The second global survey of repair cafés: a summary of findings

In 2014 The Centre for Sustainable Design (CfSD) at the University for the Creative Arts (UCA) in Farnham in the UK undertook the first global survey of volunteers at Repair Cafés, in collaboration with The Repair Café Foundation (Charter & Keiller, 2014 - Circular Economy and Grassroots Innovation – A Global Survey of Repair Cafes and Hackerspaces). Particular emphasis was placed throughout the work on understanding the importance of environmental, social and economic drivers as motivations for participation and of the activities undertaken. Since the first survey two years ago, the number of Repair Cafés around the world has more than doubled. This report presents a summary of the findings of a second global survey of Repair Café volunteers, undertaken in February and March 2016 by CfSD in collaboration with Repair Café International (RCI). This work aims to understand whether there have been any changes in volunteer attitudes, motivations and activities undertaken at Repair Cafés and also introduces new questions that explore issues including risk management, community engagement, data collection and barriers to success. The additional questions have been inspired by CfSD's experience as a co-founder with Transition Town Farnham of Farnham Repair Café, UK which was launched in February 2015

Lessons learnt from supporting SMEs through the FUSION project 2012 – 2014

Since 2009, The Centre for Sustainable Design (CfSD) at the University for the Creative Arts (UCA) in Surrey, UK has provided business support to six hundred and fifty three eco-innovative SMEs in South East England as part of three European Commission (EC) funded projects, EcoMind, SUSCIN and FUSION. Between 2009 and 2012 CfSD led and supported 566 eco-innovative SMEs through the Sustainable Supply Chains through Innovation (SUSCIN) project, funded through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) – now the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG). In parallel to SUSCIN between 2009 and 2011 CfSD supported 30 SMEs in more depth through the INTERREG IVA '2 seas' Environmental Market and Innovation Development (EcoMind) collaborative project. A detailed exploration of activities and learnings from SUSCIN and ECOMind is provided in 'Lessons learnt supporting SMEs on Eco-Innovation', 2012. Under the FUSION project between 2012 and December 2014, CfSD provided intensive support to 57 eco-innovative SMEs in Kent, East and West Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The work was co-funded under the INTERREG IVA '2 seas' FUSION collaborative project. This report summarises the activities undertaken by CfSD as part of the FUSION project and shares the findings and lessons learnt and draws on the learnings from SUSCIN and EcoMind

Grassroots innovation and the circular economy: a global survey of repair cafés and hackerspaces

This short report is a summary of the findings of research undertaken by Professor Martin Charter and Scott Keiller of The Centre for Sustainable Design. Interim data were previously presented at the workshop 'Makers & Fixers: The Circular Economy and Grassroots Innovation' held at the University for the Creative Arts (UCA), Farnham, UK on 3 June 2014

Farnham Repair Café survey of visitors & volunteers

This report presents the results of a survey of Farnham Repair Café visitors (e.g. product owners) and volunteers (e.g. repairers and organisers). The survey was undertaken in February 2016 by The Centre for Sustainable Design (CfSD) at the University for the Creative Arts (UCA) in Farnham in the UK. Farnham Repair Café (FRC) is a collaborative project between CfSD at UCA and Transition Town Farnham (TTF). FRC is one of a global network of one thousand Repair Cafés in 24 countries which are part of The Repair Café Foundation International, founded in the Netherlands in 2007 by Martine Postma as a way of actively promoting sustainability in local communities. Repair Cafés offer a free meeting place for people to bring products in need of repair and to work together with volunteer repairers from the local community, to fix broken products

A guide for SMEs on eco-design for the construction industry

This guide is a practical introduction to eco-design for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) involved in the manufacture of products and the provision of services within the construction industry. The guide explores the meaning of eco-design and its importance within the construction industry. It provides practical advice and tools for businesses firstly, to assess a product or service's environmental impacts throughout its lifecycle and then identify eco-design strategies to address these environmental impacts. It is specifically aimed at those businesses, including manufacturers, assemblers, product designers and architects that are starting to consider the opportunities and first steps in improving the environmental performance of their products and services at the design stage and therefore does not cover organisational aspects of eco-design (eg ISO14006) or general environmental management (eg ISO14001). The guide focuses on eco-design, but some social issues are highlighted because of their significance to stakeholders

