55 research outputs found
Evaluating museum exhibits: Quantifying visitor experience and museum impact with user experience methodologies
Underpinned by the Model for Museum Exhibit User Experience (MEUX; King et al., Visitor Studies, 2023, 26, 59), this paper develops and presents an evaluation methodology for museum exhibits that utilizes existing methodologies from the user experience sector adapted for the museum and cultural heritage sectors. Two studies are presented: an inâdepth evaluation of the Meat the Future exhibition at Oxford University Museum of Natural History and then a comparative study between this exhibition and two other permanent exhibits at the museum. Quantitative and qualitative data provide a nuanced picture of each exhibit from the visitor perspective and showcase the benefits of the MEUX methods of evaluation. Results show how three different exhibits are constructed in different ways, providing different visitor experiences and outcomes. They are directly compared with identify statistical differences, but do not impose a judgment as to whether any exhibit is better than another. With detailed, nuanced and rigorous data capturing visitor experiences of engaging with exhibits, the MEUX evaluation methodology allows for more sophisticated, standardized and efficient evaluation practices within the sector, with results that directly support further development of exhibits and exhibitions
UAS (Drone) Peer Exchange
NJDOT Contract ID Number: 17-60142The 2017 NJDOT Peer Exchange was held on October 3-5th in Trenton, New Jersey. The panelists included state DOT UAS leaders from Delaware, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, as well as UAS leaders from the FAA, New Jersey State Police, and the NJ State Forest Fire Service. The Peer Exchange was intended to share UAS experiences, research, and best practices among the panelists. Each state presented an overview of their UAS initiatives and explained the rationale and \u201clessons learned\u201d in developing their program
Lessons from working across fields to develop a framework for informed choices
In late 2018, Iain Chalmers, Andy Oxman and others from the Informed Health Choices team convened a cross-field forum to develop a generic framework of key concepts for thinking critically about claims, research and choices about interventions, with the aim of supporting âinformed choicesâ. We define an informed choice as one that is based on critical understanding of the relevant available evidence. This paper describes the process of that cross-field engagement, and reflects on how consensus was reached on the generic framework. Working in an alliance of 24 researchers from across fields to develop the Key Concepts for Informed Choices framework, we learned three lessons about cross-field working: (1) there was much agreement, despite diversity of views and experiences; (2) the applications of our work were broader than we could have imagined; and (3) we identified a wide range of problems that we have in common when making informed choices. Here we describe our experience of working together to develop the framework, and draw out lessons for others who may be involved in similar cross-field initiatives
Key Concepts for making informed Choices
Teach people to think critically about claims and comparisons â they will make better decisions
Ten-year mortality, disease progression, and treatment-related side effects in men with localised prostate cancer from the ProtecT randomised controlled trial according to treatment received
Background
The ProtecT trial reported intention-to-treat analysis of men with localised prostate cancer randomly allocated to active monitoring (AM), radical prostatectomy, and external beam radiotherapy.
Objective
To report outcomes according to treatment received in men in randomised and treatment choice cohorts.
Design, setting, and participants
This study focuses on secondary care. Men with clinically localised prostate cancer at one of nine UK centres were invited to participate in the treatment trial comparing AM, radical prostatectomy, and radiotherapy.
Intervention
Two cohorts included 1643 men who agreed to be randomised and 997 who declined randomisation and chose treatment.
Outcome measurements and statistical analysis
Analysis was carried out to assess mortality, metastasis and progression and health-related quality of life impacts on urinary, bowel, and sexual function using patient-reported outcome measures. Analysis was based on comparisons between groups defined by treatment received for both randomised and treatment choice cohorts in turn, with pooled estimates of intervention effect obtained using meta-analysis. Differences were estimated with adjustment for known prognostic factors using propensity scores.
Results and limitations
According to treatment received, more men receiving AM died of PCa (AM 1.85%, surgery 0.67%, radiotherapy 0.73%), whilst this difference remained consistent with chance in the randomised cohort (p = 0.08); stronger evidence was found in the exploratory analyses (randomised plus choice cohort) when AM was compared with the combined radical treatment group (p = 0.003). There was also strong evidence that metastasis (AM 5.6%, surgery 2.4%, radiotherapy 2.7%) and disease progression (AM 20.35%, surgery 5.87%, radiotherapy 6.62%) were more common in the AM group. Compared with AM, there were higher risks of sexual dysfunction (95% at 6 mo) and urinary incontinence (55% at 6 mo) after surgery, and of sexual dysfunction (88% at 6 mo) and bowel dysfunction (5% at 6 mo) after radiotherapy. The key limitations are the potential for bias when comparing groups defined by treatment received and changes in the protocol for AM during the lengthy follow-up required in trials of screen-detected PCa.
Conclusions
Analyses according to treatment received showed increased rates of disease-related events and lower rates of patient-reported harms in men managed by AM compared with men managed by radical treatment, and stronger evidence of greater PCa mortality in the AM group.
