Behaviour change at work: Empowering energy efficiency in the workplace through user-centred design

Copyright @ 2011 University of California eScholarship RepositoryCO2 emissions from non-domestic buildings - primarily workplaces - make up 18 percent of the UK's carbon footprint. A combination of technology advances and behavioural changes have the potential to make significant impact, but interventions have often been planned in ways which do not take into account the needs, levels of understanding and everyday behavioural contexts of building users - and hence do not achieve the hoped-for success.This paper provides a brief introduction to the Empower project, a current industrial-academic collaboration in the UK which is applying methods from user-centred design practice to understand diverse users' needs, priorities, mental models of energy and decision-making heuristics - as well as the affordances available to them - in a number of office buildings. We are developing and trialling a set of low-cost, simple software interventions tailored to multiple user groups with different degrees of agency over their energy use, which seek to influence more energy efficient behaviour at work in areas such as HVAC, lighting and equipment use. The project comprises an ethnographic research phase, a participatory design programme involving building users in the design of interventions, and iterative trials in a large office building in central London

Exploring patients’ views toward giving web-based feedback and ratings to general practitioners in England : a qualitative descriptive study

Background: Patient feedback websites or doctor rating websites are increasingly being used by patients to give feedback about their health care experiences. There is little known about why patients in England may give Web-based feedback and what may motivate or dissuade them from giving Web-based feedback. Objective: The aim of this study was to explore patients’ views toward giving Web-based feedback and ratings to general practitioners (GPs), within the context of other feedback methods available in primary care in England, and in particular, paper-based feedback cards. Methods: A descriptive exploratory qualitative approach using face-to-face semistructured interviews was used in this study. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 18 participants from different age groups in London and Coventry. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using applied thematic analysis. Results: Half of the participants in this study were not aware of the opportunity to leave feedback for GPs, and there was limited awareness about the methods available to leave feedback for a GP. The majority of participants were not convinced that formal patient feedback was needed by GPs or would be used by GPs for improvement, regardless of whether they gave it via a website or on paper. Some participants said or suggested that they may leave feedback on a website rather than on a paper-based feedback card for several reasons: because of the ability and ease of giving it remotely; because it would be shared with the public; and because it would be taken more seriously by GPs. Others, however, suggested that they would not use a website to leave feedback for the opposite reasons: because of accessibility issues; privacy and security concerns; and because they felt feedback left on a website may be ignored. Conclusions: Patient feedback and rating websites as they currently are will not replace other mechanisms for patients in England to leave feedback for a GP. Rather, they may motivate a small number of patients who have more altruistic motives or wish to place collective pressure on a GP to give Web-based feedback. If the National Health Service or GP practices want more patients to leave Web-based feedback, we suggest they first make patients aware that they can leave anonymous feedback securely on a website for a GP. They can then convince them that their feedback is needed and wanted by GPs for improvement, and that the reviews they leave on the website will be of benefit to other patients to decide which GP to see or which GP practice to join

In-ovulo embryo culture and seedling development of seeded and seedless grapes (Vitis vinifera L.)

Normal embryos and seedling plants were obtained from normally abortive ovules of seedless grapes. Ovules of seeded and seedless cultivars were excised and cultured on 10 media at 12 dates between anthesis and 101 d postanthesis. Ovules cultured from anthesis until 14 d postanthesis-grew abnormally. At 24 and 31 d after anthesis, ovules developed into normal-appearing seeds, but they contained no noticeable embryo or endosperm. Viable embryos were found in excised ovules cultured beyond 38 d after anthesis. Ovules of 1 seedless grape cultured 52 d postanthesis germinated and produced healthy seedlings. Self pollinated ovules from 7 to 13 seedless clones produced viable embryos when cultured. Open pollinated ovules and crosses between seedless clones also produced viable embryos and seedling plants. This indicates that stenospermocarpic seedless grapes can produce viable embryos. lmplications for breeding of seedless grapes are discussed.Die Kultur von Samenanlagen zur Erzeugung von Embryonen und die Entwicklung von Sämlingen bei kernhaltigen und kernlosen Reben (Vitis vinifera L.)Aus normalerweise abortierenden Samenanlagen kernloser Rebsorten konnten normale Embryonen und Keimpflanzen gewonnen werden. Die Samenanlagen kernhaltiger und kernloser Sorten wurden isoliert und auf 10 verschiedenen Medien kultiviert, wobei der Entnahmezeitpunkt vom Tag der Anthese bis auf 101 d nach dem Aufblühen - insgesamt 12 verschiedene Termine - ausgedehnt wurde. Samenanlagen, die bis zu 14 d nach der Anthese isoliert worden waren, zeigten ein normales Wachstum. 24 und 31 d nach der Anthese isoliert, entwickelten sich die Samenanlagen zu äußerlich normalen Samen, die aber nur degenerierte Embryonen und Endospermreste enthielten. Lebensfähige Embryonen wurden gefunden, wenn die Embryonen frühestens 38 d nach der Anthese in Kultur genommen worden waren. Die Samenanlagen einer kernlosen Sorte, die 52 d nach dem Aufblühen isoliert worden waren, keimten und erzeugten gesunde Sämlinge. Bei Selbstbestäubung bildeten 7 von 13 kernlosen Klonen in den kultivierten Samenanlagen vitale Embryonen. Aus den kultivierten Samenanlagen frei abgeblühter oder untereinander gekreuzter kernloser Klone entstanden ebenfalls lebensfähige Embryonen und Sämlinge. Die Ergebnisse weisen darauf hin, daß viele stenospermokarp kernlose Reben lebensfähige Embryonen hervorbringen können, wenn sich die Samenanlagen nur in einem angemessenen Milieu entwickeln können. Die Konsequenzen für die Züchtung kernloser Rebsorten werden diskutiert

