Do Hens Use Enrichments Provided in Free-Range Systems?

Hens in free-range systems are given enrichments to increase foraging and limit injurious pecking, but the efficacy of enrichment types requires investigation. We studied hen behaviour and feather cover in eight commercial free-range flocks each given access to four enrichments within the shed. Sheds were split into quarters, in which two enrichments (jute ropes (R) + other) were installed. Other enrichments were: lucerne hay bales (B), pecking blocks (PB), pelleted feed (PF), or further R (control). Hens were observed at three ages, at three times per age (−1, 0, ≥1 h relative to PF application), in 1 m diameter circle locations around ropes (ControlR), Enrich (B, PB, PF, R), and Away from each enrichment. Feather scores were recorded at all ages/times, at the Away location only. Significantly more birds were in Enrich locations where PB, B, and PF were available, and least near R, ControlR, and Away locations (p p p p < 0.001) but were not consistently affected by enrichment. Enrichment replacement rates varied between farms. Enrichments costs were highest for PB and cheapest for R. Enrichments except R were used by hens, but with no obvious effect on feather cover. A balance has to be struck between enrichment benefits to hens and economics, but evidence suggested that hens did not benefit from R

Promoting co-production in the generation and use of research evidence to improve service provision in special care dentistry

Special care dentistry (SCD) provides holistic oral service provision for people with complex health and care needs. These can include physical, sensory, intellectual, mental, medical, emotional or social impairment or disability or, more often, a combination of these factors. The level of disability within these population groups can vary, and a proportion of people will have multiple and overlapping impairments and/or medical conditions. This paper explores a number of possible research methods that may better reflect the diversity and challenges of this population group, where the emphasis is placed on co-production and co-design

The effects of feed restriction, time of day and time since feeding on behavioral and physiological indicators of hunger in broiler breeder hens

Broiler breeder chickens are commercially feed restricted to slow their growth and improve their health and production, however, there is research demonstrating that this leads to chronic hunger resulting in poor welfare. A challenge in these studies is to account for possible daily rhythms or the effects of time since last meal on measures relating hunger. To address this, we used 3 feed treatments: AL (ad libitum fed), Ram (restricted, fed in the morning), and Rpm (restricted, fed in the afternoon) to control for diurnal effects. We then conducted foraging motivation tests and collected home pen behavior and physiological samples at 4 times relative to feeding throughout a 24-h period. The feed treatment had the largest influence on the data, with AL birds weighing more, having lower concentrations of plasma NEFA, and mRNA expression of AGRP and NPY alongside higher expression of POMC in the basal hypothalamus than Ram or Rpm birds (P &lt; 0.001). R birds were more successful at and had a shorter latency to complete the motivation test, and did more walking and less feeding than AL birds in the home pen (P &lt; 0.01). There was little effect of time since last meal on many measures (P &gt; 0.05) but AGRP expression was highest in the basal hypothalamus shortly after a meal (P &lt; 0.05), blood plasma NEFA was higher in R birds just before feeding (P &lt; 0.001) and glucose was higher in Ram birds just after feeding (P &lt; 0.001), and the latency to complete the motivation test was shortest before the next meal (P &lt; 0.05). Time of day effects were mainly found in the difference in activity levels in the home pen when during lights on and lights off periods. In conclusion, many behavioral and physiological hunger measures were not significantly influenced by time of day or time since the last meal. For the measures that do change, future studies should be designed so that sampling is balanced in such a way as to minimize bias due to these effects.</p

Effect on survey response rate of hand written versus printed signature on a covering letter: randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN67566265]

