UK Nutrition Research Partnership (NRP) workshop:Forum on advancing dietary intake assessment

The development of better and more robust measures of dietary intake in free living situations was identified as a priority for advancing nutrition research by the Office of Strategic Coordination for Health Research (OSCHR) Review of Nutrition and Human Health Research in 2017. The UK Nutrition Research Partnership (NRP) sponsored a workshop on Dietary Intake Assessment methodology alongside its series of ‘Hot Topic’ workshops designed to accelerate progress in nutrition research by bringing together people from a range of different disciplines. The workshop on Dietary Intake Assessment methodology took place via Zoom over two half‐days in January 2021 and included 50 scientists from a wide range of disciplines. The problems with current methods of dietary assessment and how emerging technologies might address them were set out in pre‐recorded presentations and explored in panel discussions. Participants then worked in breakout groups to discuss and prioritise the research questions that should be addressed to best further the field and lead to improvements in dietary assessment methodology. Five priority research questions were selected. Participants were asked to brainstorm potential approaches for addressing them and were then asked to focus on one approach and develop it further. At the end of these sessions, participants presented their project ideas to the rest of the workshop and these will be reported back to the Medical Research Council. It is hoped that potential collaborative projects arising from these discussions will be taken forward in response to future funding calls

Using health worker opinions to assess changes in structural components of quality in a Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The 'resource readiness' of health facilities to provide effective services is captured in the structure component of the classical Donabedian paradigm often used for assessment of the quality of care in the health sector. Periodic inventories are commonly used to confirm the presence (or absence) of equipment or drugs by physical observation or by asking those in charge to indicate whether an item is present or not. It is then assumed that this point observation is representative of the everyday status. However the availability of an item (consumables) may vary. Arguably therefore a more useful assessment for resources would be one that captures this fluctuation in time. Here we report an approach that may circumvent these difficulties. METHODS: We used self-administered questionnaires (SAQ) to seek health worker views of availability of key resources supporting paediatric care linked to a cluster randomized trial of a multifaceted intervention aimed at improving this care conducted in eight rural Kenyan district hospitals. Four hospitals received a full intervention and four a partial intervention. Data were collected pre-intervention and after 6 and 18 months from health workers in three clinical areas asked to score item availability using an 11-point scale. Mean scores for items common to all 3 areas and mean scores for items allocated to domains identified using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were used to describe availability and explore changes over time. RESULTS: SAQ were collected from 1,156 health workers. EFA identified 11 item domains across the three departments. Mean availability scores for these domains were often <5/10 at baseline reflecting lack of basic resources such as oxygen, nutrition and second line drugs. An improvement in mean scores occurred in 8 out of 11 domains in both control and intervention groups. A calculation of difference in difference of means for intervention vs. control suggested an intervention effect resulting in greater changes in 5 out of 11 domains. CONCLUSION: Using SAQ data to assess resource availability experienced by health workers provides an alternative to direct observations that provide point prevalence estimates. Further the approach was able to demonstrate poor access to resources, change over time and variability across place

Establishing a large prospective clinical cohort in people with head and neck cancer as a biomedical resource: head and neck 5000

BACKGROUND: Head and neck cancer is an important cause of ill health. Survival appears to be improving but the reasons for this are unclear. They could include evolving aetiology, modifications in care, improvements in treatment or changes in lifestyle behaviour. Observational studies are required to explore survival trends and identify outcome predictors. METHODS: We are identifying people with a new diagnosis of head and neck cancer. We obtain consent that includes agreement to collect longitudinal data, store samples and record linkage. Prior to treatment we give participants three questionnaires on health and lifestyle, quality of life and sexual history. We collect blood and saliva samples, complete a clinical data capture form and request a formalin fixed tissue sample. At four and twelve months we complete further data capture forms and send participants further quality of life questionnaires. DISCUSSION: This large clinical cohort of people with head and neck cancer brings together clinical data, patient-reported outcomes and biological samples in a single co-ordinated resource for translational and prognostic research

