Search

Els estudis (com ara, Borgman, 1996; Bates, 2003; etc.) confirmen repetidament que els usuaris finals troben els OPAC complicats d'utilitzar. Recentment, sorgeix sovint una observació interessant quan es discuteix sobre aquest assumpte: alguns usuaris utilitzen Amazon com a interfície dels OPAC. Hi busquen el llibre que volen demanar prestat i després utilitzen l'ISBN per trobar la signatura en el catàleg de la biblioteca (vegeu https://intranet.lib.byu.edu/wwg/?p=13). Aquesta potser no és la pràctica més freqüent, però assenyala certament un problema: sembla que l'ús de les interfícies estàndard dels OPAC no és tan fàcil com Amazon, almenys per a alguns usuaris. Amazon no substituirà les biblioteques, però els bibliotecaris han de tenir un interès constant en aquest assumpte i entendre què és el que els usuaris necessiten i què volen, com també com busquen la informació. Necessitem, per tant, analitzar altres serveis que ho facin millor i intentar dur a terme els canvis més apropiats en els nostres serveis. Alguns sistemes bibliotecaris han fet ja els primers passos en aquesta direcció.Los estudios (como por ejemplo, Borgman, 1996; Bates, 2003; etc.) confirman repetidamente que los usuarios finales consideran que los OPAC son complicados de utilizar. Recientemente y con cierta frecuencia, ha surgido una observación interesante cuando se discute sobre este asunto: algunos usuarios utilizan Amazon como interfaz de los OPAC. Buscan el libro que quieren pedir prestado y después utilizan el ISBN para encontrar la signatura en el catálogo de la biblioteca (veáse https://intranet.lib.byu.edu/wwg/?p=13). Ésta tal vez no sea la práctica más frecuente, pero indica ciertamente la existencia de un problema: parece que el uso de las interfaces estándar de los OPAC no es tan fácil como Amazon, al menos para algunos usuarios. Amazon no sustituirá las bibliotecas, pero los bibliotecarios tienen que tener un interés constante en este asunto y en entender qué es lo que los usuarios necesitan y qué quieren, como también de que modo buscan la información. Necesitamos, por lo tanto, analizar otros servicios que lo hagan mejor e intentar llevar a cabo los cambios más apropiados en nuestros servicios. Algunos sistemas bibliotecarios han hecho ya los primeros pasos en esta dirección.Research (e.g. Borgman 1996, Bates 2003 etc.) repeatedly confirms that end-users find OPACs difficult to use. And recently an interesting observation was often mentioned when discussing OPACs: some users use Amazon as front-end to OPACs. They find a book they want to borrow in Amazon and then use ISBN to find the call number in the catalogue (see e.g. https://intranet.lib.byu.edu/wwg/?p=13).This may not be the prevalent current practice, but it certainly points to a problem: average OPAC interfaces seem to be less user-friendly than Amazon at least to some users. Amazon will of course not replace libraries, but librarians must have continuous interest in and understanding of what users need and want and how they search for information. We need therefore to analyse what other services do better and try to implement appropriate changes in our own services. Some library systems have already made the first steps in this direction.

Els estudis (com ara, Borgman, 1996; Bates, 2003; etc.) confirmen repetidament que els usuaris finals troben els OPAC complicats d'utilitzar. Recentment, sorgeix sovint una observació interessant quan es discuteix sobre aquest assumpte: alguns usuaris utilitzen Amazon com a interfície dels OPAC. Hi busquen el llibre que volen demanar prestat i després utilitzen l'ISBN per trobar la signatura en el catàleg de la biblioteca (vegeu https://intranet.lib.byu.edu/wwg/?p=13). Aquesta potser no és la pràctica més freqüent, però assenyala certament un problema: sembla que l'ús de les interfícies estàndard dels OPAC no és tan fàcil com Amazon, almenys per a alguns usuaris. Amazon no substituirà les biblioteques, però els bibliotecaris han de tenir un interès constant en aquest assumpte i entendre què és el que els usuaris necessiten i què volen, com també com busquen la informació. Necessitem, per tant, analitzar altres serveis que ho facin millor i intentar dur a terme els canvis més apropiats en els nostres serveis. Alguns sistemes bibliotecaris han fet ja els primers passos en aquesta direcció.Los estudios (como por ejemplo, Borgman, 1996; Bates, 2003; etc.) confirman repetidamente que los usuarios finales consideran que los OPAC son complicados de utilizar. Recientemente y con cierta frecuencia, ha surgido una observación interesante cuando se discute sobre este asunto: algunos usuarios utilizan Amazon como interfaz de los OPAC. Buscan el libro que quieren pedir prestado y después utilizan el ISBN para encontrar la signatura en el catálogo de la biblioteca (veáse https://intranet.lib.byu.edu/wwg/?p=13). Ésta tal vez no sea la práctica más frecuente, pero indica ciertamente la existencia de un problema: parece que el uso de las interfaces estándar de los OPAC no es tan fácil como Amazon, al menos para algunos usuarios. Amazon no sustituirá las bibliotecas, pero los bibliotecarios tienen que tener un interés constante en este asunto y en entender qué es lo que los usuarios necesitan y qué quieren, como también de que modo buscan la información. Necesitamos, por lo tanto, analizar otros servicios que lo hagan mejor e intentar llevar a cabo los cambios más apropiados en nuestros servicios. Algunos sistemas bibliotecarios han hecho ya los primeros pasos en esta dirección.Research (e.g. Borgman 1996, Bates 2003 etc.) repeatedly confirms that end-users find OPACs difficult to use. And recently an interesting observation was often mentioned when discussing OPACs: some users use Amazon as front-end to OPACs. They find a book they want to borrow in Amazon and then use ISBN to find the call number in the catalogue (see e.g. https://intranet.lib.byu.edu/wwg/?p=13).This may not be the prevalent current practice, but it certainly points to a problem: average OPAC interfaces seem to be less user-friendly than Amazon at least to some users. Amazon will of course not replace libraries, but librarians must have continuous interest in and understanding of what users need and want and how they search for information. We need therefore to analyse what other services do better and try to implement appropriate changes in our own services. Some library systems have already made the first steps in this direction.

