Warp-speed adaptation to novel hosts after 300 generations of enforced dietary specialisation in the seed beetle Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Bruchinae)

Thank you to Paul Eady for providing C. maculatus to initiate our laboratory population and advice on rearing them. The study was funded by the University of Aberdeen core teaching funds (honours project budget to TP), and by a doctoral training grant to AL from the BBSRC-EastBio doctoral training partnershipPeer reviewedPublisher PD

Household waste recycling in the UK and the Netherlands: a comparative study of Sheffield and Amsterdam

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Science and Computing, University of Luton, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of PhilosophyWaste and its management is a dynamic subject that has far reaching implications. These extend beyond basic practical issues of producer responsibility and consumer behaviour, and encompass pollution and environmental problems in a global context. Economic concerns, such as scarcity of resources and the emergence of environmental issues such as sustainability, have influenced the need for a waste management strategy that will increase material re-use and recycling, and energy recovery. Increasing quantities of waste and changes in its composition have placed an ever increasing pressure on traditional disposal routes, namely landfill, giving impetus to the development of alternative management options. The emphasis on management through a waste hierarchy has resulted in a trend throughout Europe of striving towards numerical targets to induce movement away from landfill. In 1990 the UK government set a target of recycling 25% of household waste by the year 2000. The Dutch have set a general waste target to separate 65% of waste for recycling, by the year 2000. Currently, achievement of the UK target is unlikely. Explanations for this do not stem from the target being too high, as it has been illustrated in Europe and more specifically in the Netherlands, that more stringent targets are already being attained. Therefore this research is of importance in developing a greater understanding of the barriers and alternative policy incentives that exist in achieving materials reclamation and energy recovery, and aims to contribute to the development of suitable policies and strategic options. Previous research has focused on specific aspects or singular concepts within the field of waste management. Although this has proved useful in specific contexts, the results and applications have been limited. This research extends such experience further in developing a model that can link the barriers that exist with regard to the 'successful' implementation of waste management strategies. This model focuses on evaluating data gained from the case study, having identified causal relationships and underlying pressures. It introduces a way of relating national data with local data, and it is at this interface that the 'success' of a waste management strategy can be determined, or barriers to its application can be identified and policies developed to overcome such barriers. The research design has been developed within the framework of a comparative embedded case study. The methodology enables a fuller understanding of the current situation at national, regional and local level, incorporating a number of different data collection techniques. The selection of Sheffield and Amsterdam allows a greater focus on crosscultural issues with specific reference to environmental awareness, recycling behaviour and implementation strategies within each local political framework. These results can then be placed within the context of the model to identify the feasibility of policy targets, and propose modifications to the policy or strategic options available

Hand hygiene techniques:Still a requirement for evidence for practice?

Introduction Two hand hygiene techniques are promoted internationally: the World Health Organisation’s 6 step and the Centre for Disease Control’s 3 step techniques; both of which may be considered to have suboptimum levels of empirical evidence for use with alcohol based hand rub (ABHR). Objectives The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of the two techniques in clinical practice. Methods A prospective parallel group randomised controlled trial (RCT) was conducted with 1:1 allocation of 6 step versus the 3 step ABHR hand hygiene technique in a clinical setting. The primary outcome was residual microbiological load. Secondary outcomes were hand surface coverage and duration. The participants were medical and nursing participants (n=120) in a large teaching hospital. Results The 6 step technique was statistically more effective at reducing the bacterial count 1900cfu/ml (95% CI 1300, 2400cfu/ml) to 380cfu/ml (95% CI 150, 860 cfu/ml) than the 3 step 1200cfu/ml (95% CI 940, 1850cfu/ml) to 750cfu/ml (95% CI 380, 1400cfu/ml) (p=0.016) but even with direct observation by two researchers and use of an instruction card demonstrating the technique, compliance with the 6 step technique was only 65%, compared to 100% compliance with 3 step technique. Further those participants with 100% compliance with 6 step technique had a significantly greater log reduction in bacterial load with no additional time or difference in coverage compared to those with 65% compliance with 6 step technique (p=0.01). Conclusion To our knowledge this is the first published RCT to demonstrate the 6 step technique is superior to the 3 step technique in reducing the residual bacterial load after hand hygiene using alcohol based hand rub in clinical practice. What remains unknown is whether the residual bacterial load after the 3 step technique is low enough to reduce risk of transmission from the hands and whether the 6 step technique can be adapted to enhance compliance in order to maximise reduction in residual bacterial load and reduce duration

Interventions to improve healthcare workers’ hand hygiene compliance: a systematic review of systematic reviews

Objective: To synthesize the existing evidence base of systematic reviews of interventions to improve healthcare worker (HCW) hand hygiene compliance (HHC). Methods: PRISMA guidelines were followed, and 10 information sources were searched in September 2017, with no limits to language or date of publication, and papers were screened against inclusion criteria for relevance. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed. Results: Overall, 19 systematic reviews (n=20 articles) were included. Only 1 article had a low risk of bias. Moreover, 15 systematic reviews showed positive effects of interventions on HCW HHC, whereas 3 reviews evaluating monitoring technology did not. Findings regarding whether multimodal rather than single interventions are preferable were inconclusive. Targeting social influence, attitude, self-efficacy, and intention were associated with greater effectiveness. No clear link emerged between how educational interventions were delivered and effectiveness. Conclusions: This is the first systematic review of systematic reviews of interventions to improve HCW HHC. The evidence is sufficient to recommend the implementation of interventions to improve HCW HHC (except for monitoring technology), but it is insufficient to make specific recommendations regarding the content or how the content should be delivered. Future research should rigorously apply behavior change theory, and recommendations should be clearly described with respect to intervention content and how it is delivered. Such recommendations should be tested for longer terms using stronger study designs with clearly defined outcomes

Encouraging practitioners in infection prevention and control to publish: a cross-sectional survey

Aim: The aim of this cross-sectional survey was to determine the views of infection prevention and control practitioners (IPCPs) on publishing research. Methods: A convenience sample was obtained by approaching delegates at the 2015 Infection Prevention Society conference and data was captured via a hand-held electronic device. Findings: Of the 79 respondents most (83%) read Journal of Infection Prevention (JIP) and found it useful for informing their practice (72%). However, most (91%) had never published in JIP, and less than half (40%) published elsewhere. The main barrier to publication was not having work suitable for publication (38%). Support (37%), training in writing for publication (10%) and time (9%) were considered to be important facilitators in encouraging respondents to publish. Discussion: Strategies that support IPCPs in developing their writing skills may encourage more IPCPs to disseminate evidence to support best practice by publishing their work in peer reviewed journals