58 research outputs found
Ethical Challenges in Digital Public Archaeology
This paper focuses specifically on the ethical challenges to the field of digital archaeology and the concerns of the digital public archaeologist. It considers the notions of digital research and ethical data collection, the social and political tensions implicit in digital communications on archaeological topics, and the possible effects on ethical concerns through post-processual approaches to participatory forms of digital media. Through an unpicking of these framings of professional and public interaction with archaeology and archaeologists in digital spaces, this paper proposes several future directions for ethical research, codes of conduct, and practice in digital archaeology
Online Tribes and Digital Authority:What Can Social Theory Bring to Digital Archaeology?
From early discussions of the disruptive potential of computer technologies for archaeological applications, to the present era of digital archaeology as the technical underpinning of modern archaeological practice, we have continued to debate the potential impacts of digital communication and digital capture and storage on our knowledge, profession and communications. The increased use of digital tools and methods for archaeological research and dissemination, as well as what Roosevelt (2015) has referred to as the shift to the digital paradigm within archaeological practice, leads us to suggest that the impact of this paradigm shift requires careful and critical examination. This article will examine the edges of the disciplines of archaeology and sociology, where we aim to advance our understanding of the relationship between digital technologies and archaeological knowledge from a uniquely social perspective, using the theoretical approaches of both classic and modern sociologists. The application of this lens of sociology to digital archaeology equips us to understand how archaeology and archaeological practice is situated in a social world, which is especially relevant in the Global West, where digital technology is ubiquitous. Through a critical consideration of the complexity of use of digital technologies within digital archaeology, we can begin to shift our focus away from the character and method of tools and workflow, to the background of intellectual power and influence
Reflecting on evaluation in public archaeology
As heritage professionals, our community-facing projects are embedded in the politics of cultural heritage and reverberate throughout the communities where we work. The only way to know if archaeological outreach and community engagement are working is to ask stakeholders, and there is growing support in our community of practice to further develop this aspect of the field. There is also increasing pressure to use evaluations, particularly standardized impact assessments motivated by neoliberal political critiques, to argue that archaeological projects are legitimate uses of economic resources. As the field continues to develop more robust mechanisms of self-assessment, we urge further reflection on whether our assessment of successful outcomes balances differing expectations and definitions of success, requirements of funding institutions, willingness of the participants, and needs of the practitioners. Are we working towards assessments of our own satisfaction with work done, the satisfaction of the dominant political forms of cultural value, the formal procedures of our funding streams, or the experiential and educational needs of the non-professional with whom we engage? We present a picture of the institutional contexts of US and UK public archaeology evaluation up to this point and propose ways to move forward that address the ethical underpinnings of public archaeology practice while strengthening the institutional visibility of public archaeology work
Do you even know what public archaeology is? Trends, theory, practice, ethics
Archaeology is a discipline influenced by emerging cultural trends, especially with regard to theoretical approaches to interpretation and practice. Public archaeology is a relatively young approach, still finding its feet, and loose definitions of it have opened the door to multiple perspectives and opportunities. When research agendas include the issue of public engagement, we need to approach our practices critically from the beginning, and consider the consequences of âdoingâ public archaeology. Moving beyond an understanding of the theoretical backdrop to our work, we first need to situate our work socially, politically and economically. This article will bring necessary critique to some current trends in public archaeology, proposing that commitment to sustainability, inclusivity and ethics are the basis for a responsible practice
What do UK archaeologists think of public engagement?