Background: Controlled human hookworm infection (CHHI) is a central component of a proposed hookworm vaccination-challenge model (HVCM) to test the efficacy of candidate vaccines. Critical to CHHI is the manufacture of Necator americanus infective larvae ( Na L3) according to current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) and the determination of an inoculum of Na L3 that is safe and reliably induces patent infection., Methods: cGMP-grade Na L3 were produced for a phase 1 trial in 20 healthy, hookworm-naïve adults in the United States, who received either 25 or 50 Na L3. Participants were monitored for 12-18 weeks postinfection for safety, tolerability, and patency of N. americanus infection., Results: Both Na L3 doses were well tolerated. Early manifestations of infection included pruritus, pain, and papulovesicular rash at the application site. Gastrointestinal symptoms and eosinophilia appeared after week 4 postinfection. The 50 Na L3 inoculum induced patent N. americanus infection in 90% of this dose group., Conclusions: The inoculum of 50 Na L3 was well tolerated and consistently induced patent N. americanus infection suitable for future HVCM trials., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT01940757.

Informed consent is one of the principal ethical requirements of conducting clinical research, regardless of the study setting. Breaches in the quality of the informed consent process are frequently described in reference to clinical trials conducted in developing countries, due to low levels of formal education, a lack of familiarity with biomedical research, and limited access to health services in these countries. However, few studies have directly compared the quality of the informed consent process in developed and developing countries using the same tool and in similar clinical trials. This study was conducted to compare the quality of the informed consent process of a series of clinical trials of an investigational hookworm vaccine that were performed in Brazil and the United States. A standardized questionnaire was used to assess the ethical quality of the informed consent process in a series of Phase 1 clinical trials of the Na-GST-1/Alhydrogel hookworm vaccine that were conducted in healthy adults in Brazil and the United States. In Brazil, the trial was conducted at two sites, one in the hookworm non-endemic urban area of Belo Horizonte, Minas, and one in the rural, resource-limited town of Americaninhas, both in the state of Minas Gerais; the American trial was conducted in Washington, DC. A 32-question survey was administered after the informed consent document was signed at each of the three trial sites; it assessed participants' understanding of information about the study presented in the document as well as the voluntariness of their decision to participate. 105 participants completed the questionnaire: 63 in Americaninhas, 18 in Belo Horizonte, and 24 in Washington, DC. Overall knowledge about the trial was suboptimal: the mean number of correct answers to questions about study objectives, methods, duration, rights, and potential risks and benefits, was 45.6% in Americaninhas, 65.2% in Belo Horizonte, and 59.1% in Washington, DC. Although there was no difference in the rate of correct answers between participants in Belo Horizonte and Washington, DC, there was a significant gap between participants at these two locations compared to Americaninhas (p = 0.0002 and p = 0.0001, respectively), which had a lower percentage of correct answers. Attitudes towards participating in the clinical trial also differed by site: while approximately 40% had doubts about participating in Washington, DC and Belo Horizonte, only 1.5% had concerns in Americaninhas. Finally, in Belo Horizonte and Washington, high percentages cited a desire to help others as motivation for participating, whereas in Americaninhas, the most common reason for participating was personal interest (p = 0.001). Understanding of information about a Phase 1 clinical trial of an experimental hookworm vaccine following informed consent was suboptimal, regardless of study site. Although overall there were no differences in knowledge between Brazil and the US, a lower level of understanding about the trial was seen in participants at the rural, resource-limited Brazilian site. These findings demonstrate the need for educational interventions directed at potential clinical trial participants, both in developing and developed countries, in order to improve understanding of the informed consent document., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.