Light4Health eLearning Course: health research for interior lighting design. Re-thinking design approaches based on science

This paper presents the results of \u27Light4Health\u27 (L4H), a three-year EU Erasmus+ Strategic Partnership grant project (2019-2021), which investigated, systematized and taught health-related research on the impact of natural and artificial light on human health and well-being relevant to indoor lighting design. The objective was to re-think evidence-based lighting design approaches for residential, working/educational, and healthcare spaces, in order to develop a novel cross-disciplinary eLearning platform, that intersects lighting design and current peer-reviewed health research through a select combination of the most relevant research, methods, and tools. The content was developed through teaching workshops with international researchers, teachers, and students. Participating students were introduced to the application of relevant research and new metrics, in order to produce creative lighting design proposals. Students were able to inform lighting design approaches that support health and well-being without compromising creativity via the tools and methods developed through the health sciences. With this project, participants and consortium members have narrowed the gap that exists between research and the practice/application of lighting, by translating research from complex scientific jargon into various tools for designers to use. The knowledge gained, was consolidated into an open-access online curriculum for international lighting design students, educators and professionals via the free eLearning Moodle platform (https://course.light4health.net/)

How do MNC R&D laboratory roles affect employee international assignments?

Research and development (R&D) employees are important human resources for multinational corporations (MNCs) as they are the driving force behind the advancement of innovative ideas and products. International assignments of these employees can be a unique way to upgrade their expertise; allowing them to effectively recombine their unique human resources to progress existing knowledge and advance new ones. This study aims to investigate the effect of the roles of R&D laboratories in which these employees work on the international assignments they undertake. We categorise R&D laboratory roles into those of the support laboratory, the locally integrated laboratory and the internationally interdependent laboratory. Based on the theory of resource recombinations, we hypothesise that R&D employees in support laboratories are not likely to assume international assignments, whereas those in locally integrated and internationally interdependent laboratories are likely to assume international assignments. The empirical evidence, which draws from research conducted on 559 professionals in 66 MNC subsidiaries based in Greece, provides support to our hypotheses. The resource recombinations theory that extends the resource based view can effectively illuminate the international assignment field. Also, research may provide more emphasis on the close work context of R&D scientists rather than analyse their demographic characteristics, the latter being the focus of scholarly practice hitherto

Safety and Efficacy of the NVX-CoV2373 COVID-19 Vaccine at Completion of the Placebo-Controlled Phase of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The recombinant protein-based vaccine, NVX-CoV2373, demonstrated 89.7% efficacy against COVID-19 in a phase 3, randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial in the United Kingdom. The protocol was amended to include a blinded crossover; data to the end of the placebo-controlled phase are reported. METHODS: Adults aged 18-84 years received two doses of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo (1:1) and were monitored for virologically confirmed mild, moderate, or severe COVID-19 (onset from 7 days after second vaccination). Participants who seroconverted to immunoglobulin G (IgG) against the nucleocapsid protein and did not meet criteria for symptomatic COVID-19 were classified as having asymptomatic disease. Secondary outcomes included anti-spike (S) IgG responses, wild-type virus neutralization, and T-cell responses. RESULTS: Of 15185 participants, 13989 remained in the per-protocol efficacy population (6989 NVX-CoV2373, 7000 placebo). At a maximum of 7.5 months (median, 4.5 months) postvaccination, there were 24 cases of COVID-19 among NVX-CoV2373 recipients and 134 cases among placebo recipients, a vaccine efficacy of 82.7% (95% CI: 73.3-88.8). Vaccine efficacy was 100% (17.9-100.0) against severe disease and 76.3% (57.4-86.8) against asymptomatic disease. High anti-S and neutralization responses to vaccination were evident, together with S-protein-specific induction of interferon-γ secretion in peripheral blood T cells. Incidence of serious adverse events and adverse events of special interest were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: A two-dose regimen of NVX-CoV2373 conferred a high level of ongoing protection against asymptomatic, symptomatic, and severe COVID-19 through >6 months postvaccination. A gradual decrease of protection suggests that a booster dose may be indicated

