Le diabète dans le canton de Vaud : évaluation de la pratique des professionnel(le)s de santé et de la collaboration interprofessionnelle

Contexte: Le Programme cantonal diabète se développe depuis 2010 dans le canton de Vaud. Il a pour objectif de limiter l'évolution de l'incidence du diabète et d'améliorer la prise en charge des patients diabétiques. - Méthodes: Cette étude vise à recueillir des données concernant : 1) la collaboration interprofessionnelle, 2) la pratique professionnelle au regard du « Chronic care model », ainsi que 3) la connaissance et la mise en pratique des recommandations pour la pratique clinique (RPC) auprès du patient diabétique. Les professionnels de santé (PdS) suivant ont été sollicités pour participer à cette étude : médecins et infirmier(ère)s spécialisé(e)s en diabétologie, médecins de premiers recours et infirmier(ère)s en soins généraux. Cette étude comporte un volet quantitatif où les PdS étaient invités à répondre à un questionnaire sur Internet, et un volet qualitatif où des PdS ont été réunis lors de trois focus groups pour recueillir leurs avis sur les trois thématiques de l'étude

Multi-center evaluation of the hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) assay and HbsAg confirmatory assay for the family of Access immunoassay systems

BACKGROUND: Accurate detection of Hepatitis B Surface Antigen (HBsAg) is an important aid in the diagnosis of patients infected with the hepatitis B virus (HBV). A multi-center study was conducted to characterize the performance of the HBsAg assay on the family of Access immunoassay systems from Beckman Coulter. METHODS: The Access HBsAg assay was characterized in a multi-center study and compared to the Abbott AxSYM* and PRISM* HBsAg assays. The bioMérieux VIDAS* assay was used to resolve discrepant results. Reproducibility studies (intra-assay, inter-assay and inter-lot) were performed with pooled serum samples (negative sample, close to cut off, low, medium and high positive samples). Analytical sensitivity, subtype and genotype detection were studied with various commercial panels (SFTS panel, WHO 80/549, WHO 00/588, Teragenix HBV Genotype panel). A panel of recombinant HBsAg mutant proteins was tested to investigate reactivity towards genetic mutations. Clinical sensitivity was verified with seroconversion panels and samples from subjects with known HBV infection. Analytical specificity was studied with samples from patients with potential cross-reactive infections. Clinical specificity was validated among blood donors and a hospitalized population. RESULTS: The imprecision was < 10%. Analytical sensitivity was < or = 0.1 ng/mL (SFTS panel), 0.020 PEI Units/mL (ad panel), 0.024 PEI Units/mL (ay panel), 0.092 IU/mL with WHO 80/549 and 0.056 IU/mL with WHO 00/588. All genotype samples and HBsAg mutants were reactive with the Access HBsAg assay. Seroconversion panels tested showed no significant difference with the reference method. Sensitivity for subjects with known HBV infection was 100%. No interference with potentially cross-reactive infections was observed after confirmatory testing. Specificity was 99.96% (100% after confirmatory testing) in a blood donor population and 99.5% (100% after confirmatory testing) in a hospitalized population. Excellent separation of positive and negative populations was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The Access HBsAg and HBsAg Confirmatory assays meet all clinical and analytical performance requirements of assays for the detection of HBsAg

Paths to Innovation in Supply Chains: The Landscape of Future Research

This chapter presents a Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda for supply chain and it is the result of an intensive work jointly performed involving a wide network of stakeholders from discrete manufacturing, process industry and logistics sector to put forward a vision to strengthen European Supply Chains for the next decade. The work is based on matching visions from literature and from experts with several iterations between desk research and workshops, focus groups and interviews. The result is a detailed analysis of the supply chain strategies identified as most relevant for the next years and definition of the related research and innovation topics as future developments and steps for the full implementation of the strategies, thus proposing innovative and cutting-edge actions to be implemented based on technological development and organisational change

The Bank of Standardized Stimuli (BOSS), a New Set of 480 Normative Photos of Objects to Be Used as Visual Stimuli in Cognitive Research

There are currently stimuli with published norms available to study several psychological aspects of language and visual cognitions. Norms represent valuable information that can be used as experimental variables or systematically controlled to limit their potential influence on another experimental manipulation. The present work proposes 480 photo stimuli that have been normalized for name, category, familiarity, visual complexity, object agreement, viewpoint agreement, and manipulability. Stimuli are also available in grayscale, blurred, scrambled, and line-drawn version. This set of objects, the Bank Of Standardized Stimuli (BOSS), was created specifically to meet the needs of scientists in cognition, vision and psycholinguistics who work with photo stimuli

Photography-based taxonomy is inadequate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful for biological sciences

The question whether taxonomic descriptions naming new animal species without type specimen(s) deposited in collections should be accepted for publication by scientific journals and allowed by the Code has already been discussed in Zootaxa (Dubois & Nemésio 2007; Donegan 2008, 2009; Nemésio 2009a–b; Dubois 2009; Gentile & Snell 2009; Minelli 2009; Cianferoni & Bartolozzi 2016; Amorim et al. 2016). This question was again raised in a letter supported by 35 signatories published in the journal Nature (Pape et al. 2016) on 15 September 2016. On 25 September 2016, the following rebuttal (strictly limited to 300 words as per the editorial rules of Nature) was submitted to Nature, which on 18 October 2016 refused to publish it. As we think this problem is a very important one for zoological taxonomy, this text is published here exactly as submitted to Nature, followed by the list of the 493 taxonomists and collection-based researchers who signed it in the short time span from 20 September to 6 October 2016