4 results
A history of high-power laser research and development in the United Kingdom
- Part of
- Colin N. Danson, Malcolm White, John R. M. Barr, Thomas Bett, Peter Blyth, David Bowley, Ceri Brenner, Robert J. Collins, Neal Croxford, A. E. Bucker Dangor, Laurence Devereux, Peter E. Dyer, Anthony Dymoke-Bradshaw, Christopher B. Edwards, Paul Ewart, Allister I. Ferguson, John M. Girkin, Denis R. Hall, David C. Hanna, Wayne Harris, David I. Hillier, Christopher J. Hooker, Simon M. Hooker, Nicholas Hopps, Janet Hull, David Hunt, Dino A. Jaroszynski, Mark Kempenaars, Helmut Kessler, Sir Peter L. Knight, Steve Knight, Adrian Knowles, Ciaran L. S. Lewis, Ken S. Lipton, Abby Littlechild, John Littlechild, Peter Maggs, Graeme P. A. Malcolm, OBE, Stuart P. D. Mangles, William Martin, Paul McKenna, Richard O. Moore, Clive Morrison, Zulfikar Najmudin, David Neely, Geoff H. C. New, Michael J. Norman, Ted Paine, Anthony W. Parker, Rory R. Penman, Geoff J. Pert, Chris Pietraszewski, Andrew Randewich, Nadeem H. Rizvi, Nigel Seddon, MBE, Zheng-Ming Sheng, David Slater, Roland A. Smith, Christopher Spindloe, Roy Taylor, Gary Thomas, John W. G. Tisch, Justin S. Wark, Colin Webb, S. Mark Wiggins, Dave Willford, Trevor Winstone
-
- Journal:
- High Power Laser Science and Engineering / Volume 9 / 2021
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 27 April 2021, e18
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
The first demonstration of laser action in ruby was made in 1960 by T. H. Maiman of Hughes Research Laboratories, USA. Many laboratories worldwide began the search for lasers using different materials, operating at different wavelengths. In the UK, academia, industry and the central laboratories took up the challenge from the earliest days to develop these systems for a broad range of applications. This historical review looks at the contribution the UK has made to the advancement of the technology, the development of systems and components and their exploitation over the last 60 years.
Assessing research participant preferences for receiving study results
- Sarah Cook, Stephanie Mayers, Kathryn Goggins, David Schlundt, Kemberlee Bonnet, Neely Williams, Donald Alcendor, Shari Barkin
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 4 / Issue 3 / June 2020
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 October 2019, pp. 243-249
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Introduction:
Dissemination of results to research participants is largely missing from the practices of most researchers. Few resources exist that describe best practices for disseminating information to this important stakeholder group.
Methods:Four focus groups were conducted with a diverse group of individuals. All participants were part of a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded survey study. Focus groups aimed to identify participants’ preferences about receiving research results and their reactions to three different dissemination platforms.
Results:Four focus groups with 37 participants were conducted, including: (1) adults with one comorbidity, at least a college education, and high socioeconomic status (SES); (2) adults with one comorbidity, less than a college education, and lower SES; (3) adults with low health literacy and/or numeracy; and (4) Black or African American adults. Participants discussed their preferences for research results delivery and how each of the platforms met those preferences. This included information needs as they relate to content and scope, including a desire to receive both individual and aggregate results, and study summaries. Email, paper, and website were all popular avenues of presentation. Some desired a written summary, and others preferred videos or visual graphics. Importantly, participants emphasized the desire for having a choice in the timing, frequency, and types of results.
Conclusion:Research participants prefer to receive research results, including study impact and key findings, disseminated to them in an engaging format that allows choice of when and how the information is presented. The results encourage new standards whereby research participants are considered a critical stakeholder group.