Design and baseline characteristics of the finerenone in reducing cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in diabetic kidney disease trial

Background: Among people with diabetes, those with kidney disease have exceptionally high rates of cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality and progression of their underlying kidney disease. Finerenone is a novel, nonsteroidal, selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist that has shown to reduce albuminuria in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) while revealing only a low risk of hyperkalemia. However, the effect of finerenone on CV and renal outcomes has not yet been investigated in long-term trials. Patients and Methods: The Finerenone in Reducing CV Mortality and Morbidity in Diabetic Kidney Disease (FIGARO-DKD) trial aims to assess the efficacy and safety of finerenone compared to placebo at reducing clinically important CV and renal outcomes in T2D patients with CKD. FIGARO-DKD is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, event-driven trial running in 47 countries with an expected duration of approximately 6 years. FIGARO-DKD randomized 7,437 patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate >= 25 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and albuminuria (urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio >= 30 to <= 5,000 mg/g). The study has at least 90% power to detect a 20% reduction in the risk of the primary outcome (overall two-sided significance level alpha = 0.05), the composite of time to first occurrence of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure. Conclusions: FIGARO-DKD will determine whether an optimally treated cohort of T2D patients with CKD at high risk of CV and renal events will experience cardiorenal benefits with the addition of finerenone to their treatment regimen. Trial Registration: EudraCT number: 2015-000950-39; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02545049

Diffusion of Innovations in Health Service Organisations: A Systematic Literature Review

This is a systematic review on how innovations in health service practice and organisation can be disseminated and implemented. This is an academic text, originally commissioned by the Department of Health from University College London and University of Surrey, using a variety of research methods. The results of the review are discussed in detail in separate chapters covering particular innovations and the relevant contexts. The book is intended as a resource for health care researchers and academics. © 2005 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review

Producing literature reviews of complex evidence for policymaking questions is a challenging methodological area. There are several established and emerging approaches to such reviews, but unanswered questions remain, especially around how to begin to make sense of large data sets drawn from heterogeneous sources. Drawing on Kuhn's notion of scientific paradigms, we developed a new method—meta-narrative review—for sorting and interpreting the 1024 sources identified in our exploratory searches. We took as our initial unit of analysis the unfolding ‘storyline’ of a research tradition over time. We mapped these storylines by using both electronic and manual tracking to trace the influence of seminal theoretical and empirical work on subsequent research within a tradition. We then drew variously on the different storylines to build up a rich picture of our field of study. We identified 13 key meta-narratives from literatures as disparate as rural sociology, clinical epidemiology, marketing and organisational studies. Researchers in different traditions had conceptualised, explained and investigated diffusion of innovations differently and had used different criteria for judging the quality of empirical work. Moreover, they told very different over-arching stories of the progress of their research. Within each tradition, accounts of research depicted human characters emplotted in a story of (in the early stages) pioneering endeavour and (later) systematic puzzle-solving, variously embellished with scientific dramas, surprises and ‘twists in the plot’. By first separating out, and then drawing together, these different meta-narratives, we produced a synthesis that embraced the many complexities and ambiguities of ‘diffusion of innovations’ in an organisational setting. We were able to make sense of seemingly contradictory data by systematically exposing and exploring tensions between research paradigms as set out in their over-arching storylines. In some traditions, scientific revolutions were identifiable in which breakaway researchers had abandoned the prevailing paradigm and introduced a new set of concepts, theories and empirical methods. We concluded that meta-narrative review adds value to the synthesis of heterogeneous bodies of literature, in which different groups of scientists have conceptualised and investigated the ‘same’ problem in different ways and produced seemingly contradictory findings. Its contribution to the mixed economy of methods for the systematic review of complex evidence should be explored further