Boltzmann, Gibbs and the Concept of Equilibrium

The Boltzmann and Gibbs approaches to statistical mechanics have very different definitions of equilibrium and entropy. The problems associated with this are discussed and it is suggested that they can be resolved, to produce a version of statistical mechanics incorporating both approaches, by redefining equilibrium not as a binary property (being/not being in equilibrium) but as a continuous property (degrees of equilibrium) measured by the Boltzmann entropy and by introducing the idea of thermodynamic-like behaviour for the Boltzmann entropy. The Kac ring model is used as an example to test the proposals

The spin-echo system reconsidered

Simple models have played an important role in the discussion of foundational issues in statistical mechanics. Among them the spin--echo system is of particular interest since it can be realized experimentally. This has led to inferences being drawn about approaches to the foundations of statistical mechanics, particularly with respect to the use of coarse-graining. We examine these claims with the help of computer simulations

Temporalities of Mental Distress: Digital Immediacy and the Meaning of 'Crisis' in Online Support

The internet is increasingly used to seek support by those suffering with mental distress (Bauman & Rivers, 2015). Drawing on research on a major online peer support forum we analyse discussions around acute distress, self-harm and suicide. The paper argues that new temporalities of mental health ‘crisis’ are emerging through the intersection of the immediacy of online support, the chronicity of underlying distress, and the punctuated nature of professional support. Online support adds a layer of temporal immediacy that does not traditionally feature in other forms of support (e.g. professional in-person services). This shifts the meaning of a mental health ‘crisis' from acute to processual, and can lead to definitions of 'crisis' being used when not desired nor necessarily accurate. By attending to the layering of temporalities at the intersections of professional in-person, and online support, we demonstrate how parameters of crisis support are set – by whom, for whom and in relation to whose bodies. This has implications for professional clinical practice internationally in relation to the increased digitisation of support and the meanings of 'crisis' that emerge

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 13: Preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 14: Organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP)

This article is the Introduction to a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 7: Finding systematic reviews

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers

Effects of an evidence service on health-system policy makers' use of research evidence: A protocol for a randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Health-system policy makers need timely access to synthesised research evidence to inform the policy-making process. No efforts to address this need have been evaluated using an experimental quantitative design. We developed an evidence service that draws inputs from Health Systems Evidence, which is a database of policy-relevant systematic reviews. The reviews have been (a) categorised by topic and type of review; (b) coded by the last year searches for studies were conducted and by the countries in which included studies were conducted; (c) rated for quality; and (d) linked to available user-friendly summaries, scientific abstracts, and full-text reports. Our goal is to evaluate whether a "full-serve" evidence service increases the use of synthesized research evidence by policy analysts and advisors in the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) as compared to a "self-serve" evidence service.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>We will conduct a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT), along with a follow-up qualitative process study in order to explore the findings in greater depth. For the RCT, all policy analysts and policy advisors (n = 168) in a single division of the MOHLTC will be invited to participate. Using a stratified randomized design, participants will be randomized to receive either the "full-serve" evidence service (database access, monthly e-mail alerts, and full-text article availability) or the "self-serve" evidence service (database access only). The trial duration will be ten months (two-month baseline period, six-month intervention period, and two month cross-over period). The primary outcome will be the mean number of site visits/month/user between baseline and the end of the intervention period. The secondary outcome will be participants' intention to use research evidence. For the qualitative study, 15 participants from each trial arm (n = 30) will be purposively sampled. One-on-one semi-structured interviews will be conducted by telephone on their views about and their experiences with the evidence service they received, how helpful it was in their work, why it was helpful (or not helpful), what aspects were most and least helpful and why, and recommendations for next steps.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>To our knowledge, this will be the first RCT to evaluate the effects of an evidence service specifically designed to support health-system policy makers in finding and using research evidence.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01307228">NCT01307228</a></p

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 4: Using research evidence to clarify a problem

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers