Mhealth: The Medicalization of Consumer Devices

Web-based applications (email, websites, portals) have long been the favoured digital modality for interacting with the public in health care, in part because they enable institutional control of the flow of health data. But today, smartphones are becoming the default portal in many people’s daily lives. Their presence is increasingly felt in health care, whether as a means of connecting patients with practitioners or satisfying a desire for instant access to health information

Interaktionsprozesse unter Erwachsenen: zur Mikroethnographie pädagogischen Handelns

Eine Vielzahl an Studien widmet sich heute der Untersuchung von Kompetenzen professioneller Erwachsenenbildner. Demgegenüber wird die Frage, was das situative Handeln von Lehrpersonen ausmacht, empirisch unterbelichtet. Der vorliegende Beitrag zeigt, inwiefern mikroethnographische, videobasierte Analysen des Interaktionsgeschehens in Kursen Einblicke in Handlungsanforderungen gestatten, mit denen Lehrpersonen (und Lernende) alltäglich konfrontiert sind. Am Beispiel einer Untersuchung zum Kursanfang werden verschiedene Varianten illustriert, in denen mit Problemen umgegangen wird, die im Zuge der Herstellung und Verstetigung von Zusammenhängen lehr-/lernbezogenen Kooperierens entstehen. Auf diese Weise wird ein Beitrag zur Aufklärung über das Methoden-Repertoire geleistet, dessen selektiver Vollzug die performative Seite pädagogischer Professionalität kennzeichnet

The Flag with the Single Star.

Photo of man on horse; Illustration of flag of Texashttps://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/cht-sheet-music/4071/thumbnail.jp

Urbanisierung

Unter Urbanisierung werden komplexe und irreversible Prozesse des gesellschaftlichen Wandels verstanden, die im Wachstum städtischer Siedlungs- und Wirtschaftsformen und in großen Agglomerationen ihren Ausdruck finden. Urbanisierung gilt als Motor der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, gleichzeitig wird sie oft von einer Polarisierung der Einkommensverhältnisse begleitet

Probing Spin-Polarized Currents in the Quantum Hall Regime

An experiment to probe spin-polarized currents in the quantum Hall regime is suggested that takes advantage of the large Zeeman-splitting in the paramagnetic diluted magnetic semiconductor zinc manganese selenide (Zn$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$Se). In the proposed experiment spin-polarized electrons are injected by ZnMnSe-contacts into a gallium arsenide (GaAs) two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) arranged in a Hall bar geometry. We calculated the resulting Hall resistance for this experimental setup within the framework of the Landauer-B\"uttiker formalism. These calculations predict for 100% spininjection through the ZnMnSe-contacts a Hall resistance twice as high as in the case of no spin-polarized injection of charge carriers into a 2DEG for filling factor $\nu=2$. We also investigated the influence of the equilibration of the spin-polarized electrons within the 2DEG on the Hall resistance. In addition, in our model we expect no coupling between the contact and the 2DEG for odd filling factors of the 2DEG for 100% spininjection, because of the opposite sign of the g-factors of ZnMnSe and GaAs.Comment: 7 pages, 5 figure

Scientific value of systematic reviews: survey of editors of core clinical journals.

BACKGROUND: Synthesizing research evidence using systematic and rigorous methods has become a key feature of evidence-based medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic reviews (SRs) may or may not include a meta-analysis depending on the suitability of available data. They are often being criticised as 'secondary research' and denied the status of original research. Scientific journals play an important role in the publication process. How they appraise a given type of research influences the status of that research in the scientific community. We investigated the attitudes of editors of core clinical journals towards SRs and their value for publication.¦METHODS: We identified the 118 journals labelled as "core clinical journals" by the National Library of Medicine, USA in April 2009. The journals' editors were surveyed by email in 2009 and asked whether they considered SRs as original research projects; whether they published SRs; and for which section of the journal they would consider a SR manuscript.¦RESULTS: The editors of 65 journals (55%) responded. Most respondents considered SRs to be original research (71%) and almost all journals (93%) published SRs. Several editors regarded the use of Cochrane methodology or a meta-analysis as quality criteria; for some respondents these criteria were premises for the consideration of SRs as original research. Journals placed SRs in various sections such as "Review" or "Feature article". Characterization of non-responding journals showed that about two thirds do publish systematic reviews.¦DISCUSSION: Currently, the editors of most core clinical journals consider SRs original research. Our findings are limited by a non-responder rate of 45%. Individual comments suggest that this is a grey area and attitudes differ widely. A debate about the definition of 'original research' in the context of SRs is warranted

Auf dem Weg zum Urban Knowledge Hub: Einblicke in das Raumentwicklungsprojekt Wissen Bauen 2025 der Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg

Im Auftrag der Behörde für Wissenschaft, Forschung, Gleichstellung und Bezirke (BWFGB) startete der Landesbetrieb Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg Carl von Ossietzky (SUB) im August 2020 das Raumentwicklungsprojekt „Wissen Bauen 2025“. Ausgehend von der Frage, wie große wissenschaftliche Bibliotheken mit der Bedeutung der SUB räumlich aufgestellt sein müssen, um ihre Aufgaben unter den Vorzeichen der digitalen Transformation zukünftig erfüllen zu können, wurde die SUB als Wissensraum und Lernwelt neu betrachtet. Das Projekt war als Prozess Offener Gesellschaftlicher Innovation organisiert. In einem breiten Dialog mit Nutzer*innen, Stakeholdern, Mitarbeiter*innen und Expert*innen aus Wissenschaft, Kultur, Bildung, Stadtgesellschaft und Bibliotheken wurden über drei Stufen hinweg Bedürfnisse und Erwartungen aufgenommen, weiterentwickelt und daraus ein fachlich unterlegtes Raumkonzept inklusive Raumprogramm und Funktionsschema erarbeitet. Dabei wurden die Grenzen zwischen den einzelnen Gruppen bewusst offen gehalten, um Perspektivwechsel und kreativen Austausch zu ermöglichen

Attitudes of editors of core clinical journals about whether systematic reviews are original research: a mixed-methods study.

In 2009, not all journal editors considered systematic reviews (SRs) to be original research studies, and not all PubMed Core Clinical Journals published SRs. The aim of this study was to conduct a new analysis about editors' opinion regarding SRs as original research. We conducted a survey and qualitative interview study of journal editors. All editors listed as editor-in chief of 118 PubMed Core Clinical Journals. We contacted editors via email and asked them whether they considered SRs original research, whether they published SRs in the journal and, if yes, in which section. We searched PubMed for any SRs (or meta-analyses) published in the included journals in 2017; if we did not find any, we hand-searched these journals. Editors were invited to participate in a follow-up qualitative interview study. We received responses from 73 editors representing 72 (62%) journals. Fifty-two (80%) editors considered SRs original research, either for any type of SR (65%) or only for SRs with a meta-analysis (15%) and almost all (91%) of editors published SRs. Compared with the results of the 2009 study of Core Clinical Journals, a similar proportion of editors considered SRs to be original studies (71%), accepted SRs as original on certain condition such as presence of meta-analysis (14%) or published SRs (94%). Interviews with editors showed that they used various criteria to decide whether a SR is original research, including methodology, reproducibility, originality of idea and level of novelty. The majority of editors of core clinical journals consider that SRs are original research. Among editors, there was no uniform approach to defining what makes a SR, or any study, original. This indicates that the concepts of originality of SRs and research are evolving and that this would be a relevant topic for further discussion