Managing User Acceptance Testing of Business Applications

User acceptance testing (UAT) events gather input from actual system users to determine where potential problems may exist in a new software system or major upgrade. Modern business systems are more complex and decentralized than ever before making UAT more complicated to perform. The collaborative nature of facilitated UAT events requires close interaction between the testers and the facilitation team, even when located in various locations worldwide. This study explores the best approaches for facilitating UAT remotely and globally in order to effectively facilitate geographically-dispersed actual system users in performing UAT exercises. While research suggests user involvement is important, there is a lack of understanding about the specifics of how to best engage users for maximizing the results, and our study addresses this gap. This study examines the following research questions: How should UAT facilitators (1) schedule user participation with a minimum impact to their regular work duties and maximum ability to be present when testing and not be distracted; (2) enable direct interactions with users including face-to-face conversations during the UAT event and access to user computer screens for configuration and validation; and (3) utilize quality management software that can be used seamlessly by all involved in UAT. To examine these questions, we utilize Social Presence Theory (SPT) to establish a conceptual lens for addressing these research questions. SPT supports that the communication environment must enable people to adopt the appropriate level of social presence required for that task. This study proposes a theoretically-derived examination based on SPT of facilitated UAT delineating when and how facilitators should involve actual system users in the UAT activities either through local facilitation or remote hosting of UAT exercises, among other options. © 2014 Springer International Publishing

The future of zoonotic risk prediction

In the light of the urgency raised by the COVID-19 pandemic, global investment in wildlife virology is likely to increase, and new surveillance programmes will identify hundreds of novel viruses that might someday pose a threat to humans. To support the extensive task of laboratory characterization, scientists may increasingly rely on data-driven rubrics or machine learning models that learn from known zoonoses to identify which animal pathogens could someday pose a threat to global health. We synthesize the findings of an interdisciplinary workshop on zoonotic risk technologies to answer the following questions. What are the prerequisites, in terms of open data, equity and interdisciplinary collaboration, to the development and application of those tools? What effect could the technology have on global health? Who would control that technology, who would have access to it and who would benefit from it? Would it improve pandemic prevention? Could it create new challenges? This article is part of the theme issue ‘Infectious disease macroecology: parasite diversity and dynamics across the globe’

Vorapaxar in the secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: Thrombin potently activates platelets through the protease-activated receptor PAR-1. Vorapaxar is a novel antiplatelet agent that selectively inhibits the cellular actions of thrombin through antagonism of PAR-1. METHODS: We randomly assigned 26,449 patients who had a history of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or peripheral arterial disease to receive vorapaxar (2.5 mg daily) or matching placebo and followed them for a median of 30 months. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke. After 2 years, the data and safety monitoring board recommended discontinuation of the study treatment in patients with a history of stroke owing to the risk of intracranial hemorrhage. RESULTS: At 3 years, the primary end point had occurred in 1028 patients (9.3%) in the vorapaxar group and in 1176 patients (10.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for the vorapaxar group, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.94; P<0.001). Cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or recurrent ischemia leading to revascularization occurred in 1259 patients (11.2%) in the vorapaxar group and 1417 patients (12.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.95; P=0.001). Moderate or severe bleeding occurred in 4.2% of patients who received vorapaxar and 2.5% of those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.43 to 1.93; P<0.001). There was an increase in the rate of intracranial hemorrhage in the vorapaxar group (1.0%, vs. 0.5% in the placebo group; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Inhibition of PAR-1 with vorapaxar reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or ischemic events in patients with stable atherosclerosis who were receiving standard therapy. However, it increased the risk of moderate or severe bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage. (Funded by Merck; TRA 2P-TIMI 50 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00526474.)