2215 The value of storytelling in community stakeholder feedback for clinical and translational research
- Laurie L. Novak, Sheba George, Kenneth Wallston, Yolanda Vaughn, Tiffany Israel, Yvonne Joosten, Neely Williams, Consuelo Wilkins, Al Richmond
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 2 / Issue S1 / June 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 November 2018, p. 75
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Community stakeholder engagement along the translational spectrum of biomedical research has been identified as a potentially crucial factor for encouraging participation among underrepresented groups, improving research relevance, and adoption of evidence into practice. Although we have developed various methods to improve communication between researchers and community stakeholders, we have not focused much attention on the manner by which community stakeholders choose to communicate with researchers in scientific feedback settings. In our PCORI funded study using Community Engagement Studios to elicit feedback on research from community stakeholders, we found that feedback from participants was frequently provided in the form of stories. This presentation aims to describe these narratives, examine their function in the feedback process and consider how a focus on these narratives enhances our understanding of community engagement for clinical and translational research. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The present study comes from a larger randomized, controlled methodological study. We randomized 20 investigators seeking input on their research to either a Community Engagement Studio (a panel of community members or patients) or a Translational Studio (a panel of researchers). Any faculty member or research trainee at Vanderbilt University or Meharry Medical College was eligible to participate. Each Studio panel was convened to provide project-specific input. The 153 stakeholders who participated in CE Studios were patients, caregivers, or patient advocates identified by health status, health condition, or demographic variables based on the project-based needs of the 20 researchers randomized in this project. Stakeholders include individuals with diabetes, heart failure, Parkinson’s disease, sickle cell disease, and ICU survivors. All stakeholders had experience as a partner or consultant on a research project or through serving on a research advisory board or committee. All Studios were recorded and transcribed, and experienced qualitative researchers analyzed the data. For this paper, we focus on the narrative feedback in the form of stories elicited in the CE Studios. Using qualitative methods, we coded the transcripts from the 20 CE Studios to identify stories and their functions in the feedback. Stories were defined as narratives with (a) at least one actor (b) action that unfolds over time, and (c) a realization, destination, or conflict resolution (i.e., a point of the story). For example, “I refilled my mother’s pillbox on Sunday and on Friday I found the pillbox still completely full” would be a story, however, “my mother doesn’t take her meds correctly” would not. We coded the stories for how they facilitated communication in the Studio using an open-coding style, that is we did not apply a specific theoretical framework of interaction or communication. It was possible for any given story to have more than one code applied to it; that is they were not classified in a mutually exclusive way. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We found 5 major functions of stories in the Studios. Basic sender-receiver functions were noted, including responding to queries and seeking mutual understanding. The other functions served to move or add to the conversation, including adding expansion and depth, characterizing abstract concepts, and providing context, with the latter being the most frequent function of stories. Speakers provided context in a wide variety of dimensions, ranging from the context of the body to spatial and institutional contexts. These stories served to help others understand the speakers’ lived experiences. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: We often engage community members in research for their expertise with regards to their lived experiences as patients or community members, and for their experiences of healthcare and social determinants of health in particular community contexts. Yet we may expect them to share their expertise in a manner that is consistent with a scientific, explanatory framing and language. However, we know there is a difference in the way that professional researchers discuss research Versus how community members discuss research. In our PCORI study, we found that our Community Studio participants relied on storytelling as an important means to communicate their lived experiences. Their stories were often key to communicating the complex contexts of their experiences. We focus on examining these narrative practices and their functions in how community members engaged with and provided advice to researchers. This understanding may help us in: (1) Characterizing the contexts, processes, and meanings associated with community stakeholder experiences that are otherwise difficult to access. (2) Identifying community priorities relevant to research that are embedded in community narratives to better align research priorities with community needs and to improve patient outcomes. (3) Collecting insights for improving the design of community engagement activities in research. (4) Harnessing more fully the potential of community engagement in research.
A Model for a Statewide Critical Incident Stress (CIS) Debriefing Program for Emergency Services Personnel
- Keith W. Neely, William J. Spitzer
-
- Journal:
- Prehospital and Disaster Medicine / Volume 12 / Issue 2 / June 1997
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 28 June 2012, pp. 43-48
- Print publication:
- June 1997
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Purpose:
Emergency services personnel are highly vulnerable to acute and cumulative critical incident stress (CIS) that can manifest as anger, guilt, depression, and impaired decision-making, and, in certain instances, job loss. Interventions designed to identify such distress and restore psychological functioning becomes imperative.
Methods:A statewide debriefing team was formed in 1988 through a collaborative effort between an academic department of emergency medicine and a social work department of a teaching hospital, and a metropolitan area fire department and ambulance service. Using an existing CIS debriefing model, 84 pre-screened, mental health professionals and emergency services personnel were provided with 16 hours of training and were grouped into regional teams.
Debriefing requests are received through a central number answered by a communicator in a 24-hour communications center located within the emergency department. Debriefings are conducted 48–72 hours after the event for specific types of incidents. Follow-up telephone calls are made by the debriefing team leader two to three weeks following a debriefing. The teams rely on donations to pay for travel and meals.
Results:One hundred sixty-eight debriefings were conducted during the first four years. Rural agencies accounted for 116 (69%) requests. During this period, 1,514 individuals were debriefed: 744 (49%) firefighters, 460 (30%) EMTs, and 310 (21%) police officers, dispatchers, and other responders. Deaths of children, extraordinary events, and incidents involving victims known to the responders (35%, 14%, and 14% respectively) were the most common reasons for requesting debriefings. Feedback was received from 48 (28%) of the agencies that requested the debriefing. All of those who responded felt that the debriefing had a beneficial effect on its personnel. Specific individuals identified by agency representatives as having the greatest difficulty were observed to be returned to their pre-incident state.
Conclusion:CIS debriefings are judged as beneficial. A statewide response team is an effective way to provide these services at no cost to agencies.