualitative methodologies. This paper argues that diffraction -- both as a physical and musical phenomenon and as a philosophical concept -- might be a fruitful approach. By reading quality criteria diffractively through the agential realist concept of response-ability, it poses critical and creative questions, moving us towards evaluating the quality of posthuman music education research on its own terms.

Background: Previous research has found that a "web-push" approach to data collection, which involves contacting people by mail to request an Internet survey response while withholding a paper response option until later in the contact process, consistently achieves lower response rates than a "paper-only" approach, whereby all respondents are contacted and requested to respond by mail.Method: An experiment was designed, as part of the Millennium Cohort Family Study, to compare response rates, sample representativeness, and cost between a web-push and a paper-only approach; each approach comprised 3 stages of mail contacts. The invited sample (n = 4,935) consisted of spouses married to U.S. Service members, who had been serving in the military between 2 and 5 years as of October, 2011.Results: The web-push methodology produced a significantly higher response rate, 32.8% compared to 27.8%. Each of the 3 stages of postal contact significantly contributed to response for both treatments with 87.1% of the web-push responses received over the Internet. The per-respondent cost of the paper-only treatment was almost 40% higher than the web-push treatment group. Analyses revealed no meaningfully significant differences between treatment groups in representation.Conclusion: These results provide evidence that a web-push methodology is more effective and less expensive than a paper-only approach among young military spouses, perhaps due to their heavy reliance on the internet, and we suggest that this approach may be more effective with the general population as they become more uniformly internet savvy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to systematically review the practice of reverse mentoring and draw a timeline of the research over the past two decades. Considering the novelty of this intervention, this paper proposed an agenda for future research on this burgeoning topic. Design/methodology/approach: By adopting narrative literature review and Gregory and Denniss' (2018) four-step process, this paper reviewed 54 studies grounded in conceptual, literature review and empirical research published between 1998 and 2020. Findings: The articles included in the literature review on reverse mentoring research were summarized according to journal publications, research methodologies, contextual settings, theoretical framework, purpose and outcomes. Reverse mentoring studies are dominantly published in educational journals using primarily qualitative and conceptual approaches to explore both academic and business contexts within the USA and Europe. Theories frequently used to frame and examine the need of reverse mentoring included social exchange theory and leader-member exchange theory. The fundamental purpose of reverse mentoring research is to transfer knowledge and to bridge the technology divide between intergenerational groups. Reverse mentoring has been used to promote inclusivity between multiple generations in relation to gender, ethnicity and culture. Originality/value: As per the knowledge, this is the first-ever comprehensive English summary of reverse mentoring research done in the past two decades. Findings from this research can be used to better understand reverse mentoring research trends and directions.

Ethnography offers a holistic approach to qualitative researchers in educational contexts and appeals to scholars who wish seek to reveal rich narratives through their immersion in specific domains. This review paper examines the mobilization of the ethnographic research approach reported in studies from two distinctive learning contexts: an elementary school and a vocational college. Employing the specific evaluative criteria of Punch (2005), the desk-based study draws on existing literature to document the strengths and limitations of ethnographic method and reportage to reveal edifying insights to novice and experienced qualitative researchers who may be contemplating an ethnographic study in the future. The review reveals how extensive ethnography lends itself well to presenting thick descriptions in rich narratives to demonstrate high veracity. In contrast, this research approach may be limited in its verisimilitude, especially if ethnographers abridge their methodological and analytical descriptions and fail to acknowledge reactivity.

