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.
Multicenter clinical trials are essential for evaluating interventions but often face significant challenges in study design, site coordination, participant recruitment, and regulatory compliance. To address these issues, the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences established the Trial Innovation Network (TIN). The TIN offers a scientific consultation process, providing access to clinical trial and disease experts who provide input and recommendations throughout the trial’s duration, at no cost to investigators. This approach aims to improve trial design, accelerate implementation, foster interdisciplinary teamwork, and spur innovations that enhance multicenter trial quality and efficiency. The TIN leverages resources of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program, complementing local capabilities at the investigator’s institution. The Initial Consultation process focuses on the study’s scientific premise, design, site development, recruitment and retention strategies, funding feasibility, and other support areas. As of 6/1/2024, the TIN has provided 431 Initial Consultations to increase efficiency and accelerate trial implementation by delivering customized support and tailored recommendations. Across a range of clinical trials, the TIN has developed standardized, streamlined, and adaptable processes. We describe these processes, provide operational metrics, and include a set of lessons learned for consideration by other trial support and innovation networks.
This is the first of a multi-part article on the South Korean massacres of 1950, the US direct and indirect involvement in those massacres, and the subsequent cover up of the events in South Korea and the United States.
2004 is the fiftieth anniversary of the Hydrogen Bomb test at Bikini that has rendered the island and nearby atolls uninhabitable ever since. Two earlier Japan Focus articles (http://japanfocus.org/094.html and http://japanfocus.org/097.html) portrayed the impact of the blast on the crew of the Japanese fishing boat Lucky Dragon, and the subsequent course of the anti-nuclear movement. The two articles presented here detail the consequences of atomic and hydrogen bomb testing on Bikini and neighboring atolls, including the consequences for displaced people, the continued failure of the U.S. government to clean up the radioactive islands, and the long stalled negotiations with the U.S. government to compensate the people of Bikini.
Six years after declaring the U.S. killing of Korean War refugees at No Gun Ri was “not deliberate,” the Army has acknowledged it found but did not divulge that a high-level document said the U.S. military had a policy of shooting approaching civilians in South Korea.
Seoul—Government investigators digging into the grim hidden history of mass political executions in South Korea have confirmed that dozens of children were among many thousands shot by their own government early in the Korean War.
On the 70th anniversary of the division of the Korean peninsula, the Korea Policy Institute, in collaboration with The Asia-Pacific Journal, is pleased to publish a special series, “The 70th Anniversary of the U.S. Division of the Korean Peninsula: A People's History.” Multi-sited in geographic range, this series calls attention to the far-reaching repercussions and ongoing legacies of the fateful 1945 American decision, in the immediate wake of U.S. atomic bombings of Japan and with no Korean consultation, to divide Korea in two. Through scholarly essays, policy articles, interviews, journalistic investigation, survivor testimony, and creative performance, this series explores the human costs and ground-level realities of the division of Korea. In Part 1 of the series Hyun Lee interviews Shin Eun-mi on The Erosion of Democracy in South Korea.
Mass-casualty incidents (MCIs) are overwhelming events which generate a surge in casualties, exceeding local capacity and stressing emergency services. Significant mortality, morbidity, and economic impact is often caused. They attract responses from both local and international governmental and non-governmental medical responders. To improve professional standards and accountability, there has been much recent focus on record-keeping by teams in these contexts. This paper seeks to further understand what data are gathered and shared as a result of MCIs to outline current practice and help move towards improved minimum standards of documentation.
Methods:
A structured database search and abstract screening process was conducted utilizing PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews. Data were then collected from all papers identified. To ensure all relevant data were gathered, authors of each included study were contacted to clarify their approach to data collection for their work.
Results:
From 154 included manuscripts, 64 data categories were found and recorded, capturing MCIs over a period of 32 years located in 42 countries from all World Health Organization (WHO) global regions. Retrospective and contemporaneous data collection was equally prevalent. In-hospital or research team data collection was most common. The ten most common data categories collected were: number of injuries (94.8%), number of deaths (89.6%), injury type (81.2%), cause of injury (79.9%), age (63.0%), sex (63.0%), treatment (62.3%), severity of injury (61.7%), outcome of injury (59.1%), and investigations/treatments given (55.8%). Of the contactable authors, only 29 responded. Sixteen reported reviewing notes retrospectively or using follow-up patient interviews.
Discussion & Conclusions:
There was significant variety in what data were collected, who collected it, and how it was done. The most common data categories were descriptive pieces of information or related to demographics. Only one-half of papers discussed treatments given. Information on both prehospital care and longer-term rehabilitation was much less prevalent.
Terrorism and shooting related MCIs were the largest by paper number. Predominantly made up of more recent MCIs in higher income countries, these findings potentially reflect more organized health care systems.
Overall, data collection in MCIs is challenging and heavily reliant on retrospective analysis. Current practice lacks standardization. If professionalism and accountability for health care delivery in MCIs is to be improved, so must the methods of data collection and minimum standards of documentation.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we rapidly implemented a plasma coordination center, within two months, to support transfusion for two outpatient randomized controlled trials. The center design was based on an investigational drug services model and a Food and Drug Administration-compliant database to manage blood product inventory and trial safety.
Methods:
A core investigational team adapted a cloud-based platform to randomize patient assignments and track inventory distribution of control plasma and high-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma of different blood groups from 29 donor collection centers directly to blood banks serving 26 transfusion sites.
Results:
We performed 1,351 transfusions in 16 months. The transparency of the digital inventory at each site was critical to facilitate qualification, randomization, and overnight shipments of blood group-compatible plasma for transfusions into trial participants. While inventory challenges were heightened with COVID-19 convalescent plasma, the cloud-based system, and the flexible approach of the plasma coordination center staff across the blood bank network enabled decentralized procurement and distribution of investigational products to maintain inventory thresholds and overcome local supply chain restraints at the sites.
Conclusion:
The rapid creation of a plasma coordination center for outpatient transfusions is infrequent in the academic setting. Distributing more than 3,100 plasma units to blood banks charged with managing investigational inventory across the U.S. in a decentralized manner posed operational and regulatory challenges while providing opportunities for the plasma coordination center to contribute to research of global importance. This program can serve as a template in subsequent public health emergencies.
Reducing inequalities in preconception health and care is critical to improving the health and life chances of current and future generations. A hybrid workshop was held at the 2023 UK Preconception Early and Mid-Career Researchers (EMCR) Network conference to co-develop recommendations on ways to address inequalities in preconception health and care. The workshop engaged multi-disciplinary professionals across diverse career stages and people with lived experience (total n = 69). Interactive discussions explored barriers to achieving optimal preconception health, driving influences of inequalities and recommendations. The Socio-Ecological Model framed the identified themes, with recommendations structured at interpersonal (e.g. community engagement), institutional (e.g. integration of preconception care within existing services) and environmental/societal levels (e.g. education in schools). The co-developed recommendations provide a framework for addressing inequalities in preconception health, emphasising the importance of a whole-systems approach. Further research and evidence-based interventions are now needed to advance the advocacy and implementation of our recommendations.
Rousseau’s treatment of civil religion in Social Contract IV.8 is best understood as an effort to grapple with religion’s relationship to national unity and international unity. Put in terms of a question, Rousseau asks: What form of religion brings both national unity and international unity? Restated in Rousseau’s specialized terminology, the central question at the heart of this chapter is: what (if any) religion is capable of bringing unity to, and thereby reconciling, particular society and general society? The aim of this chapter then is to show that the civil religion of Social Contract IV.8 is developed with an eye towards political unity – and indeed not political unity in any ordinary sense, but political unity that is at once national and international, at once a unity of the particular society and a unity of the general society.
Clinical and experimental neuropsychology patients are not always able to complete a given test due to limitations in their functioning and it can lead to frustration and time wasted, leading researchers to examine the value of metrics that can be derived earlier in a test so as to ascertain and salvage useful information. The Trail Making Test (TMT) is an oft-utilized test of executive function and has been the focus of such exploration (e.g., first error vs. time to complete Trails B which can be lengthy in dementia cases and lead to discontinuation and loss of scorable data; Christidi et al., 2013; Correia et al., 2015). The present retrospective study utilized archival chart review to examine the association between a patient's diagnosis and occurrence of the first error on Trails B (TB1err).
Participants and Methods:
De-identified data was culled from adult private practice records (n=137) in the northeastern United States (the study was conducted in compliance with local IRB review). Trails A and B times, as well as Digit Span scores (for checking construct validity) were pulled from reports, and Trails B record forms were scored to extract the enumerated stimulus where any first error was observed in the patient's rendering of the trail connecting alternating numbers and letters. Paired t-tests compared the average TB1err of normative individuals (no diagnosis) with patients with a primary diagnosis of mood disorder, traumatic brain injury (TBI), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or dementia. Additionally, Pearson's correlations were computed comparing TB1err with Trails B time, and another test of executive function (Digit Span backwards).
Results:
The order of diagnoses according to the average occurrence of the first error on Trails B (from later, to sooner occurrence) was as follows: normative (no diagnosis), mood disorder, TBI, MCI, and finally dementia. There was a significant difference on this first error metric (TB1err) when comparing normative and dementia patients (p = .03; 8.3 vs 4.2 for the average enumeration of 1st error on Trails B). Furthermore, significant correlations were found between this derived TB1err metric and Digit Span backwards (r = .31; p <.001) as well as overall TrailsB performance (r = -.39; p < .001).
Conclusions:
The present study adds to a growing literature on the utility of deriving test metrics to maximize useful data for clinical and experimental neuropsychology. Results from this retrospective chart review indicate additional validity data to support the use of extracting the first error on Trails B as a way to salvage useful data even when a patient may not be able to complete the full TMT as designed. In this preliminary sample there was a significant difference found for normative vs. dementia patients on this derived TB1err metric and suggests it is worthy of additional research to see if it can reliably differentiate various diagnoses. We expect this finding will also be useful in experimental designs wherein time is often limited and loss of data due to incomplete testing might be avoided by extracting the first error on TrailsB.
In 2016, the National Center for Advancing Translational Science launched the Trial Innovation Network (TIN) to address barriers to efficient and informative multicenter trials. The TIN provides a national platform, working in partnership with 60+ Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs across the country to support the design and conduct of successful multicenter trials. A dedicated Hub Liaison Team (HLT) was established within each CTSA to facilitate connection between the hubs and the newly launched Trial and Recruitment Innovation Centers. Each HLT serves as an expert intermediary, connecting CTSA Hub investigators with TIN support, and connecting TIN research teams with potential multicenter trial site investigators. The cross-consortium Liaison Team network was developed during the first TIN funding cycle, and it is now a mature national network at the cutting edge of team science in clinical and translational research. The CTSA-based HLT structures and the external network structure have been developed in collaborative and iterative ways, with methods for shared learning and continuous process improvement. In this paper, we review the structure, function, and development of the Liaison Team network, discuss lessons learned during the first TIN funding cycle, and outline a path toward further network maturity.
Improving the quality and conduct of multi-center clinical trials is essential to the generation of generalizable knowledge about the safety and efficacy of healthcare treatments. Despite significant effort and expense, many clinical trials are unsuccessful. The National Center for Advancing Translational Science launched the Trial Innovation Network to address critical roadblocks in multi-center trials by leveraging existing infrastructure and developing operational innovations. We provide an overview of the roadblocks that led to opportunities for operational innovation, our work to develop, define, and map innovations across the network, and how we implemented and disseminated mature innovations.
Physician parents encounter unique challenges in balancing new parenthood with work responsibilities, especially upon their return from parental leave. We designed a pilot program that incorporated 1:1 parental coaching to expectant and new physician parents and provided stipends for lactation support and help at home. Additional initiatives included launching a virtual new parent group during the COVID-19 pandemic and starting an emergency backup pump supplies program. There was positive feedback for our Parental Wellness Program (PWP), which was used to secure expanded funding. Pilot results showed that our program had a meaningful impact on parental wellness, morale, productivity, and lactation efforts.
The networked connections that influence policy decisions in children's social care in England have been the subject of increasing attention in recent years (Jones, 2019; Tunstill, 2019; Purcell, 2020; Rogowski, 2020; Hanley, 2022). This is in line with a broader body of work on networks, including that of Spanish sociologist Manuel Castells (2010), who argues that the functions and systems of contemporary society are now predominantly organised around networks. This chapter does not seek to replicate this existing literature, and instead examines one of the chief ways that networks influence and guide policy: through the perpetuation and reinforcement of policy concepts or ideas, and in particular how this is done using pieces of cultural information known as memes. The word meme is short for mimeme, meaning to imitate, and was coined by Richard Dawkins, who saw memes as cultural parallels to biological genes in the way they perpetuate and spread across generations and space, while also being subject to mutation (Dawkins, 1976). The creation of the internet popularised the term meme and it is now used widely to denote information, most commonly photos, but also videos and text, transmitted through repetition, imitation and alteration (Cavanagh, 2019).
The chapter starts with an overview of relevant theory related to networks, alongside a brief introduction to the existing literature on the networked connections in children's social care policy. The discussion then moves to looking at how these theories address the proliferation of ideas within networks, including through the use of memes. These insights are then applied to children's social care in England, looking at two illustrative examples of highly influential memes within this sector: ‘reclaiming social work’ and ‘high-quality’. Finally, the MacAlister Review is discussed, with a particular focus on how the meme of ‘safe and stable’ shaped that review, but also looking at a range of additional memes used throughout that review process. Ultimately it is suggested that while the power and influence of policy networks can at times be enacted through purposeful collusion (schemes) it is more likely to be felt through the perpetuation and reinforcement of concepts and policy ideas (memes) that do not receive sufficient scrutiny within such policy networks.
Network society
Castells’ (2010) theory of the network society argues that ‘as an historical trend, dominant functions and processes in the information age are increasingly organised around networks’ (p 500).
New technologies and disruptions related to Coronavirus disease-2019 have led to expansion of decentralized approaches to clinical trials. Remote tools and methods hold promise for increasing trial efficiency and reducing burdens and barriers by facilitating participation outside of traditional clinical settings and taking studies directly to participants. The Trial Innovation Network, established in 2016 by the National Center for Advancing Clinical and Translational Science to address critical roadblocks in clinical research and accelerate the translational research process, has consulted on over 400 research study proposals to date. Its recommendations for decentralized approaches have included eConsent, participant-informed study design, remote intervention, study task reminders, social media recruitment, and return of results for participants. Some clinical trial elements have worked well when decentralized, while others, including remote recruitment and patient monitoring, need further refinement and assessment to determine their value. Partially decentralized, or “hybrid” trials, offer a first step to optimizing remote methods. Decentralized processes demonstrate potential to improve urban-rural diversity, but their impact on inclusion of racially and ethnically marginalized populations requires further study. To optimize inclusive participation in decentralized clinical trials, efforts must be made to build trust among marginalized communities, and to ensure access to remote technology.
Infection preventionist (IP) positions are difficult to fill, and future workforce shortages are anticipated. The IP field has less racial and ethnic diversity than the general nursing workforce or patient population. A targeted fellowship program for underrepresented groups allowed the recruitment and training of IPs while avoiding staffing shortages.
One challenge for multisite clinical trials is ensuring that the conditions of an informative trial are incorporated into all aspects of trial planning and execution. The multicenter model can provide the potential for a more informative environment, but it can also place a trial at risk of becoming uninformative due to lack of rigor, quality control, or effective recruitment, resulting in premature discontinuation and/or non-publication. Key factors that support informativeness are having the right team and resources during study planning and implementation and adequate funding to support performance activities. This communication draws on the experience of the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) Trial Innovation Network (TIN) to develop approaches for enhancing the informativeness of clinical trials. We distilled this information into three principles: (1) assemble a diverse team, (2) leverage existing processes and systems, and (3) carefully consider budgets and contracts. The TIN, comprised of NCATS, three Trial Innovation Centers, a Recruitment Innovation Center, and 60+ CTSA Program hubs, provides resources to investigators who are proposing multicenter collaborations. In addition to sharing principles that support the informativeness of clinical trials, we highlight TIN-developed resources relevant for multicenter trial initiation and conduct.
Defoe was not a philosopher, yet his work demands attention from a philosophical perspective for two reasons. One is contextual. Defoe’s literary career in the first quarter of the eighteenth century coincided with a remarkable period in the history of British philosophy. Second, Defoe frequently takes up themes addressed by the major philosophers of his day, and thus familiarity with their central concerns and arguments will be helpful to his readers. This chapter offers a general and necessarily brief survey of four philosophical contexts likely to be of interest to Defoe’s readers: practical philosophy, natural philosophy, metaphysics and epistemology, and philosophy of religion. In so doing, it seeks to call attention to (and specifically with reference to Robinson Crusoe) several of the ways in which Defoe’s thought intersected with concerns being taken up by some of the leading philosophers of early eighteenth-century Britain.