Asian Motility Studies in Irritable Bowel Syndrome

Altered motility remains one of the important pathophysiologic factors in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) who commonly complain of abdominal pain and stool changes such as diarrhea and constipation. The prevalence of IBS has increased among Asian populations these days. Gastrointestinal (GI) physiology may vary between Asian and Western populations because of differences in diets, socio-cultural backgrounds, and genetic factors. The characteristics and differences of GI dysmotility in Asian IBS patients were reviewed. MEDLINE search work was performed including following terms, 'IBS,' 'motility,' 'transit time,' 'esophageal motility,' 'gastric motility,' 'small intestinal motility,' 'colonic motility,' 'anorectal function,' and 'gallbladder motility' and over 100 articles were categorized under 'esophagus,' 'stomach,' 'small intestine,' 'colon,' 'anorectum,' 'gallbladder,' 'transit,' 'motor pattern,' and 'effect of stressors.' Delayed gastric emptying, slow tansit in constipation predominant IBS patients, rapid transit in diarrhea predominant IBS patients, accelerated motility responses to various stressors such as meals, mental stress, or corticotrophin releasing hormones, and altered rectal compliance and altered rectal accomodation were reported in many Asian studies regarding IBS. Many conflicting results were found among these studies and there are still controversies to conclude these as unique features of Asian IBS patients. Multinational and multicenter studies are needed to be performed vigorously in order to elaborate characteristics as well as differences of altered motililty in Asian patients with IBS

How do things become strategic? ‘Strategifying’ corporate social responsibility

How do things become ‘strategic’? Despite the development of strategy-as-practice studies and the recognized institutional importance of strategy as a social practice, little is known about how strategy boundaries change within organizations. This article focuses on this gap by conceptualizing ‘strategifying’ – or making something strategic – as a type of institutional work that builds on the institution of strategy to change the boundaries of what is regarded as strategy within organizations. We empirically investigate how corporate social responsibility has been turned into strategy at a UK electricity company, EnergyCorp. Our findings reveal the practices that constitute three types of strategifying work – cognitive coupling, relational coupling and material coupling – and show how, together and over time, these types of work changed the boundaries of strategy so that corporate social responsibility became included in EnergyCorp’s official strategy, became explicitly attended to by strategists and corporate executives and became inscribed within strategy devices. By disambiguating the notions of strategifying and strategizing, our study introduces new perspectives for analysing the institutional implications of the practice of strategy

Reviewing the use of resilience concepts in forest sciences

Purpose of the review Resilience is a key concept to deal with an uncertain future in forestry. In recent years, it has received increasing attention from both research and practice. However, a common understanding of what resilience means in a forestry context, and how to operationalise it is lacking. Here, we conducted a systematic review of the recent forest science literature on resilience in the forestry context, synthesising how resilience is defined and assessed. Recent findings Based on a detailed review of 255 studies, we analysed how the concepts of engineering resilience, ecological resilience, and social-ecological resilience are used in forest sciences. A clear majority of the studies applied the concept of engineering resilience, quantifying resilience as the recovery time after a disturbance. The two most used indicators for engineering resilience were basal area increment and vegetation cover, whereas ecological resilience studies frequently focus on vegetation cover and tree density. In contrast, important social-ecological resilience indicators used in the literature are socio-economic diversity and stock of natural resources. In the context of global change, we expected an increase in studies adopting the more holistic social-ecological resilience concept, but this was not the observed trend. Summary Our analysis points to the nestedness of these three resilience concepts, suggesting that they are complementary rather than contradictory. It also means that the variety of resilience approaches does not need to be an obstacle for operationalisation of the concept. We provide guidance for choosing the most suitable resilience concept and indicators based on the management, disturbance and application context