This paper provides an introduction to issues surrounding the participation rights of young people in research and the implications of their growing involvement in research as well as providing a discourse on the ethical implications related to consent. The unique contribution of this paper is that it considers children’s rights in respect to the increasing opportunities for young people to take part in evaluation research. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to acknowledge the growing involvement for young people in research and the implications of ensuring that their rights of participation are respected. Secondly, we will consider the children’s rights legislation and our obligations as researchers to implement this. Finally, we will explore consent as an issue in its own right as well as the practicalities of accessing participants. This paper will postulate that any research about young people should involve and prioritize at all stages of the research process; including participation in decision-making. We conclude by identifying five key principles, which we believe can help to facilitate the fulfilment of post-primary pupils’ ability to consent to participate in trials and evaluative research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We study the role of gender in the evaluation of economic research using submissions to four leading journals. We find that referee gender has no effect on the relative assessment of female- versus male-authored papers, suggesting that any differential biases of male referees are negligible. To determine whether referees as a whole impose different standards for female authors, we compare citations for female- and male-authored papers, holding constant referee evaluations and other characteristics. We find that female-authored papers receive about 25% more citations than observably similar male-authored papers. Editors largely follow the referees, resulting in a 1.7 percentage point lower probability of a revise and resubmit verdict for papers with female authors relative to a citation-maximizing benchmark. In their desk rejection decisions, editors treat female authors more favorably, though they still impose a higher bar than would be implied by citation maximization. We find no differences in the informativeness of female versus male referees or in the weight that editors place on the recommendations of female versus male referees. We also find no differences in editorial delays for female- versus male-authored papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: When a journal receives a duplicate publication, the ability to identify the submitted work as previously published, and reject it, is an assay to publication ethics best practices. The aim of this study was to evaluate how three different types of journals, namely open access (OA) journals, subscription-based journals, and presumed predatory journals, responded to receiving a previously published manuscript for review.Methods: We performed a quasi-experimental study in which we submitted a previously published article to a random sample of 602 biomedical journals, roughly 200 journals from each journal type sampled: OA journals, subscription-based journals, and presumed predatory journals. Three hundred and three journals received a Word version in manuscript format, while 299 journals received the formatted publisher's PDF version of the published article. We then recorded responses to the submission received after approximately 1 month. Responses were reviewed, extracted, and coded in duplicate. Our primary outcome was the rate of rejection of the two types of submitted articles (PDF vs Word) within our three journal types.Results: We received correspondence back from 308 (51.1%) journals within our study timeline (32 days); (N = 46 predatory journals, N = 127 OA journals, N = 135 subscription-based journals). Of the journals that responded, 153 received the Word version of the paper, while 155 received the PDF version. Four journals (1.3%) accepted our paper, 291 (94.5%) journals rejected the paper, and 13 (4.2%) requested a revision. A chi-square test looking at journal type, and submission type, was significant (χ2 (4) = 23.50, p < 0.001). All four responses to accept our article came from presumed predatory journals, 3 of which received the Word format and 1 that received the PDF format. Less than half of journals that rejected our submissions did so because they identified ethical issues such as plagiarism with the manuscript (133 (45.7%)).Conclusion: Few journals accepted our submitted paper. However, our findings suggest that all three types of journals may not have adequate safeguards in place to recognize and act on plagiarism or duplicate submissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although robust evidence has been accumulating over the last decades supporting the effectiveness of career counseling in various populations, yet there are scarce conceptual or empirical studies investigating the impact of distinct approaches, such as traditional-"psychometric," narrative, or a mixed (integrative) one. The primary aim of this paper is to make a contribution in the field, providing a synthetic overview of contemporary research findings regarding the effectiveness of narrative and mixed career counseling approaches with a special focus on university students. The recent trend of utilizing mixed approaches in career assessment and intervention is also emphasized in the article, suggesting they may have a great potential in helping young adults advance meaning-making about career and life design. Finally, a discussion of both benefits and challenges relating to narrative and mixed interventions along with recommendations for extending research in the area of assessing career interventions' effectiveness for university students is provided.