Patient summary
More than 95 out of every 100 men with low or intermediate risk localised prostate cancer do not die of prostate cancer within 10 yr, irrespective of whether treatment is by means of monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy. Side effects on sexual and bladder function are better after active monitoring, but the risks of spreading of prostate cancer are more common
Multiple novel prostate cancer susceptibility signals identified by fine-mapping of known risk loci among Europeans
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified numerous common prostate cancer (PrCa) susceptibility loci. We have
fine-mapped 64 GWAS regions known at the conclusion of the iCOGS study using large-scale genotyping and imputation in
25 723 PrCa cases and 26 274 controls of European ancestry. We detected evidence for multiple independent signals at 16
regions, 12 of which contained additional newly identified significant associations. A single signal comprising a spectrum of
correlated variation was observed at 39 regions; 35 of which are now described by a novel more significantly associated lead SNP,
while the originally reported variant remained as the lead SNP only in 4 regions. We also confirmed two association signals in
Europeans that had been previously reported only in East-Asian GWAS. Based on statistical evidence and linkage disequilibrium
(LD) structure, we have curated and narrowed down the list of the most likely candidate causal variants for each region.
Functional annotation using data from ENCODE filtered for PrCa cell lines and eQTL analysis demonstrated significant
enrichment for overlap with bio-features within this set. By incorporating the novel risk variants identified here alongside the
refined data for existing association signals, we estimate that these loci now explain âŒ38.9% of the familial relative risk of PrCa,
an 8.9% improvement over the previously reported GWAS tag SNPs. This suggests that a significant fraction of the heritability of
PrCa may have been hidden during the discovery phase of GWAS, in particular due to the presence of multiple independent
signals within the same regio
Strengthening conceptual foundations: Analysing frameworks for ecosystem services and poverty alleviation research
AbstractA research agenda is currently developing around the linkages between ecosystem services and poverty alleviation. It is therefore timely to consider which conceptual frameworks can best support research at this nexus. Our review of frameworks synthesises existing research on poverty/environment linkages that should not be overlooked with the adoption of the topical language of ecosystem services. A total of nine conceptual frameworks were selected on the basis of relevance. These were reviewed and compared to assess their ability to illuminate the provision of ecosystem services, the condition, determinants and dynamics of poverty, and political economy factors that mediate the relationship between poverty and ecosystem services. The paper synthesises the key contributions of each of these frameworks, and the gaps they expose in one another, drawing out lessons that can inform emerging research. Research on poverty alleviation must recognize social differentiation, and be able to distinguish between constraints of access and constraints of aggregate availability of ecosystem services. Different frameworks also highlight important differences between categories of services, their pathways of production, and their contribution to poverty alleviation. Furthermore, we highlight that it is important to acknowledge the limits of ecosystem services for poverty alleviation, given evidence that ecosystem services tend to be more associated with poverty prevention than reduction. We conclude by reflecting on the relative merits of dynamic SocialâEcological Systems frameworks versus more static checklists, and suggest that research on ecosystem services and poverty alleviation would be well served by a new framework distilling insights from the frameworks we review
Functional and quality of life outcomes of localised prostate cancer treatments (prostate testing for cancer and treatment [ProtecT] study)
Objective
To investigate the functional and quality of life (QoL) outcomes of treatments for localised prostate cancer and inform treatment decision-making.
Patients and Methods
Men aged 50â69âyears diagnosed with localised prostate cancer by prostate-specific antigen testing and biopsies at nine UK centres in the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial were randomised to, or chose one of, three treatments. Of 2565 participants, 1135 men received active monitoring (AM), 750 a radical prostatectomy (RP), 603 external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with concurrent androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and 77 low-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT, not a randomised treatment). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) completed annually for 6âyears were analysed by initial treatment and censored for subsequent treatments. Mixed effects models were adjusted for baseline characteristics using propensity scores.
Results
Treatment-received analyses revealed different impacts of treatments over 6âyears. Men remaining on AM experienced gradual declines in sexual and urinary function with age (e.g., increases in erectile dysfunction from 35% of men at baseline to 53% at 6âyears and nocturia similarly from 20% to 38%). Radical treatment impacts were immediate and continued over 6âyears. After RP, 95% of men reported erectile dysfunction persisting for 85% at 6âyears, and after EBRT this was reported by 69% and 74%, respectively (Pâ<â0.001 compared with AM). After RP, 36% of men reported urinary leakage requiring at least 1âpad/day, persisting for 20% at 6âyears, compared with no change in men receiving EBRT or AM (Pâ<â0.001). Worse bowel function and bother (e.g., bloody stools 6% at 6âyears and faecal incontinence 10%) was experienced by men after EBRT than after RP or AM (Pâ<â0.001) with lesser effects after BT. No treatment affected mental or physical QoL.
Conclusion
Treatment decision-making for localised prostate cancer can be informed by these 6-year functional and QoL outcomes
Defining the causes of sporadic Parkinson's disease in the global Parkinson's genetics program (GP2)
The Global Parkinsonâs Genetics Program (GP2) will genotype over 150,000 participants from around the world, and integrate genetic and clinical data for use in large-scale analyses to dramatically expand our understanding of the genetic architecture of PD. This report details the workflow for cohort integration into the complex arm of GP2, and together with our outline of the monogenic hub in a companion paper, provides a generalizable blueprint for establishing large scale collaborative research consortia
- âŠ