Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS framework : theoretical and practical challenges

Background The PARiHS framework (Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) has proved to be a useful practical and conceptual heuristic for many researchers and practitioners in framing their research or knowledge translation endeavours. However, as a conceptual framework it still remains untested and therefore its contribution to the overall development and testing of theory in the field of implementation science is largely unquantified. Discussion This being the case, the paper provides an integrated summary of our conceptual and theoretical thinking so far and introduces a typology (derived from social policy analysis) used to distinguish between the terms conceptual framework, theory and model – important definitional and conceptual issues in trying to refine theoretical and methodological approaches to knowledge translation. Secondly, the paper describes the next phase of our work, in particular concentrating on the conceptual thinking and mapping that has led to the generation of the hypothesis that the PARiHS framework is best utilised as a two-stage process: as a preliminary (diagnostic and evaluative) measure of the elements and sub-elements of evidence (E) and context (C), and then using the aggregated data from these measures to determine the most appropriate facilitation method. The exact nature of the intervention is thus determined by the specific actors in the specific context at a specific time and place. In the process of refining this next phase of our work, we have had to consider the wider issues around the use of theories to inform and shape our research activity; the ongoing challenges of developing robust and sensitive measures; facilitation as an intervention for getting research into practice; and finally to note how the current debates around evidence into practice are adopting wider notions that fit innovations more generally. Summary The paper concludes by suggesting that the future direction of the work on the PARiHS framework is to develop a two-stage diagnostic and evaluative approach, where the intervention is shaped and moulded by the information gathered about the specific situation and from participating stakeholders. In order to expedite the generation of new evidence and testing of emerging theories, we suggest the formation of an international research implementation science collaborative that can systematically collect and analyse experiences of using and testing the PARiHS framework and similar conceptual and theoretical approaches. We also recommend further refinement of the definitions around conceptual framework, theory, and model, suggesting a wider discussion that embraces multiple epistemological and ontological perspectives

Proteomics: in pursuit of effective traumatic brain injury therapeutics

Effective traumatic brain injury (TBI) therapeutics remain stubbornly elusive. Efforts in the field have been challenged by the heterogeneity of clinical TBI, with greater complexity among underlying molecular phenotypes than initially conceived. Future research must confront the multitude of factors comprising this heterogeneity, representing a big data challenge befitting the coming informatics age. Proteomics is poised to serve a central role in prescriptive therapeutic development, as it offers an efficient endpoint within which to assess post-TBI biochemistry. We examine rationale for multifactor TBI proteomic studies and the particular importance of temporal profiling in defining biochemical sequences and guiding therapeutic development. Lastly, we offer perspective on repurposing biofluid proteomics to develop theragnostic assays with which to prescribe, monitor and assess pharmaceutics for improved translation and outcome for TBI patients

Real Potential

There\u27s a student in my philosophy class who has real potential. I might express this thought in any of the following ways: She is potentially a philosopher ; She is a potential philosopher ; She has the potential to be a philosopher. The first way uses a cognate of potential as an adverb to modify is. The second ways uses potential as an adjective to modify philosopher. However, the third way uses potential as a noun to refer to something that the student has. What kind of thing is this potential? One worry about even asking this question is that this nominalization of the adjective potential suggests a metaphysical picture that is an artifact of language. This is even more strongly suggested by the less ambiguous nominalization potentiality. Once we have the term potentiality, we have a new kind of entity to countenance, and questions about its nature arise. One might argue, just because we use the word potentiality, we should not think that it refers to a thing that someone can have. There is something disingenuous about such an argument. It proceeds as if the adverbial and adjectival uses of potential are unproblematic, and questions only arise with the nominalization. But it is not obvious what it means to potentially be something, or what it means to be a potential something. To say that someone is potentially a philosopher is to talk about a way of being that falls short of actuality. And a potential philosopher is not a kind of philosopher at all. So what is it? Each of the three above formulations is a modal claim. If there is anything philosophical puzzling about a potentiality claim, it is not going to go away by translating it into an equivalent modal claim. In this chapter I defend the existence of potentialities against anti-realist arguments, and make a proposal as to their nature. The proposal, in short, is that potentialities are properties, specifically dispositions, though more needs to be said about properties and dispositions. I will do this in Part I. In Part II, I will address two lines of argument against potentialities: that they are reducible, and that they are causally inert

Complications after hip arthroplasty and the association with hospital procedure volume: A nationwide retrospective cohort study on 50,080 total hip replacements with a follow-up of 3 months after surgery

Background and purpose: It has been suggested that a higher procedure volume is associated with less complications af