Purpose: This study compared a tablet PC questionnaire with a paper method for reliability and patient preferences in the acquisition of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for patients treated with radiotherapy. By comparing the two modes of PRO administration, we aimed to evaluate the adequacy of using tablet PC questionnaires in future clinical use.Methods: Patients were randomized in a crossover study design using two different methods for PRO entry. A group of 89 patients answered a paper questionnaire followed by the tablet PC version, whereas 89 patients in another group completed the tablet PC questionnaire followed by the paper version. Surveys were performed four times per patient throughout the course of the radiotherapy. The Korean versions of the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI-K) and the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI-K) were used. The primary endpoint of our current study was an assessment of patient preference for the survey method. The proportions of patients preferring each mode of questionnaire were evaluated.Results: The proportion of patients who preferred the tablet PC version, paper form, or who had no preference was 52.2, 22.1, and 25.7 %, respectively. More than half of the patients preferred the tablet PC to the paper version in all four surveys. Age, gender, educational status, prior experience of using a tablet PC, and the order of paper to tablet PC administration did not impact patient preferences. Inter-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) between the modes were 0.92 for MDASI-K and 0.94 for BFI-K and ranged from 0.91 to 0.96 on both instruments during the four surveys.Conclusions: A tablet PC-based PRO is an acceptable and reliable method compared with paper-based data collection for Korean patients receiving radiotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The essence of humanism in medicine and health care is relationships-caring relationships between clinicians and patients. While raising concerns regarding professional-patient boundaries has positively contributed to our understanding and prevention of potentially harmful boundary violations, there is controversy about which types of relationships, caring acts, and practices are acceptable versus cross boundary lines.Objective: To examine primary care physicians' practices and attitudes regarding acts that have been questioned as potentially "inappropriate" or "unethical" crossing of professional-patient boundaries.Design: Surveys conducted via in-person polling or electronic and mailed paper submissions from April 2016 to July 2017. We calculated descriptive statistics and examined associations with practices and attitudes using logistic regression.Participants: Random sample of all US primary care physicians who treat adult patients; convenience sample of attendees at medicine grand rounds presentations.Main Measures: Outcomes were self-reported practices and attitudes related to giving patients rides home, paying for patients' medication, helping patients find jobs, employing patients, going to dinner with patients, and providing care to personal friends.Key Results: Among 1563 total respondents, 34% had given a ride home, 34% had paid for medications, 15% helped patients find a job, 7% had employed a patient, 10% had dinner with patients, and 59% provided care to personal friends. A majority disapproved of dinner with a patient (75%) but approved of or were neutral on all other scenarios (61-90%).Conclusions: The medical profession is quite divided on questions related to drawing lines about appropriate boundaries. Contrary to official and widespread proscriptions against such practices (with exception of dinner dates), many have actually engaged in such practices and the majority found them acceptable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper evaluates how technical assistive devices for manual materials handling were analysed in the literature in a warehousing context. Works that discuss the economic and/or human factors impact of assistive devices on the warehousing system or the people employed therein were identified in a systematic literature review. Building on a conceptual framework proposed in this paper, our evaluation of the literature shows which types of assistive devices were analysed in the past, and from which perspective these devices were examined. Some works studied the devices exclusively from an operator well-being or an efficiency perspective, while several works analysed the devices' performance in terms of both dimensions. Several works contained in our literature sample highlighted trade-offs between both ergonomic and economic measures and, within the first category, between alternative ergonomic indicators, which shows that assistive devices have to be evaluated carefully in light of their intended application. The paper further identifies research gaps and emphasises the need to understand the interactions between human- and system-related variables that can be supported by assistive devices in designing effective manual materials handling systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The issue of connecting research evidence with practice referred to as evidence-informed practice (EIP) has received considerable critical attention in the field of education. However, assessment literature has failed to fully acknowledge the significance of this issue. This conceptual paper concentrates on the process of informing classroom assessment practices by policy-makers, researchers, and teachers. It draws on the important literature on EIP in education and its scarce literature in assessment to highlight a possible productive relationship between assessment research and practice. The paper aims to propose a set of principles as to address the tension between AfL research and practice by defining the roles of each party in the process based on cultural and contextual issues. Accordingly, a cyclical process of collaborative research conduction is proposed. This process provides policy-makers, researchers and practitioners with important implications for practicing AfL research evidence.