While there have been many surveys of archaeologists in the UK (for example â Aitchison 1997; Aitchison and Edwards 2003; Aitchison and Edwards 2008, Aitchison and Rocks- Macqueen 2013) and indeed in many other countries (see DISCO projects for examples of from dozens of European countries www.discovering-archaeologists.eu/) there have been limited surveys into what archaeologistsâ views are on public engagement. There was one survey of âAttitudes and Values in Archaeological Practiceâ (Zimmer et al. 1995) that asked some questions on the topic and another survey that specifically targeted the views of archaeologists in New Mexico (Rocks-Macqueen 2012). These aside, there is a significant gap in our understanding of how archaeologists perceive their engagement with the public. This Paper aims to help bridge that gap and provide data on how public engagement is perceived by archaeologists in the UK
OK computer? Digital community archaeologies in practice
The articles in this section of Internet Archaeology came out of a Theoretical Archaeology Group session at Manchester University in 2014. The session was motivated to explore issues associated with 'digital public archaeology' (DPA). The articles presented here deal with a number of themes which arise when doing digital public archaeology
Sequential multiple assignment randomised trial to develop an adaptive mobile health intervention to increase physical activity in people poststroke in the community setting in Ireland: TAPAS trial protocol
INTRODUCTION: Stroke is the second-leading cause of death and disability globally. Participation in physical activity (PA) is a cornerstone of secondary prevention in stroke care. Given the heterogeneous nature of stroke, PA interventions that are adaptive to individual performance are recommended. Mobile health (mHealth) has been identified as a potential approach to supporting PA poststroke. To this end, we aim to use a Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomised Trial (SMART) design to develop an adaptive, user-informed mHealth intervention to improve PA poststroke. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The components included in the 12-week intervention are based on empirical evidence and behavioural change theory and will include treatments to increase participation in Structured Exercise and Lifestyle or a combination of both. 117 participants will be randomly assigned to one of the two treatment components. At 6 weeks postinitial randomisation, participants will be classified as responders or non-responders based on participants' change in step count. Non-responders to the initial treatment will be randomly assigned to a different treatment allocation. The primary outcome will be PA (steps/day), feasibility and secondary clinical and cost outcomes will also be included. A SMART design will be used to evaluate the optimum adaptive PA intervention among community-dwelling, ambulatory people poststroke. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the Health Service Executive Mid-Western Ethics Committee (REC Ref: 026/2022). The findings will be submitted for publication and presented at relevant national and international academic conferences.</p
Efficiency and safety of varying the frequency of whole blood donation (INTERVAL): a randomised trial of 45 000 donors
Background:
Limits on the frequency of whole blood donation exist primarily to safeguard donor health. However, there is substantial variation across blood services in the maximum frequency of donations allowed. We compared standard practice in the UK with shorter inter-donation intervals used in other countries.
Methods:
In this parallel group, pragmatic, randomised trial, we recruited whole blood donors aged 18 years or older from 25 centres across England, UK. By use of a computer-based algorithm, men were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 12-week (standard) versus 10-week versus 8-week inter-donation intervals, and women were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 16-week (standard) versus 14-week versus 12-week intervals. Participants were not masked to their allocated intervention group. The primary outcome was the number of donations over 2 years. Secondary outcomes related to safety were quality of life, symptoms potentially related to donation, physical activity, cognitive function, haemoglobin and ferritin concentrations, and deferrals because of low haemoglobin. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN24760606, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting participants.
Findings:
45â263 whole blood donors (22â466 men, 22â797 women) were recruited between June 11, 2012, and June 15, 2014. Data were analysed for 45â042 (99·5%) participants. Men were randomly assigned to the 12-week (n=7452) versus 10-week (n=7449) versus 8-week (n=7456) groups; and women to the 16-week (n=7550) versus 14-week (n=7567) versus 12-week (n=7568) groups. In men, compared with the 12-week group, the mean amount of blood collected per donor over 2 years increased by 1·69 units (95% CI 1·59â1·80; approximately 795 mL) in the 8-week group and by 0·79 units (0·69â0·88; approximately 370 mL) in the 10-week group (p<0·0001 for both). In women, compared with the 16-week group, it increased by 0·84 units (95% CI 0·76â0·91; approximately 395 mL) in the 12-week group and by 0·46 units (0·39â0·53; approximately 215 mL) in the 14-week group (p<0·0001 for both). No significant differences were observed in quality of life, physical activity, or cognitive function across randomised groups. However, more frequent donation resulted in more donation-related symptoms (eg, tiredness, breathlessness, feeling faint, dizziness, and restless legs, especially among men [for all listed symptoms]), lower mean haemoglobin and ferritin concentrations, and more deferrals for low haemoglobin (p<0·0001 for each) than those observed in the standard frequency groups.
Interpretation:
Over 2 years, more frequent donation than is standard practice in the UK collected substantially more blood without having a major effect on donors' quality of life, physical activity, or cognitive function, but resulted in more donation-related symptoms, deferrals, and iron deficiency.
