Ecolabelling and Fisheries Management

RAFMS (Rapid Appraisal of Fisheries Managment Systems) designed by ICLARM is a semistructural research tool designed to quickly document and evaluate exisiting local-level fisheries management systems in a given coastal community. The results of RAFMS will provide direction for undertaking more formal research or quantitative surveys to describe institutional arrangements and performance. RAFMS is suited to the village level, or to a cluster of villages within a defined marine unit such as a bay. It's emphasis is on the evaluation of the rights and rules system governing the use of the fisheries resources at the local level. The approach is also participatory because it is designed for the joint use of RAFMS practitioners and local researchers in collaboration with local fishing communities. The mode of community participation, however, is consultative. This Version 1 of the guide was published with the anticipation of future feedback. Version 1 had been tested for two years prior to being published in collaboration with ICLARM's research partners at: Ulugan Bay and Binunsalian Bay in Palawan, Asia (Southeastern)-Philippines; and Nolloth Village at Saparua Isalnd in Indonesia

A self-management programme to reduce falls and improve safe mobility in people with secondary progressive MS: the BRiMS feasibility RCT

This is the final version, also available from NIHR journals library via the DOI in this record.Abstract Background Balance, mobility impairments and falls are common problems for people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Our ongoing research has led to the development of Balance Right in MS (BRiMS), a 13-week home- and group-based exercise and education programme intended to improve balance and encourage safer mobility. Objective This feasibility trial aimed to obtain the necessary data and operational experience to finalise the planning of a future definitive multicentre randomised controlled trial. Design Randomised controlled feasibility trial. Participants were block randomised 1 : 1. Researcher-blinded assessments were scheduled at baseline and at 15 and 27 weeks post randomisation. As is appropriate in a feasibility trial, statistical analyses were descriptive rather than involving formal/inferential comparisons. The qualitative elements utilised template analysis as the chosen analytical framework. Setting Four sites across the UK. Participants Eligibility criteria included having a diagnosis of secondary progressive MS, an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of between ≥ 4.0 and ≤ 7.0 points and a self-report of two or more falls in the preceding 6 months. Interventions Intervention – manualised 13-week education and exercise programme (BRiMS) plus usual care. Comparator – usual care alone. Main outcome measures Trial feasibility, proposed outcomes for the definitive trial (including impact of MS, mobility, quality of life and falls), feasibility of the BRiMS programme (via process evaluation) and economic data. Results A total of 56 participants (mean age 59.7 years, standard deviation 9.7 years; 66% female; median EDSS score of 6.0 points, interquartile range 6.0–6.5 points) were recruited in 5 months; 30 were block randomised to the intervention group. The demographic and clinical data were broadly comparable at baseline; however, the intervention group scored worse on the majority of baseline outcome measures. Eleven participants (19.6%) withdrew or were lost to follow-up. Worsening of MS-related symptoms unrelated to the trial was the most common reason (n = 5) for withdrawal. Potential primary and secondary outcomes and economic data had completion rates of > 98% for all those assessed. However, the overall return rate for the patient-reported falls diary was 62%. After adjusting for baseline score, the differences between the groups (intervention compared with usual care) at week 27 for the potential primary outcomes were MS Walking Scale (12-item) version 2 –7.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) –17.2 to 1.8], MS Impact Scale (29-item) version 2 (MSIS-29vs2) physical 0.6 (95% CI –7.8 to 9) and MSIS-29vs2 psychological –0.4 (95% CI –9.9 to 9) (negative score indicates improvement). After the removal of one outlier, a total of 715 falls were self-reported over the 27-week trial period, with substantial variation between individuals (range 0–93 falls). Of these 715 falls, 101 (14%) were reported as injurious. Qualitative feedback indicated that trial processes and participant burden were acceptable, and participants highlighted physical and behavioural changes that they perceived to result from undertaking BRiMS. Engagement varied, influenced by a range of condition- and context-related factors. Suggestions to improve the utility and accessibility of BRiMS were highlighted. Conclusions The results suggest that the trial procedures are feasible and acceptable, and retention, programme engagement and outcome completion rates were sufficient to satisfy the a priori progression criteria. Challenges were experienced in some areas of data collection, such as completion of daily diaries.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR

Interventions for post-stroke fatigue

BACKGROUND: Post-stroke fatigue (PSF) is a common and distressing problem after stroke. The best ways to prevent or treat PSF are uncertain. Several different interventions can be argued to have a rational basis. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether, among people with stroke, any intervention reduces the proportion of people with fatigue, fatigue severity, or both; and to determine the effect of intervention on health-related quality of life, disability, dependency and death, and whether such intervention is cost effective. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched May 2014), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2014, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to May 2014), EMBASE (1980 to May 2014), CINAHL (1982 to May 2014), AMED (1985 to May 2014), PsycINFO (1967 to May 2014), Digital Dissertations (1861 to May 2014), British Nursing Index (1985 to May 2014), PEDro (searched May 2014) and PsycBITE (searched May 2014). We also searched four ongoing trials registries, scanned reference lists, performed citation tracking of included trials and contacted experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently scrutinised all titles and abstracts and excluded obviously irrelevant studies. We obtained the full texts for potentially relevant studies and three review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared an intervention with a control, or compared different interventions for PSF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each included trial. The primary outcomes were severity of fatigue, or proportion of people with fatigue after treatment. We performed separate analyses for trials investigating efficacy in treating PSF, trials investigating efficacy in preventing PSF and trials not primarily investigating efficacy in PSF but which reported fatigue as an outcome. We pooled results from trials that had a control arm. For trials that compared different potentially active interventions without a control arm, we performed analyses for individual trials without pooling.We calculated standardised mean difference (SMD) as the effect size for continuous outcomes and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. We pooled the results using a random-effects model and assessed heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic. We performed separate subgroup analyses for pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. We also performed sensitivity analyses to assess the influence of methodological quality. MAIN RESULTS: We retrieved 12,490 citations, obtained full texts for 58 studies and included 12 trials (three from the 2008 search and nine from the 2014 search) with 703 participants. Eight trials primarily investigated the efficacy in treating PSF, of which six trials with seven comparisons provided data suitable for meta-analysis (five pharmacological interventions: fluoxetine, enerion, (-)-OSU6162, citicoline and a combination of Chinese herbs; and two non-pharmacological interventions: a fatigue education programme and a mindfulness-based stress reduction programme). The fatigue severity was lower in the intervention groups than in the control groups (244 participants, pooled SMD -1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.93 to -0.21), with significant heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 87%, degrees of freedom (df) = 6, P value < 0.00001). The beneficial effect was not seen in trials that had used adequate allocation concealment (two trials, 89 participants, SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.04) or trials that had used adequate blinding of outcome assessors (four trials, 198 participants, SMD -1.10, 95% CI -2.31 to 0.11).No trial primarily investigated the efficacy in preventing PSF.Four trials (248 participants) did not primarily investigate the efficacy on fatigue but other symptoms after stroke. None of these interventions showed any benefit on reducing PSF, which included tirilazad mesylate, continuous positive airway pressure for sleep apnoea, antidepressants and a self management programme for recovery from chronic diseases. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence on the efficacy of any intervention to treat or prevent fatigue after stroke. Trials to date have been small and heterogeneous, and some have had a high risk of bias. Some of the interventions described were feasible in people with stroke, but their efficacy should be investigated in RCTs with a more robust study design and adequate sample sizes

The council for national academic awards 1964-74: a study of a validating agency

The council for national academic awards 1964-74: a study of a validating agenc

Kaaskirjade, mustandite ja tagasisidekommentaaride tähtsus inglise keelt teise keelena kasutavate doktorantide kirjutamisrühmades

Väitekirja elektrooniline versioon ei sisalda publikatsiooneVastastikune tagasiside aitab parandada üliõpilaste kirjutamisoskust. Väitekiri uurib, kuidas parimal viisil kasutada kirjaliku vastastikuse tagasiside protsessi selleks, et toetada doktorantide kirjutamisoskust pikas perspektiivis. Doktorandid jaotatakse väikestesse kirjutamisrühmadesse, kus neid õpetatakse üksteist toetama teadusväljaannetes avaldatavate artiklite mustandite kirjutamisel. Doktorandid saadavad oma rühmas üksteisele regulaarselt kirjalikku tagasisidet töös oleva artikli mustandi kohta. Selleks, et aidata luua kasulikke tagasisidekommentaare, kirjutab iga doktorant kaaskirja, kus selgitab, mida ta oma mustandi hindamiselt ootab. Seega kirjutavad rühmaliikmed oma tagasisidekommentaarid autori mustandile kaaskirja põhjal. Seejärel otsustab mustandi autor, kuidas hindajate kirjalikke tagasisidekommentaare rakendada, et oma mustandi järgmist versiooni parandada. Teadmised selle kohta, mis on hea kaaskiri ja head tagasisidekommentaarid (st tagasiside hea tava), aitavad teadlastel välja töötada paremad pedagoogilised lahendused, mis toetavad kirjutamisrühmades pakutavat õpet. Sellest tulenevalt on siinsel väitekirjal kaks põhieesmärki. Esiteks, selgitada doktorantide kaaskirjade ja tagasisidekommentaaride kvantitatiivse ja kvalitatiivse analüüsi kaudu välja kirjaliku tagasiside hea tava. Teiseks, luua saadud andmete sekundaarse analüüsi põhjal kirjaliku vastastikuse tagasiside protsessi mudel (nn AWFP-mudel). Väitekirjas kirjeldatud kirjutamisõpetuse raamistikku (st AWFP-mudelit koos tagasiside hea tavaga) saavad kasutada õppejõud ja teadlased.The peer feedback process is known to help students improve their writing skills. This dissertation examines how the written peer feedback process can be optimised to support the long-term writing skills of PhD students. The students are placed in small writing groups where they are taught to support each other in drafting a research article for scientific publication. Within their groups, the PhD students periodically give, and receive from each other, written feedback comments on sections of their draft articles. To help generate useful feedback comments, each PhD student writes a 'cover letter' to explain how their submitted draft should be assessed. Thus, the students give their feedback comments based on the author’s draft and cover letter. The authors then decide how to implement their reviewers' written feedback comments to improve their subsequent drafts. Obtaining a better understanding of what constitutes good cover letters and good feedback comments (i.e. 'good feedback practices') will help researchers devise better pedagogies to support the writing practices of writing groups. Thus, this dissertation has two main aims. Firstly, good written feedback practices are determined through the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the PhD students' cover letters and feedback comments. Secondly, a model of the written peer feedback process ('AWFP model') is induced from the secondary analysis of the data. Thus, the writing pedagogical framework (i.e. the AWPF model used in tandem with good feedback practices) developed in this dissertation can be utilised by educators and researchers to improve upon current writing pedagogy.https://www.ester.ee/record=b537594