Accelerating discovery with open-source technology at eLife

Accelerating discovery with open-source technology. Talks presented May 2017.<div><br></div><div>Files can be found at https://github.com/npscience/eLife-innovation-May2017-presentation.</div><div><br></div><div>These slides are derived from a deck shared by Jennifer McLennan. All other sources acknowledged throughout the presentation.</div

Presentation-ScienceDisrupt-science2.0

Presentation given as panel chair at Science Disrupt London Session, September 14, 2017; the theme was 'science 2.0'. This talk was the intro to a panel of three speakers:<div><br></div><div>- Martin Jones, Francis Crick Institute (citizen science with Etch-a-cell; developing microscopy equipment to meet research demands)</div><div>- Johannes Solzbach, Clustermarket (sharing economy applied to science equipment and space; helping young science startups to develop without VC investment)</div><div>- Thomas Meany, Cell-free Technology (breaking cell biology out of the cell; applying biological processes as an engineer, for art and beyond)<br><div><br></div><div>Intended transcript for presentation:</div><div><br></div><div>Science - the thirst for knowledge and discovery, to understand the world and improve our situation in it. Essentially, science is a problem-solving exercise. In all arenas, to solve problems well, it helps to invite a diverse range of perspectives to the table. For example, a UK-based researcher seeking to find a preventive or therapeutic intervention for a tropical disease can gain better insight when they collaborate with citizens and researchers who live in the locale with high incidence of that disease - it's just common sense.</div><div><br></div><div>It is also important that research conducted for society's benefit includes and is accountable to society. Several developments in science have long-lasting impact on society, and require responsible discussion concerning the ethics and impact of these advances. In recent years, with the invention of CRISPR, it has become dramatically easier to alter genetic information. To realise the benefits, and mitigate the risks, we need to engage with all parts of society. It is difficult to enact citizen oversight of science without informed citizens - so allowing the non-expert into science helps to inform, educate and engage in a way that is beneficial to all.</div><div><br></div><div>Science is traditionally conducted behind closed doors. That door may be a paywall, limiting access to written knowledge, or it may be obscurity of or lack of sufficient information to understand the research. I'm here representing eLife - a mission-driven not-for-profit organisation funded by research funders to accelerate discovery in the life sciences. One way we improve the transparency of the process is by operating a fully open-access journal for biologists to share their findings openly. We also support open-source development of technologies for research communication. We think open source is important not least because it enables developments to be community-governed and for features to be user-driven.</div><div><br></div><div>Another door between the citizen and science may be education - to become an academic researcher requires the privilege of an involved education to PhD level and beyond. That route is not be possible for everyone, and it may not be necessary for someone to contribute - as we'll hear from Martin [Jones, see Etch-a-Cell].</div><div><br></div><div>A third door is cost. Whether academic or citizen, conducting research requires access to expensive equipment and resources, for which finding the funding can be a struggle. But there are ways to make research more efficient, more cost-effective, and to lower the barrier of cost so that more people can engage in research and development for the benefit of society - as I believe Johannes [Solzbach, Clustermarket] and Thomas [Meany, Cell-free Tech] will share with us.</div><div><br></div><div>So without further ado, let's hear from our speakers about how they are working to make science more inclusive.</div></div

Software preservation: a publisher's perspective

Talk presented at the Software Sustainability Institute's Software Deposit and Preservation workshop on July 11 2018, Oxford, UK. The workshop was supported by Jisc.<div><br></div><div>The slides are accompanied by a text summary at https://elifesci.org/software-preservation, and summarise work by Maria Guerreiro and Naomi Penfold, eLife.</div><div><br></div><div>The slides are also available as a Google Slides presentation at https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1XC-ATE-HuKL8WQkaAE54vsmA7xNL41WQq92gXT4FPaI/edit?usp=sharing.<br><div><br></div><div><br></div></div

Sustainability in research communication and innovation (CollabW2018)

<div>Considering sustainability in terms of the work ongoing at eLife and within the eLife Innovation Initiative.</div><div><br></div><div>Prepared and presented within the sustainability perspectives panel at the Software Sustainability Institute's Collaborations Workshop 2018, Tuesday March 27, 2018.<br></div