Public awareness, usage and predictors for the use of doctor rating websites : a cross-sectional study in England

Background: With the advent and popularity of social media and consumer rating websites, as well as the emergence of the digitally engaged patient, there has been an increased interest in doctor rating websites or online patient feedback (OPF) websites, both inside and outside academia. There is however little known about how the public across England view such rating websites as a medium to give patient experience feedback. Objective: The aim was to measure and understand public awareness and usage of doctor rating websites as a mode to give experiential feedback about GPs in general practice in England, within the context of other feedback methods, so that the value of OPF websites from the patients’ perspective could be determined. Methods: A mixed methods population questionnaire was designed, validated and implemented face to face using a cross-sectional design with a representative sample of the public (n=844) in England. The results of the questionnaire were analysed using chi square tests, binomial logistic regressions and content analysis. Results: Public awareness of OPF websites as a channel to leave experiential feedback about GPs was found to be low at 15% (128/844); however, usage and future consideration to use OPF websites was found to be extremely low, with current patient usage at just 0.36% (3/844), and patient intention to use OPF in the future at 18% (150/844). Furthermore, only 4-5% of those who would consider leaving feedback in the future selected doctor rating websites as their most preferred method to leave feedback about a GP, and more than half of patients said they would consider leaving feedback about GPs using another method, but not using an OPF website. Conclusions: The findings appear to suggest that OPF websites may not be an effective channel for collecting feedback on patient experience in general practice, and feedback on OPF websites is not likely to be representative of the patient experience in the near future. This challenges the use of OPF not just as a mode for collecting patient experience data, but for patient choice and monitoring too. We recommend the NHS to channel its investment and resources towards providing more direct and private feedback methods in general practice (such as opportunities for face-to-face feedback, email-based feedback and web-based private feedback forms), as these are much more likely to be used currently by the majority of patients in England. Keywords: online reviews; Physician quality; Primary Care; Internet; Quality patient empowerment; quality transparency; public reporting

Preliminary results of the Mariner IV OCCULATION measurement of the atmosphere of Mars

Mariner IV radio occultation measurement of Mars atmospher

Feature weighting techniques for CBR in software effort estimation studies: A review and empirical evaluation

Context : Software effort estimation is one of the most important activities in the software development process. Unfortunately, estimates are often substantially wrong. Numerous estimation methods have been proposed including Case-based Reasoning (CBR). In order to improve CBR estimation accuracy, many researchers have proposed feature weighting techniques (FWT). Objective: Our purpose is to systematically review the empirical evidence to determine whether FWT leads to improved predictions. In addition we evaluate these techniques from the perspectives of (i) approach (ii) strengths and weaknesses (iii) performance and (iv) experimental evaluation approach including the data sets used. Method: We conducted a systematic literature review of published, refereed primary studies on FWT (2000-2014). Results: We identified 19 relevant primary studies. These reported a range of different techniques. 17 out of 19 make benchmark comparisons with standard CBR and 16 out of 17 studies report improved accuracy. Using a one-sample sign test this positive impact is significant (p = 0:0003). Conclusion: The actionable conclusion from this study is that our review of all relevant empirical evidence supports the use of FWTs and we recommend that researchers and practitioners give serious consideration to their adoption