BACKGROUND: It is important that response rates to postal surveys are as high as possible to ensure that the results are representative and to maximise statistical power. Previous research has suggested that any personalisation of approach helps to improve the response rate. This experiment tested whether personalising questionnaires by hand signing the covering letter improved the response rate compared with a non-personalised group where the investigator's signature on the covering letter was scanned into the document and printed. METHODS: Randomised controlled trial. Questionnaires about surgical techniques of caesarean section were mailed to 3,799 Members and Fellows of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists resident in the UK. Individuals were randomly allocated to receive a covering letter with either a computer printed signature or a hand written signature. Two reminders were sent to non-respondents. The outcome measures were the proportion of questionnaires returned and their time to return. RESULTS: The response rate was 79.1% (1506/1905) in the hand-signed group and 78.4% (1484/1894) in the scanned and printed signature group. There was no detectable difference between the groups in response rate or time taken to respond. CONCLUSION: No advantage was detected to hand signing the covering letter accompanying a postal questionnaire to health professionals

Using a theoretically informed process evaluation alongside a trial to improve oral health for care home residents

BACKGROUND: Poor oral health is common among older adults residing in care homes impacting their diet, quality of life, self-esteem, general health and well-being. The care home setting is complex and many factors may affect the successful implementation of oral care interventions. Exploring these factors and their embedded context is key to understanding how and why interventions may or may not be successfully implemented within their intended setting. OBJECTIVES: This methodology paper describes the approach to a theoretically informed process evaluation alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial, so as to understand contextual factors, how the intervention was implemented and important elements that may influence the pathways to impact. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SENIOR is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial designed to improve the oral health of care home residents in the United Kingdom. The trial uses a complex intervention to promote and provide oral care for residents, including education and training for staff. RESULTS: An embedded, theoretically informed process evaluation, drawing on the PAHRIS framework and utilising a qualitative approach, will help to understand the important contextual factors within the care home that influence both the trial processes and the implementation of the intervention. CONCLUSION: Utilising an implementation framework as the basis for a theoretically informed process evaluation provides an approach that specifically focuses on the contextual factors that may influence and shape the pathways to impact a given complex intervention a priori, while also providing an understanding of how and why an intervention may be effective. This contrasts with the more common post hoc approach that only focuses on implementation after the empirical results have emerged

Context and the evidence based paradigm: The potential for participatory research and systems thinking in oral health

The implementation of research evidence to promote oral health is critical, given the intransigent and emerging challenges for policy-makers at a population level. Despite this, little attention has been paid to implementation research within the evidence-based paradigm. This is important as getting research evidence into clinical practice is not a linear path that consists of simple sequential steps. In this article, we argue that we need to consider a broader range of conceptual and methodological approaches to increase the value of information generated. This should be undertaken either in parallel with empirical and experimental designs, or in some cases, instead of. This is important if we are going to understand the complexity and contextual knowledge of the ‘system’, within which interventions are implemented. Involving key stakeholders alongside empirical and experimental designs is one helpful approach. Examples of these approaches include Patient and Public Involvement and the development of Core Outcome Sets, where the views of those that will be potentially affected by the research, are included. The use of theoretical frameworks and process evaluations alongside trials are also important, if they are fully integrated into the approach taken to address the research question. A more radical approach is using participatory designs and ‘systems thinking’. Participatory approaches include subject matter 'experts by experience’. These include patients, their families, carers, healthcare professionals, services managers, policy-makers, commissioners and researchers. Participatory approaches raise important questions about who facilitates the process, when it should happen and how the diverse actors become meaningfully engaged so that their involvement is active, democratic and on-going. We argue that the issues of control, power and language are central to this and represent a paradigmatic shift to conventional approaches. Systems thinking captures the idea that public health problems commonly involve multiple interdependent and interconnected factors, which interact with each other dynamically. This approach challenges the simplicity of the hierarchy of evidence and linear sequential logic, when it doesn’t account for context. In contrast, systems thinking accepts complexity de novo and emphasises the need to understand the whole system rather than its individual component parts. We conclude with the idea that participatory and systems thinking helps to unpack the diverse agents that are often involved in the generation and translation of evidence into clinical dental practice. It moves our conception of research away from a simple exchange between ‘knowledge producers’ and ‘knowledge users’ and raises both methodological and epistemological challenges