We study gender differences in the evaluation of submissions to economics conferences. Using data on more than 9,000 submissions from the Annual Congress of the European Economic Association (2015–17), the Annual Meeting of the Spanish Economic Association (2012–17) and the Spring Meeting of Young Economists (2018), we find that all‐female‐authored papers are 3.3% points (p.p.), or 6.8%, less likely to be accepted than all‐male‐authored papers. The estimated gap ranges from 5.4 p.p. (95% CI: 2.5 p.p., 8.3 p.p.) to 2.9 p.p. (0 p.p., 5.8 p.p.). This gap is present after controlling for number of authors of the paper; field; referee fixed effects; cites of the paper; authors' previous publication record, affiliations, and experience; and connections between the authors of a given paper and the referees that evaluate it. We provide evidence suggesting that the gap is driven by stereotypes against female authors: it is entirely driven by male referees, only exists for lesser‐known authors, and seems larger in more masculine fields, especially in finance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/objectives: The growing interest of medical community about sarcopenia resulted in the production of several clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), with an unavoidable variability in terms of the overall quality of those publications. Our aim is to evaluate the quality of CPGs on sarcopenia using the AGREE II instrument.Subjects/methods: We performed an online literature search for sarcopenia CPGs using different databases. Four independent reviewers evaluated the quality of CPGs using the AGREE II instrument. To classify the quality of each guideline, we defined specific thresholds of final score: high-quality if five or more domains scored >60%; average-quality if three or four domains scored >60%; low-quality if ≤2 domains scored >60%.Results: Our literature search yielded 315 articles, and after applying exclusion criteria our final analysis included 19 CPGs. The overall quality of CPGs was remarkable, as 13/19 (68.4%) were considered of "high-quality" CPGs, with more than four domains reached a score higher than 60%. "Scope and Purpose" and "Clarity of Presentations" had the best domain results (78.4% and 73.8%, respectively), while the two domains with the lowest scores were "Rigor of Development" and "Applicability" (61.5% and 58.7%, respectively). Interobserver variability ranged between moderate (0.624) and fair (0.275).Conclusions: Our study showed that the overall quality of CPGs about sarcopenia was noteworthy, as more than two-third of paper obtained a "high-quality" score. The domain "applicability" had the lowest score, suggesting that emphasis should be put on possible strategies for helping other doctors to implement guideline recommendations in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of the present study is to comparatively evaluate the anti-inflammatory and antiapoptotic effects of bone marrow and adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) applied subconjunctivally after alkaline corneal burn. Methods: Thirty-two rats were divided into 4 groups and included in the study (n = 8). While no intervention was made in the control group, a chemical burn was created by applying 4 μL of NaOH soaked in 6 mm filter paper to the right eye of each subject in the other groups under general anesthesia. While only subconjunctival 0.1 mL phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) was injected to in the group 1, 2 × 106 adipose or bone marrow-derived MSC in 0.1 mL PBS was applied subconjunctivally to the subjects in the remaining groups (Group 2 and 3, respectively). Tissue samples were collected for histological analysis on the third day after the burn. Tissue samples were evaluated light microscopically and immunohistochemically stained for interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), caspase-3 (Cas-3), and CD68. Results: The IL-1β and TNF-α staining scores and the number of CD68- and Cas-3-positive stained cells were significantly lower in the groups given bone marrow and adipose-derived MSC compared to the alkaline burn group (P < 0.0001, for all parameters). Epithelial IL-1β and TNF-α staining scores were significantly lower in the bone marrow-derived MSC group compared to the adipose-derived MSC group (P < 0.0001, for all parameters). Conclusions: The presented study shows that both bone-marrow and adipose-derived MSCs support wound healing in the corneal tissue and strongly suppress the inflammation occured in the tissue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with disabilities often require healthcare accommodations in order to access high-quality, equitable healthcare services. While attention has been paid to accommodation needs in specific disability populations, limited research to date has explored healthcare accommodations that cross-cut diverse disability populations.Objective: To identify a deeper understanding regarding accommodations in healthcare settings that could apply across disability populations and promote equitable healthcare.Design: We conducted qualitative focus groups with patients with disabilities and caregivers to understand their experiences and preferences for healthcare accommodations.Participants: We recruited patients and caregivers across all major disability categories to participate in focus groups. Participants were recruited through advocacy organizations and healthcare settings in Southeastern Minnesota.Approach: A total of eight focus groups were conducted with 56 participants. Participants described their healthcare experiences and desires for healthcare accommodations. The multidisciplinary research team recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded all focus groups. The team thematically coded transcripts using content analysis within and across focus groups to identify major themes.Key Results: Patients identified four challenges and corresponding steps healthcare team could take to promote equitable care: (1) consistent documentation of disabilities and needed accommodations in the medical record; (2) allowance for accommodations to the environment, including adapting physical space, physical structures, and