Dipeptidyl peptidase-1 inhibition in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial

Background Neutrophil serine proteases are involved in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 and increased serine protease activity has been reported in severe and fatal infection. We investigated whether brensocatib, an inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-1 (DPP-1; an enzyme responsible for the activation of neutrophil serine proteases), would improve outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Methods In a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial, across 14 hospitals in the UK, patients aged 16 years and older who were hospitalised with COVID-19 and had at least one risk factor for severe disease were randomly assigned 1:1, within 96 h of hospital admission, to once-daily brensocatib 25 mg or placebo orally for 28 days. Patients were randomly assigned via a central web-based randomisation system (TruST). Randomisation was stratified by site and age (65 years or ≥65 years), and within each stratum, blocks were of random sizes of two, four, or six patients. Participants in both groups continued to receive other therapies required to manage their condition. Participants, study staff, and investigators were masked to the study assignment. The primary outcome was the 7-point WHO ordinal scale for clinical status at day 29 after random assignment. The intention-to-treat population included all patients who were randomly assigned and met the enrolment criteria. The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of study medication. This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN30564012. Findings Between June 5, 2020, and Jan 25, 2021, 406 patients were randomly assigned to brensocatib or placebo; 192 (47·3%) to the brensocatib group and 214 (52·7%) to the placebo group. Two participants were excluded after being randomly assigned in the brensocatib group (214 patients included in the placebo group and 190 included in the brensocatib group in the intention-to-treat population). Primary outcome data was unavailable for six patients (three in the brensocatib group and three in the placebo group). Patients in the brensocatib group had worse clinical status at day 29 after being randomly assigned than those in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·57–0·92]). Prespecified subgroup analyses of the primary outcome supported the primary results. 185 participants reported at least one adverse event; 99 (46%) in the placebo group and 86 (45%) in the brensocatib group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders and infections. One death in the placebo group was judged as possibly related to study drug. Interpretation Brensocatib treatment did not improve clinical status at day 29 in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Funding Sponsored by the University of Dundee and supported through an Investigator Initiated Research award from Insmed, Bridgewater, NJ; STOP-COVID19 trial

Dipeptidyl peptidase-1 inhibition in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial

Background Neutrophil serine proteases are involved in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 and increased serine protease activity has been reported in severe and fatal infection. We investigated whether brensocatib, an inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-1 (DPP-1; an enzyme responsible for the activation of neutrophil serine proteases), would improve outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Methods In a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial, across 14 hospitals in the UK, patients aged 16 years and older who were hospitalised with COVID-19 and had at least one risk factor for severe disease were randomly assigned 1:1, within 96 h of hospital admission, to once-daily brensocatib 25 mg or placebo orally for 28 days. Patients were randomly assigned via a central web-based randomisation system (TruST). Randomisation was stratified by site and age (65 years or ≥65 years), and within each stratum, blocks were of random sizes of two, four, or six patients. Participants in both groups continued to receive other therapies required to manage their condition. Participants, study staff, and investigators were masked to the study assignment. The primary outcome was the 7-point WHO ordinal scale for clinical status at day 29 after random assignment. The intention-to-treat population included all patients who were randomly assigned and met the enrolment criteria. The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of study medication. This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN30564012. Findings Between June 5, 2020, and Jan 25, 2021, 406 patients were randomly assigned to brensocatib or placebo; 192 (47·3%) to the brensocatib group and 214 (52·7%) to the placebo group. Two participants were excluded after being randomly assigned in the brensocatib group (214 patients included in the placebo group and 190 included in the brensocatib group in the intention-to-treat population). Primary outcome data was unavailable for six patients (three in the brensocatib group and three in the placebo group). Patients in the brensocatib group had worse clinical status at day 29 after being randomly assigned than those in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·57–0·92]). Prespecified subgroup analyses of the primary outcome supported the primary results. 185 participants reported at least one adverse event; 99 (46%) in the placebo group and 86 (45%) in the brensocatib group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders and infections. One death in the placebo group was judged as possibly related to study drug. Interpretation Brensocatib treatment did not improve clinical status at day 29 in patients hospitalised with COVID-19