We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Community involvement in research is key to translating science into practice, and new approaches to engaging community members in research design and implementation are needed. The Community Scientist Program, established at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston in 2018 and expanded to two other Texas institutions in 2021, provides researchers with rapid feedback from community members on study feasibility and design, cultural appropriateness, participant recruitment, and research implementation. This paper aims to describe the Community Scientist Program and assess Community Scientists' and researchers' satisfaction with the program. We present the analysis of the data collected from 116 Community Scientists and 64 researchers who attended 100 feedback sessions, across three regions of Texas including Northeast Texas, Houston, and Rio Grande Valley between June 2018 and December 2022. Community Scientists stated that the feedback sessions increased their knowledge and changed their perception of research. All researchers (100%) were satisfied with the feedback and reported that it influenced their current and future research methods. Our evaluation demonstrates that the key features of the Community Scientist Program such as follow-up evaluations, effective bi-directional communication, and fair compensation transform how research is conducted and contribute to reducing health disparities.
The slow adoption of evidence-based interventions reflects gaps in effective dissemination of research evidence. Existing studies examining designing for dissemination (D4D), a process that ensures interventions and implementation strategies consider adopters’ contexts, have focused primarily on researchers, with limited perspectives of practitioners. To address these gaps, this study examined D4D practice among public health and clinical practitioners in the USA.
Methods:
We conducted a cross-sectional study among public health and primary care practitioners in April to June 2022 (analyzed in July 2022 to December 2022). Both groups were recruited through national-level rosters. The survey was informed by previous D4D studies and pretested using cognitive interviewing.
Results:
Among 577 respondents, 45% were public health and 55% primary care practitioners, with an overall survey response rate of 5.5%. The most commonly ranked sources of research evidence were email announcements for public health practitioners (43.7%) and reading academic journals for clinical practitioners (37.9%). Practitioners used research findings to promote health equity (67%) and evaluate programs/services (66%). A higher proportion of clinical compared to public health practitioners strongly agreed/agreed that within their work setting they had adequate financial resources (36% vs. 23%, p < 0.001) and adequate staffing (36% vs. 24%, p = 0.001) to implement research findings. Only 20% of all practitioners reported having a designated individual or team responsible for finding and disseminating research evidence.
Conclusions:
Addressing both individual and modifiable barriers, including organizational capacity to access and use research evidence, may better align the efforts of researchers with priorities and resources of practitioners.
Little is known about practices used to disseminate findings to non-research, practitioner audiences. This study describes the perspectives, experience and activities of dissemination & implementation (D&I) scientists around disseminating their research findings.
Methods:
The study explored D&I scientists’ experiences and recommendations for assessment of dissemination activities to non-research audiences. Existing list serves were used to recruit scientists. Respondents were asked three open-ended questions on an Internet survey about dissemination activities, recommendations for changing evaluation systems and suggestions to improve their own dissemination of their work.
Results:
Surveys were completed by 159 scientists reporting some training, funding and/or publication history in D&I. Three themes emerged across each of the three open-ended questions. Question 1 on evaluation generated the themes of: 1a) promotional review; 1b) funding requirements and 1c) lack of acknowledgement of dissemination activities. Question 2 on recommended changes generated the themes of: 2a) dissemination as a requirement of the academic promotion process; 2b) requirement of dissemination plan and 2c) dissemination metrics. Question 3 on personal changes to improve dissemination generated the themes of: 3a) allocation of resources for dissemination activities; 3b) emerging dissemination channels and 3c) identify and address issues of priority for stakeholders.
Conclusions:
Our findings revealed different types of issues D&I scientists encounter when disseminating findings to clinical, public health or policy audiences and their suggestions to improve the process. Future research should consider key requirements which determine academic promotion and grant funding as an opportunity to expand dissemination efforts.
With human influences driving populations of apex predators into decline, more information is required on how factors affect species at national and global scales. However, camera-trap studies are seldom executed at a broad spatial scale. We demonstrate how uniting fine-scale studies and utilizing camera-trap data of non-target species is an effective approach for broadscale assessments through a case study of the brown hyaena Parahyaena brunnea. We collated camera-trap data from 25 protected and unprotected sites across South Africa into the largest detection/non-detection dataset collected on the brown hyaena, and investigated the influence of biological and anthropogenic factors on brown hyaena occupancy. Spatial autocorrelation had a significant effect on the data, and was corrected using a Bayesian Gibbs sampler. We show that brown hyaena occupancy is driven by specific co-occurring apex predator species and human disturbance. The relative abundance of spotted hyaenas Crocuta crocuta and people on foot had a negative effect on brown hyaena occupancy, whereas the relative abundance of leopards Panthera pardus and vehicles had a positive influence. We estimated that brown hyaenas occur across 66% of the surveyed camera-trap station sites. Occupancy varied geographically, with lower estimates in eastern and southern South Africa. Our findings suggest that brown hyaena conservation is dependent upon a multi-species approach focussed on implementing conservation policies that better facilitate coexistence between people and hyaenas. We also validate the conservation value of pooling fine-scale datasets and utilizing bycatch data to examine species trends at broad spatial scales.
Dendritic crystals of platelet ice appear beneath the columnar land-fast sea ice of McMurdo Sound, Antarctica. These leaf-like crystals are frozen into place by the advancing columnar growth. The platelets most probably begin to appear during July although in some parts of the Sound they may not appear at all. In addition, the amount and extent of platelet ice within the Sound varies from year to year. Previous authors have suggested that the formation of platelet ice is linked to the presence of the nearby ice shelf. It is a matter of debate whether these platelets form at depth and then float upwards or whether they grow in slightly supercooled water at the ice/water interface. The phenomenon is similar to that observed in the Weddell Sea region, but previous authors have suggested the two regions may experience different processes. This paper presents the results of field-work conducted in McMurdo Sound in 1999. Ice-structure analysis, isotopic analysis and salinity and temperature measurements near the ice/water interface are presented. Freezing points are calculated, and the possible existence of supercooling is discussed in relation to existing conjectures about the origin of platelets.
Following implementation of automatic end dates for antimicrobial orders to facilitate antimicrobial stewardship at a large, academic children’s hospital, no differences were observed in patient mortality, length of stay, or readmission rates, even among patients with documented bacteremia.
The properties of water near surfaces are known to differ from those of the bulk. For instance, in 140 A diameter silica pores the density has been found to be 3% lower than that of the bulk while the heat capacity is 25% greater than that the bulk. Etzler [15] has proposed a statistical thermodynamic model for vicinal water. This model has been able to correlate a number of thermodynamic properties of water in silica pores. Furthermore, some of the microscopic implications of the model have been found to be consistent with molecular dynamics simulations. Here we discuss the results of a statistical geometric analysis of a molecular dynamics simulation which, as first suggested by Roentgen (1892), indicates that water indeed exists in “bulky” and “dense” states. Furthermore, recent results concerning the temperature dependence of the heat capacity of water in silica pores is discussed.