The Pioneer Anomaly

Radio-metric Doppler tracking data received from the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft from heliocentric distances of 20-70 AU has consistently indicated the presence of a small, anomalous, blue-shifted frequency drift uniformly changing with a rate of ~6 x 10^{-9} Hz/s. Ultimately, the drift was interpreted as a constant sunward deceleration of each particular spacecraft at the level of a_P = (8.74 +/- 1.33) x 10^{-10} m/s^2. This apparent violation of the Newton's gravitational inverse-square law has become known as the Pioneer anomaly; the nature of this anomaly remains unexplained. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge of the physical properties of the anomaly and the conditions that led to its detection and characterization. We review various mechanisms proposed to explain the anomaly and discuss the current state of efforts to determine its nature. A comprehensive new investigation of the anomalous behavior of the two Pioneers has begun recently. The new efforts rely on the much-extended set of radio-metric Doppler data for both spacecraft in conjunction with the newly available complete record of their telemetry files and a large archive of original project documentation. As the new study is yet to report its findings, this review provides the necessary background for the new results to appear in the near future. In particular, we provide a significant amount of information on the design, operations and behavior of the two Pioneers during their entire missions, including descriptions of various data formats and techniques used for their navigation and radio-science data analysis. As most of this information was recovered relatively recently, it was not used in the previous studies of the Pioneer anomaly, but it is critical for the new investigation.Comment: 165 pages, 40 figures, 16 tables; accepted for publication in Living Reviews in Relativit

Comprehensive or Comprehensible Experience? A Case Study of Religion and Traumatic Bereavement

The first half of this article provides a brief overview of two respective projects concerning traumatic bereavement, in which religious faith appeared to feature amid a constellation of significant coping and sense-making mechanisms for survivors. After presenting some illustrative examples of the kind of data produced in the course of our research, the second half of the article develops a retrospectively critical appraisal of our data collection and corresponding analysis practices. In questioning the extent to which our accounts of our participants’ accounts can be considered adequate representations of social order, we critically explore the relative potential of ‘reflexivity’ for bridging the experiential gap between researchers and participants. Taken together, these reflections prompt a return to the salutary question: what counts as sociologically ‘see-able’

Empirical studies on informal patient payments for health care services: a systematic and critical review of research methods and instruments

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Empirical evidence demonstrates that informal patient payments are an important feature of many health care systems. However, the study of these payments is a challenging task because of their potentially illegal and sensitive nature. The aim of this paper is to provide a systematic review and analysis of key methodological difficulties in measuring informal patient payments.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The systematic review was based on the following eligibility criteria: English language publications that reported on empirical studies measuring informal patient payments. There were no limitations with regard to the year of publication. The content of the publications was analysed qualitatively and the results were organised in the form of tables. Data sources were Econlit, Econpapers, Medline, PubMed, ScienceDirect, SocINDEX.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Informal payments for health care services are most often investigated in studies involving patients or the general public, but providers and officials are also sample units in some studies. The majority of the studies apply a single mode of data collection that involves either face-to-face interviews or group discussions.</p> <p>One of the main methodological difficulties reported in the publication concerns the inability of some respondents to distinguish between official and unofficial payments. Another complication is associated with the refusal of some respondents to answer questions on informal patient payments.</p> <p>We do not exclude the possibility that we have missed studies that reported in non-English language journals as well as very recent studies that are not yet published.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Given the recent evidence from research on survey methods, a self-administrated questionnaire during a face-to-face interview could be a suitable mode of collecting sensitive data, such as data on informal patient payments.</p

Hospice Patients' Views on Research in Palliative Care

Background: This project was conducted to investigate whether the concerns that researchers have about including terminally ill patients in research were shared by a sample of terminally ill patients.----- Methods: Twenty-two patients admitted to a hospice participated in semistructured interviews; 18 patients had advanced malignant disease and 13 were women; their ages ranged from 28 to 93 years. The interview transcripts were analysed for common themes and particular attention was paid to the reasons patients gave for their views.----- Results: All the patients wanted to participate in research. Patients advanced one or more of several reasons for participation, the commonest being altruism, enhancement of a sense of personal value, the assertion of persisting autonomy and the value they placed on a commitment by doctors to optimising care by research. They rejected the view that their consent might be non-autonomous and put forward consistent views about what they considered relevant to consent.----- Conclusions: Our patients did not share the concerns of ethicists about the difficulties and hazards of research with the terminally ill. These patients’ views are not reflected in the professional consensus