Changing situational contexts present a constant challenge to software developers.

A software process can take many forms and its optimality demands that it should be harmonised with the needs of the given software development situational context. This theoretical proposition is reasonably clear. However, the finer details of the interaction between the software process and the factors of the situational context are much less obvious. In previously published research, the authors have elaborated a reference framework that identifies the factors of a situational context that affect the software process [1]. In this paper, we report on the application of our reference framework in an examination of the changing nature of software development situational contexts. Our corresponding study of fifteen software development companies indicates that certain factors appear more subject to change than others. This finding is a potentially important insight that can help us with the recurring challenge of adapting the software process to changing circumstances

Palaeoecological assessment of freshwaters in SACs and ASSIs in Northern Ireland

This is the final report to the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) in Northern Ireland on the ‘Palaeoecological investigation of the past biological structure and function in Freshwaters in SACs and ASSIs

Estrogen receptor-α and progesterone receptor are expressed in label-retaining mammary epithelial cells that divide asymmetrically and retain their template DNA strands

INTRODUCTION: Stem cells of somatic tissues are hypothesized to protect themselves from mutation and cancer risk through a process of selective segregation of their template DNA strands during asymmetric division. Mouse mammary epithelium contains label-retaining epithelial cells that divide asymmetrically and retain their template DNA. METHOD: Immunohistochemistry was used in murine mammary glands that had been labeled with [(3)H]thymidine during allometric growth to investigate the co-expression of DNA label retention and estrogen receptor (ER)-α or progesterone receptor (PR). Using the same methods, we investigated the co-localization of [(3)H]thymidine and ER-α or PR in mammary tissue from mice that had received treatment with estrogen, progesterone, and prolactin subsequent to a long chase period to identify label-retaining cells. RESULTS: Label-retaining epithelial cells (LRECs) comprised approximately 2.0% of the entire mammary epithelium. ER-α-positive and PR-positive cells represented about 30–40% of the LREC subpopulation. Administration of estrogen, progesterone, and prolactin altered the percentage of LRECs expressing ER-α. CONCLUSION: The results presented here support the premise that there is a subpopulation of LRECs in the murine mammary gland that is positive for ER-α and/or PR. This suggests that certain mammary LRECs (potentially stem cells) remain stably positive for these receptors, raising the possibility that LRECs comprise a hierarchy of asymmetrically cycling mammary stem/progenitor cells that are distinguished by the presence or absence of nuclear steroid receptor expression

Safety Climate in Organizations

Safety climate is a collective construct derived from individuals' shared perceptions of the various ways that safety is valued in the workplace. Research over the past 35 years shows that safety climate is an important predictor of safety behavior and safety outcomes such as accidents and injury. We first review the conceptual foundations of safety climate and explore how the construct can be applied to different levels of analysis. We then review ways that safety climate influences individual processes of sense making, motivation, and work behavior. Next, we explore the impact of safety climate on organization-level outcomes related to both safety and productivity. We conclude with suggestions for future research and practice to support the overall safety of people and organizations

Can we rely on the best trial? A comparison of individual trials and systematic reviews

BACKGROUND: The ideal evidence to answer a question about the effectiveness of treatment is a systematic review. However, for many clinical questions a systematic review will not be available, or may not be up to date. One option could be to use the evidence from an individual trial to answer the question? METHODS: We assessed how often (a) the estimated effect and (b) the p-value in the most precise single trial in a meta-analysis agreed with the whole meta-analysis. For a random sample of 200 completed Cochrane Reviews (January, 2005) we identified a primary outcome and extracted: the number of trials, the statistical weight of the most precise trial, the estimate and confidence interval for both the highest weighted trial and the meta-analysis overall. We calculated the p-value for the most precise trial and meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of 200 reviews, only 132 provided a meta-analysis of 2 or more trials, with a further 35 effect estimates based on single trials. The average number of trials was 7.3, with the most precise trial contributing, on average, 51% of the statistical weight to the summary estimate from the whole meta-analysis. The estimates of effect from the most precise trial and the overall meta-analyses were highly correlated (rank correlation of 0.90).There was an 81% agreement in statistical conclusions. Results from the most precise trial were statistically significant in 60 of the 167 evaluable reviews, with 55 of the corresponding systematic reviews also being statistically significant. The five discrepant results were not strikingly different with respect to their estimates of effect, but showed considerable statistical heterogeneity between trials in these meta-analyses. However, among the 101 cases in which the most precise trial was not statistically significant, the corresponding meta-analyses yielded 31 statistically significant results. CONCLUSIONS: Single most precise trials provided similar estimates of effects to those of the meta-analyses to which they contributed, and statistically significant results are generally in agreement. However, "negative" results were less reliable, as may be expected from single underpowered trials. For systematic reviewers we suggest that: (1) key trial(s) in a review deserve greater attention (2) systematic reviewers should check agreement of the most precise trial and the meta analysis. For clinicians using trials we suggest that when a meta-analysis is not available, a focus on the most precise trial is reasonable provided it is adequately powered

