Distributive Laws for Monotone Specifications

Turi and Plotkin introduced an elegant approach to structural operational semantics based on universal coalgebra, parametric in the type of syntax and the type of behaviour. Their framework includes abstract GSOS, a categorical generalisation of the classical GSOS rule format, as well as its categorical dual, coGSOS. Both formats are well behaved, in the sense that each specification has a unique model on which behavioural equivalence is a congruence. Unfortunately, the combination of the two formats does not feature these desirable properties. We show that monotone specifications - that disallow negative premises - do induce a canonical distributive law of a monad over a comonad, and therefore a unique, compositional interpretation.Comment: In Proceedings EXPRESS/SOS 2017, arXiv:1709.0004

Additional file 2: of Government policy interventions to reduce human antimicrobial use: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Medline search strategy. (DOCX 161 kb

Additional file 1: of Government policy interventions to reduce human antimicrobial use: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) checklist: recommended items to address in a systematic review protocol*. (DOCX 31 kb

E-Delphi content validity process for design of provisional instrument.

<p>* Items included after international expert group agreed on their reformulation.</p

Profile of international experts who participated in E-Delphi study (n = 70 registered participants).

<p>Profile of international experts who participated in E-Delphi study (n = 70 registered participants).</p

Test-retest reliability for the items in the final CPD assessment tool (n = 138 for test and n = 121 for retest).

<p>Test-retest reliability for the items in the final CPD assessment tool (n = 138 for test and n = 121 for retest).</p

Exploratory factorial analysis (12-item final instrument).

<p>Exploratory factorial analysis (12-item final instrument).</p

Characteristics of participants in the test-retest of the CPD assessment tool (n = 138).

<p>Characteristics of participants in the test-retest of the CPD assessment tool (n = 138).</p

Item inventory and development of a preliminary set of items.

<p>Item inventory and development of a preliminary set of items.</p

A Systematic Review of Instruments to Assess Organizational Readiness for Knowledge Translation in Health Care

<div><p>Background</p><p>The translation of research into practices has been incomplete. Organizational readiness for change (ORC) is a potential facilitator of effective knowledge translation (KT). However we know little about the best way to assess ORC. Therefore, we sought to systematically review ORC measurement instruments.</p><p>Methods</p><p>We searched for published studies in bibliographic databases (Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Science, etc.) up to November 1^st, 2012. We included publications that developed ORC measures and/or empirically assessed ORC using an instrument at the organizational level in the health care context. We excluded articles if they did not refer specifically to ORC, did not concern the health care domain or were limited to individual-level change readiness. We focused on identifying the psychometric properties of instruments that were developed to assess readiness in an organization prior to implementing KT interventions in health care. We used the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing to assess the psychometric properties of identified ORC measurement instruments.</p><p>Findings</p><p>We found 26 eligible instruments described in 39 publications. According to the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, 18 (69%) of a total of 26 measurement instruments presented both validity and reliability criteria. The <i>Texas Christian University –ORC (TCU-ORC) scale</i> reported the highest instrument validity with a score of 4 out of 4. Only one instrument, namely the <i>Modified Texas Christian University – Director version (TCU-ORC-D)</i>, reported a reliability score of 2 out of 3. No information was provided regarding the reliability and validity of five (19%) instruments.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>Our findings indicate that there are few valid and reliable ORC measurement instruments that could be applied to KT in the health care sector. The TCU-ORC instrument presents the best evidence in terms of validity testing. Future studies using this instrument could provide more knowledge on its relevance to diverse clinical contexts.</p></div