Funding:
NHS Blood and Transplant, National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, and British Heart Foundation
VectorNet Data Series 3: Culicoides Abundance Distribution Models for Europe and Surrounding Regions
This is the third in a planned series of data papers presenting modelled vector distributions produced during the ECDC and EFSA funded VectorNet project. The data package presented here includes those Culicoides vectors species first modelled in 2015 as part of the VectorNet gap analysis work namely C. imicola, C. obsoletus, C. scoticus, C. dewulfi, C. chiopterus, C. pulicaris, C. lupicaris, C. punctatus, and C. newsteadi. The known distributions of these species within the Project area (Europe, the Mediterranean Basin, North Africa, and Eurasia) are currently incomplete to a greater or lesser degree. The models are designed to fill the gaps with predicted distributions, to provide a) first indication of vector species distributions across the project geographical extent, and b) assistance in targeting surveys to collect distribution data for those areas with no field validated information. The models are based on input data from light trap surveillance of adult Culicoides across continental Europe and surrounding regions (71.8°N â33.5°S, â 11.2°W â 62°E), concentrated in Western countries, supplemented by transect samples in eastern and northern Europe. Data from central EU are relatively sparse.Peer reviewe
Longer-term efficiency and safety of increasing the frequency of whole blood donation (INTERVAL): extension study of a randomised trial of 20 757 blood donors
Background:
The INTERVAL trial showed that, over a 2-year period, inter-donation intervals for whole blood donation can be safely reduced to meet blood shortages. We extended the INTERVAL trial for a further 2 years to evaluate the longer-term risks and benefits of varying inter-donation intervals, and to compare routine versus more intensive reminders to help donors keep appointments.
Methods:
The INTERVAL trial was a parallel group, pragmatic, randomised trial that recruited blood donors aged 18 years or older from 25 static donor centres of NHS Blood and Transplant across England, UK. Here we report on the prespecified analyses after 4 years of follow-up. Participants were whole blood donors who agreed to continue trial participation on their originally allocated inter-donation intervals (men: 12, 10, and 8 weeks; women: 16, 14, and 12 weeks). They were further block-randomised (1:1) to routine versus more intensive reminders using computer-generated random sequences. The prespecified primary outcome was units of blood collected per year analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes related to safety were quality of life, self-reported symptoms potentially related to donation, haemoglobin and ferritin concentrations, and deferrals because of low haemoglobin and other factors. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN24760606, and has completed.
Findings:
Between Oct 19, 2014, and May 3, 2016, 20â757 of the 38â035 invited blood donors (10â843 [58%] men, 9914 [51%] women) participated in the extension study. 10â378 (50%) were randomly assigned to routine reminders and 10â379 (50%) were randomly assigned to more intensive reminders. Median follow-up was 1·1 years (IQR 0·7â1·3). Compared with routine reminders, more intensive reminders increased blood collection by a mean of 0·11 units per year (95% CI 0·04â0·17; p=0·0003) in men and 0·06 units per year (0·01â0·11; p=0·0094) in women. During the extension study, each week shorter inter-donation interval increased blood collection by a mean of 0·23 units per year (0·21â0·25) in men and 0·14 units per year (0·12â0·15) in women (both p<0·0001). More frequent donation resulted in more deferrals for low haemoglobin (odds ratio per week shorter inter-donation interval 1·19 [95% CI 1·15â1·22] in men and 1·10 [1·06â1·14] in women), and lower mean haemoglobin (difference per week shorter inter-donation interval â0·84 g/L [95% CI â0·99 to â0·70] in men and â0·45 g/L [â0·59 to â0·31] in women) and ferritin concentrations (percentage difference per week shorter inter-donation interval â6·5% [95% CI â7·6 to â5·5] in men and â5·3% [â6·5 to â4·2] in women; all p<0·0001). No differences were observed in quality of life, serious adverse events, or self-reported symptoms (p>0.0001 for tests of linear trend by inter-donation intervals) other than a higher reported frequency of doctor-diagnosed low iron concentrations and prescription of iron supplements in men (p<0·0001).
Interpretation:
During a period of up to 4 years, shorter inter-donation intervals and more intensive reminders resulted in more blood being collected without a detectable effect on donors' mental and physical wellbeing. However, donors had decreased haemoglobin concentrations and more self-reported symptoms compared with the initial 2 years of the trial. Our findings suggest that blood collection services could safely use shorter donation intervals and more intensive reminders to meet shortages, for donors who maintain adequate haemoglobin concentrations and iron stores.
Funding:
NHS Blood and Transplant, UK National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, and British Heart Foundation
- âŠ