scheduling and rooming processes; (3) provide accommodations for administrative tasks, such as completing paper or electronic forms; and (4) adapt communication during interactions, such as speaking slower or using terms that patients can easily understand.Conclusion: These identified themes represent specific opportunities for healthcare teams to effectively provide accessible care to patients with disabilities. Many of the accommodations require minimal financial investment, but did require behavioral changes by the healthcare team to ensure equitable healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the push for evidence-informed policy and practice, schools and policy makers are now increasingly encouraged and supported to use and enagage with research evidence. This means that consumers of research will now need to be discerning in judging the quality of research evidence that will inform their decisions. This paper evaluates the quality of evidence behind some well-known education programmes using examples from previous reviews of over 5,000 studies on a range of topics. It shows that much of the evidence is weak, and fundamental flaws in research are not uncommon. This is a serious problem if teaching practices and important policy decisions are made based on such flawed evidence. Lives may be damaged and opportunities missed. The aim of this paper is to show how widespread this problem is and to suggest ways by which the quality of education research may be improved. For example, funders of research and research bodies need to insist on quality research and fund only those that meet the minimum quality criteria. Journal editors and reviewers need to be cognizant of fundamental flaws in research and reject such submissions. One way to do this is to encourage submission of the research design and research protocol prior to acceptance, so acceptance or rejection is based on the design and not on the outcomes. This helps prevent publication bias and biased reporting. Individual researchers can improve quality by making it their moral responsibility to be truthful and transparent.

Background Context: Smartphone-based applications enable new prospects to monitor symptoms and assess functional outcome in patients with lumbar degenerative spinal disorders. However, little is known regarding patient acceptance and preference towards new modes of digital objective outcome assessment.Purpose: To assess patient preference of an objective smartphone-based outcome measure compared to conventional paper-based subjective methods of outcome assessment.Study Design: Prospective observational cohort study.Patient Sample: Fourty-nine consecutive patients undergoing surgery for lumbar degenerative spinal disorder.Outcome Measures: Patients completed a preference survey to assess different methods of outcome assessment. A 5-level Likert scale ranged from strong disagreement (2 points) over neutral (6 points) to strong agreement (10 points) was used.Methods: Patients self-determined their objective functional impairment using the 6-minute Walking Test application (6WT-app) and completed a set of paper-based patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) before and 6 weeks after surgery. Patients were then asked to rate the methods of outcome assessment in terms of suitability, convenience, and responsiveness to their symptoms.Results: The majority of patients considered the 6WT-app a suitable instrument (median 8.0, interquartile range [IQR] 4.0). Patients found the 6WT more convenient (median 10.0, IQR 2.0) than the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ; median 8.0, IQR 4.0, p=.019) and Core Outcome Measure Index (COMI; median 8.0, IQR 4.0, p=.007). There was good agreement that the 6WT-app detects change in physical performance (8.0, IQR 4.0). 78 % of patients considered the 6WT superior in detecting differences in symptoms (vs. 22% for PROMs). Seventy-six percent of patients would select the 6WT over the other, 18% the ZCQ and 6% the COMI. Eighty-two percent of patients indicated their preference to use a smartphone app for the assessment and monitoring of their spine-related symptoms in the future.Conclusions: Patients included in this study favored the smartphone-based evaluation of objective functional impairment over paper-based PROMs. Involving patients more actively by means of digital technology may increase patient compliance and satisfaction as well as diagnostic accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As curricular reforms are implemented, there is often urgency among scholars to swiftly evaluate curricular outcomes and establish whether desired impacts have been realized. Consequently, many evaluative studies focus on summative program outcomes without accompanying evaluations of implementation. This runs the risk of Type III errors, whereby outcome evaluations rest on unverified assumptions about the appropriate implementation of prescribed curricular activities. Such errors challenge the usefulness of the evaluative studies, casting doubt on accumulated knowledge about curricular innovations, and posing problems for educational systems working to mobilize scarce resources. Unfortunately, however, there is long-standing inattention to the evaluation of implementation in health professions education (HPE). To address this, we propose an accessible framework that provides substantive guidance for evaluative research on implementation of curricular innovations. The Prescribed-Intended-Enacted-Sustainable (PIES) framework that is articulated in this paper, introduces new concepts to HPE--with a view to facilitating more nuanced examination of the evolution of curricula as they are implemented. Critically, the framework is theoretically grounded, integrating evaluation and implementation science as well as education theory. It outlines when, how, and why evaluators need to direct attention to curricular implementation, providing guidance on how programs can map out meaningful evaluative research agendas. Ultimately, this work is intended to support evaluators and educators, seeking to design evaluation studies that provide more faithful, useful representations of the intricacies of curricular change implementation.