P-wave excited baryons from pion- and photo-induced hyperon production

We report evidence for $N(1710)P_{11}$, $N(1875)P_{11}$, $N(1900)P_{13}$, $\Delta(1600)P_{33}$, $\Delta(1910)P_{31}$, and $\Delta(1920)P_{33}$, and find indications that $N(1900)P_{13}$ might have a companion state at 1970\,MeV. The controversial $\Delta(1750)P_{31}$ is not seen. The evidence is derived from a study of data on pion- and photo-induced hyperon production, but other data are included as well. Most of the resonances reported here were found in the Karlsruhe-Helsinki (KH84) and the Carnegie-Mellon (CM) analyses but were challenged recently by the Data Analysis Center at GWU. Our analysis is constrained by the energy independent $\pi N$ scattering amplitudes from either KH84 or GWU. The two $\pi N$ amplitudes from KH84 or GWU, respectively, lead to slightly different $\pi N$ branching ratios of contributing resonances but the debated resonances are required in both series of fits.Comment: 22 pages, 28 figures. Some additional sets of data are adde

Similar TKA designs with differences in clinical outcome: A randomized, controlled trial of 77 knees with a mean follow-up of 6 years

Contains fulltext : 96347.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)Background and purpose To try to improve the outcome of our TKAs, we started to use the CKS prosthesis. However, in a retrospective analysis this design tended to give worse results. We therefore conducted a randomized, controlled trial comparing this CKS prosthesis and our standard PFC prosthesis. Because many randomized studies between different TKA concepts generally fail to show superiority of a particular design, we hypothesized that these seemingly similar designs would not lead to any difference in clinical outcome. Patients and methods 82 patients (90 knees) were randomly allocated to one or other prosthesis, and 39 CKS prostheses and 38 PFC prostheses could be followed for mean 5.6 years. No patients were lost to follow-up. At each follow-up, patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically, and the KSS, WOMAC, VAS patient satisfaction scores and VAS for pain were recorded. Results With total Knee Society score (KSS) as primary endpoint, there was a difference in favor of the PFC group at final follow-up (p = 0.04). Whereas there was one revision in the PFC group, there were 6 revisions in the CKS group (p = 0.1). The survival analysis with any reoperation as endpoint showed better survival in the PFC group (97% (95% CI: 92-100) for the PFC group vs. 79% (95% CI: 66-92) for the CKS group) (p = 0.02). Interpretation Our hypothesis that there would be no difference in clinical outcome was rejected in this study. The PFC system showed excellent results that were comparable to those in previous reports. The CKS design had differences that had considerable negative consequences clinically. The relatively poor results have discouraged us from using this design

The impact of viral mutations on recognition by SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells.

We identify amino acid variants within dominant SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes by interrogating global sequence data. Several variants within nucleocapsid and ORF3a epitopes have arisen independently in multiple lineages and result in loss of recognition by epitope-specific T cells assessed by IFN-γ and cytotoxic killing assays. Complete loss of T cell responsiveness was seen due to Q213K in the A∗01:01-restricted CD8+ ORF3a epitope FTSDYYQLY207-215; due to P13L, P13S, and P13T in the B∗27:05-restricted CD8+ nucleocapsid epitope QRNAPRITF9-17; and due to T362I and P365S in the A∗03:01/A∗11:01-restricted CD8+ nucleocapsid epitope KTFPPTEPK361-369. CD8+ T cell lines unable to recognize variant epitopes have diverse T cell receptor repertoires. These data demonstrate the potential for T cell evasion and highlight the need for ongoing surveillance for variants capable of escaping T cell as well as humoral immunity.This work is supported by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC); Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences(CAMS) Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (CIFMS), China; National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, and UK Researchand Innovation (UKRI)/NIHR through the UK Coro-navirus Immunology Consortium (UK-CIC). Sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 samples and collation of data wasundertaken by the COG-UK CONSORTIUM. COG-UK is supported by funding from the Medical ResearchCouncil (MRC) part of UK Research & Innovation (UKRI),the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR),and Genome Research Limited, operating as the Wellcome Sanger Institute. T.I.d.S. is supported by a Well-come Trust Intermediate Clinical Fellowship (110058/Z/15/Z). L.T. is supported by the Wellcome Trust(grant number 205228/Z/16/Z) and by theUniversity of Liverpool Centre for Excellence in Infectious DiseaseResearch (CEIDR). S.D. is funded by an NIHR GlobalResearch Professorship (NIHR300791). L.T. and S.C.M.are also supported by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Medical Countermeasures Initiative contract75F40120C00085 and the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) inEmerging and Zoonotic Infections (NIHR200907) at University of Liverpool inpartnership with Public HealthEngland (PHE), in collaboration with Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and the University of Oxford.L.T. is based at the University of Liverpool. M.D.P. is funded by the NIHR Sheffield Biomedical ResearchCentre (BRC – IS-BRC-1215-20017). ISARIC4C is supported by the MRC (grant no MC_PC_19059). J.C.K.is a Wellcome Investigator (WT204969/Z/16/Z) and supported by NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centreand CIFMS. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or MRC