Epidemiology of Subpatent Plasmodium Falciparum Infection: Implications for Detection of Hotspots with Imperfect Diagnostics.

At the local level, malaria transmission clusters in hotspots, which may be a group of households that experience higher than average exposure to infectious mosquitoes. Active case detection often relying on rapid diagnostic tests for mass screen and treat campaigns has been proposed as a method to detect and treat individuals in hotspots. Data from a cross-sectional survey conducted in north-western Tanzania were used to examine the spatial distribution of Plasmodium falciparum and the relationship between household exposure and parasite density. Dried blood spots were collected from consenting individuals from four villages during a survey conducted in 2010. These were analysed by PCR for the presence of P. falciparum, with the parasite density of positive samples being estimated by quantitative PCR. Household exposure was estimated using the distance-weighted PCR prevalence of infection. Parasite density simulations were used to estimate the proportion of infections that would be treated using a screen and treat approach with rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) compared to targeted mass drug administration (tMDA) and Mass Drug Administration (MDA). Polymerase chain reaction PCR analysis revealed that of the 3,057 blood samples analysed, 1,078 were positive. Mean distance-weighted PCR prevalence per household was 34.5%. Parasite density was negatively associated with transmission intensity with the odds of an infection being subpatent increasing with household exposure (OR 1.09 per 1% increase in exposure). Parasite density was also related to age, being highest in children five to ten years old and lowest in those > 40 years. Simulations of different tMDA strategies showed that treating all individuals in households where RDT prevalence was above 20% increased the number of infections that would have been treated from 43 to 55%. However, even with this strategy, 45% of infections remained untreated. The negative relationship between household exposure and parasite density suggests that DNA-based detection of parasites is needed to provide adequate sensitivity in hotspots. Targeting MDA only to households with RDT-positive individuals may allow a larger fraction of infections to be treated. These results suggest that community-wide MDA, instead of screen and treat strategies, may be needed to successfully treat the asymptomatic, subpatent parasite reservoir and reduce transmission in similar settings

Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews summarize all pertinent evidence on a defined health question. They help clinical scientists to direct their research and clinicians to keep updated. Our objective was to determine the extent to which systematic reviews are clustered in a large collection of clinical journals and whether review type (narrative or systematic) affects citation counts. METHODS: We used hand searches of 170 clinical journals in the fields of general internal medicine, primary medical care, nursing, and mental health to identify review articles (year 2000). We defined 'review' as any full text article that was bannered as a review, overview, or meta-analysis in the title or in a section heading, or that indicated in the text that the intention of the authors was to review or summarize the literature on a particular topic. We obtained citation counts for review articles in the five journals that published the most systematic reviews. RESULTS: 11% of the journals concentrated 80% of all systematic reviews. Impact factors were weakly correlated with the publication of systematic reviews (R(2 )= 0.075, P = 0.0035). There were more citations for systematic reviews (median 26.5, IQR 12 – 56.5) than for narrative reviews (8, 20, P <.0001 for the difference). Systematic reviews had twice as many citations as narrative reviews published in the same journal (95% confidence interval 1.5 – 2.7). CONCLUSIONS: A few clinical journals published most systematic reviews. Authors cited systematic reviews more often than narrative reviews, an indirect endorsement of the 'hierarchy of evidence'