The purpose of this research is to identify the evolution of papers published on LGBT issues in the main marketing journals. To that end, the 50 top-ranked journals in the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) were analyzed, revealing that 17 of them had at least one publication on the subject. Analysis of a total of 34 articles enabled the main topics studied to be summarized in six categories: the effects of LGBT advertising on the viewers; LGBT advertising - an overview; gender studies in marketing; the gay-friendly approach; the LGBT market; and social marketing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: We developed low-cost, portable paper-based diagnostic devices for detection of human immunoglobulin M (IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) in serum without any sample preparation. These devices can be used to help identify presence of diseases, used to provide rapid results (<5 minutes), readily used by untrained personnel, employed in austere environments, configured to obtain multiplexed assays, and easily disposed of.Materials and Methods: We successfully accomplished colorimetric detection of human IgG and human IgM using a sandwich-style assay within the microfluidic paper device via vertical flow immunoassay configuration. The reaction zone in the wax printed paper layer is a small circular pattern. Gold nanoparticles conjugated with anti-human IgG and IgM antibodies have been used for colorimetric detection of IgG or IgM by naked eye. Colorimetric signal can be precisely quantified through implementation of image analysis software which can be developed as an app for a smartphone. The size of the device is 2 cm × 2 cm × 1 mm.Results: Colorimetric detection of human IgG was accomplished at 100 fg/mL concentration using a gold nanoparticle-conjugated anti-human IgG antibody. The developed platform has a dynamic range of IgM and IgG concentrations between 0.1 pg/mL and 100 μg/mL. These devices provided a color readout in <5 minutes using 20 µL of serum. We also demonstrated that the devices show a significant degree of ruggedness and temperature stability as they were able to provide satisfactory results (detection of 0.1 pg/mL IgG) after 14 days of long stability and shelf-life experiment at an elevated temperature of at least 50 ˚C-the shelf life can be as long as 180 days under ambient conditions for detection of 100 µg/mL IgG.Conclusions: Because of the inherent simplicity of the device operation and their ease of use, there is no variation between samples and users of the device. This low-cost approach enables multiplexing with >1 measurement performed in parallel at the same time. We anticipate that because of the sensitivity, specificity, ease of use, and overall reliability, this approach will become a standard for diagnosis of diseases and health conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A robust medical claims review system is crucial for addressing fraud and abuse and ensuring financial viability of health insurance organisations. This paper assesses claims adjustment rate of the paper- and electronic-based claims reviews of the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) in Ghana.Methods: The study was a cross-sectional comparative assessment of paper- and electronic-based claims reviews of the NHIS. Medical claims of subscribers for the year, 2014 were requested from the claims directorate and analysed. Proportions of claims adjusted by the paper- and electronic-based claims reviews were determined for each type of healthcare facility. Bivariate analyses were also conducted to test for differences in claims adjustments between healthcare facility types, and between the two claims reviews.Results: The electronic-based review made overall adjustment of 17.0% from GHS10.09 million (USD2.64 m) claims cost whilst the paper-based review adjusted 4.9% from a total of GHS57.50 million (USD15.09 m) claims cost received, and the difference was significant (p < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in claims cost adjustment rate between healthcare facility types by the electronic-based (p = 0.0656) and by the paper-based reviews (p = 0.6484).Conclusions: The electronic-based review adjusted significantly higher claims cost than the paper-based claims review. Scaling up the electronic-based review to cover claims from all accredited care providers could reduce spurious claims cost to the scheme and ensure long term financial sustainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2019, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) authored by Dr. Ismail was retracted due to concerns about data integrity. Since there are no policies in place to investigate other publications of authors of retracted studies, we investigated Dr. Ismail's other trials.Methods: We searched for RCTs authored by Dr. Ismail. We made pairwise comparisons of values in baseline and outcome tables between trials. We assessed whether the distributions of baseline characteristics were compatible with properly conducted randomization, using Monte Carlo simulations and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. We read the publications carefully for unusual features.Results: Dr. Ismail was author in eight published and one unpublished trial. In three of his first author studies we found multiple identical values in the baseline and/or outcome tables from different trials. At least some of the trials were unlikely to have followed a proper randomization process. There were a number of other unusual features in the papers we reviewed.Conclusions: It is probable that other trials published by Dr. Ismail contain questionable data. We call for a thorough investigation of the original trial data and related official documents. Our exercise suggests that the practice to assess research integrity should include all publications of authors with retracted fabricated articles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare data based on computerized and paper versions of health status questionnaires (HSQs) for sampling patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with fibromyalgia (FM). In addition, to examine associations between patient characteristics (age, education, computer experience) and differences between versions. Finally, to evaluate the acceptability of computer-based questionnaires among patients with FM.Method: The study population comprised female patients diagnosed with FM. All patients completed six HSQs: the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ), the Major Depression Inventory (MDI), the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), the painDETECT questionnaire (PDQ), the Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ), and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Self-Assessment Questionnaire (GAD-10), both on paper and using a touch screen. One HSQ was tested at a time in a repeated randomized cross-over design. The two versions were completed with a 5-min interval and between each HSQ the participants had a 5-min break. Means, mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), medians, median differences, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated for all HSQs, including relevant subscales. Associations between patient characteristics and differences between versions were explored using Spearman's correlation coefficients.Results: Twenty women, mean age 48.4 years, participated in the study. Except for one item, ICCs between touch-screen and paper versions of the HSQs examined indicated acceptable agreement (ICC = 0.71-0.99). Overall, mean and median differences revealed no differences between versions. No significant associations were observed for patient characteristics. None of the participants preferred paper questionnaires over computerized versions.Conclusions: The computerized HSQs using a touch screen gave comparable results to answers given on paper and were generally preferred by the participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Traumatic Stress is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Increased charter school demand creates a critical need for reliable information on outcomes. Stanford's Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) has a series of influential reports on charter schools using the virtual control record (VCR) method. However, the VCR method has been criticized and the validity of CREDO's findings challenged, leading to confusion among stakeholders. In this paper, we synthesize charter school evaluation literature, explain CREDO's methods as well as other evaluation methods, and consider the limitations of matching in this context. We find that, while the matching techniques are imperfect, they provide necessary information on the greatest percentage of charter school students.

The challenge of supporting the development of meaningful learning is prevalent in chemistry education research. One of the core activities used in the learning process is assessments. The aim of this paper is to illustrate how the semantics dimension of Legitimation Code Theory can be a helpful tool to critique the quality of assessments and reveal how this quality potentially contributes to meaningful learning. For this purpose we analysed an exam paper from an introductory chemistry module, using the semantics dimension as a framework. We discuss the tools that were designed for this analysis and how it was applied to reveal the weakness in this particular assessment. Suggestions for how this assessment can be improved is also discussed. This study illustrates how the semantics dimension can inform assessment practice and potentially contribute to the development of meaningful learning.

George Grob presented the fifth and final Eleanor Chelimsky Forum address at the 2017 annual meeting of the Eastern Evaluation Research Society. In this commentary, I respond to several points that George raises in the "American Journal of Evaluation" paper based on that address. An overarching theme of my comments involves the potential for strengthening the linkages between evaluation theory and evaluation practice. Research on evaluation should also be added to this pairing.

This paper reports on what has happened since Elliott ("Dynamic Assessment in Educational Settings: Realising Potential," 2003) in those applications of dynamic assessment that he considered. There continues to be two broad applications, one, largely researcher led, and the other, largely practitioner led, although there are examples of researcher-practitioners. Since Elliott, arguably, it is now relatively easy both to reach consensus over constructs and assessment processes and also to mutually respect differences through clarity over professional and assessment purposes. There is a fuller account than Elliott provided of educational psychologists' practice in the UK, which partly serves to highlight the difference in purpose and imperative to research and evaluate outcomes that persists for researchers and practitioners. The paper concludes by arguing that the premise in Elliott's title of "realising potential" was always contestable.