Dating and Digging Stratified Archaeology in Circumpolar North America : A View from Nunalleq, Southwestern Alaska

The results presented in this paper were funded by a NERC Radiocarbon Facility grant (NRCF 1917.0415), while the wider project is funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AH/K006029/1). The authors wish to thank all the members of the excavation crew from the 2014 field season for their hard work in the challenging weather conditions of southwest Alaska – without their attention to detail this study would not have been possible. Additional thanks are also due to Qanirtuuq Incorporated for logistical support and warm hospitality in Quinhagak. We also wish to thank Kevin Edwards and Kate Britton, who read an earlier draft of this paper, and three anonymous reviewers for highly constructive criticism that helped us to improve the final manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Qualitative focus groups with stakeholders identify new potential outcomes related to vaccination communication

<div><p>Introduction</p><p>Communication interventions are widely used to promote childhood vaccination and sustain vaccine acceptance, but communication’s role in changing people’s beliefs and behaviours is not well understood. To determine why these interventions work or where they fail, evaluations must measure a range of outcomes in addition to vaccination uptake. As part of a larger project to develop a preliminary Core Outcome Set for vaccination communication, we conducted a qualitative focus group study exploring how parents and health professionals perceive and experience communication encounters and what outcomes are relevant to them.</p><p>Methods</p><p>Focus group participants included parents and health professionals involved in vaccination communication (healthcare providers, researchers and policymakers). Participants discussed their experiences with communication for childhood vaccination, and what made the communication ‘successful’ or 'unsuccessful.'</p><p>Our analysis involved two stages: first, we thematically analysed the discussions, identifying key parent and professional themes. In stage two, we used an interpretive analysis approach to translate the themes and quotes into measurable outcomes. We compared these outcomes with outcomes measured in vaccination communication trials (previously identified and mapped).</p><p>Results</p><p>We held three focus groups with parents (n = 12) and four with professionals (n = 19). In stage one, we identified six parent themes (primarily related to decision-making) and five professional themes (primarily related to intervention planning, delivery and evaluation).</p><p>In stage two, we translated 47 outcomes from parents and 73 from professionals (91 total, de-duplicated). All stakeholders discussed attitudes or beliefs and decision-making outcomes most frequently. Most (66%) of the focus group-generated outcomes were not measured in vaccination communication trials.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>Consulting with stakeholders through focus groups allowed us to explore how parents and professionals experienced vaccination communication, identify those aspects of the experience that were important to them, and translate these into outcomes that can be prioritised into a Core Outcome Set and measured in intervention evaluations.</p></div

Parent themes and translated outcomes.

<p>Parent themes and translated outcomes.</p

Professional themes and translated outcomes.

<p>Professional themes and translated outcomes.</p

Additional file 1: of Development and assessment of a website presenting evidence-based information for people with multiple sclerosis: the IN-DEEP project

Appendix 1. Questionnaire. (PDF 23 kb

Public perspectives on acquired brain injury rehabilitation and components of care: A citizens’ jury

Background: Brain injury rehabilitation is an expensive and long-term endeavour. Very little published information or debate has underpinned policy for service delivery in Australia. Within the context of finite health budgets and the challenges associated with providing optimal care to persons with brain injuries, members of the public were asked ‘What considerations are important to include in a model of care of brain injury rehabilitation?’. Methods: Qualitative study using the Citizen Jury method of participatory research. Twelve adult jurors from the community and seven witnesses participated including a health services funding model expert, peak body representative with lived experience of brain injury, carer of a person with a brain injury, and brain injury rehabilitation specialists. Witnesses were cross-examined by jurors over two days. Results: Key themes related to the need for a model of rehabilitation to: be consumer-focused and supporting the retention of hope; be long-term; provide equitable access to services irrespective of funding source; be inclusive of family; provide advocacy; raise public awareness; and be delivered by experts in a suitable environment. A set of eight recommendations were made. Conclusion: Instigating the recommendations made requires careful consideration of the need for new models of care with flexible services; family involvement; recruitment and retention of highly skilled staff; and providing consumer-focused services that prepare individuals and their carers for the long term. Patient and public contribution: As jury members, the public deliberated information provided by expert witnesses (including a person with a head injury) and wrote the key recommendations. © 2020 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Lt

Public perspectives on acquired brain injury rehabilitation and components of care: A Citizens’ Jury

Background: Brain injury rehabilitation is an expensive and long-term endeavour. Very little published information or debate has underpinned policy for service delivery in Australia. Within the context of finite health budgets and the challenges associated with providing optimal care to persons with brain injuries, members of the public were asked ‘What considerations are important to include in a model of care of brain injury rehabilitation?’. Methods: Qualitative study using the Citizen Jury method of participatory research. Twelve adult jurors from the community and seven witnesses participated including a health services funding model expert, peak body representative with lived experience of brain injury, carer of a person with a brain injury, and brain injury rehabilitation specialists. Witnesses were cross-examined by jurors over two days. Results: Key themes related to the need for a model of rehabilitation to: be consumer-focused and supporting the retention of hope; be long-term; provide equitable access to services irrespective of funding source; be inclusive of family; provide advocacy; raise public awareness; and be delivered by experts in a suitable environment. A set of eight recommendations were made. Conclusion: Instigating the recommendations made requires careful consideration of the need for new models of care with flexible services; family involvement; recruitment and retention of highly skilled staff; and providing consumer-focused services that prepare individuals and their carers for the long term. Patient and public contribution: As jury members, the public deliberated information provided by expert witnesses (including a person with a head injury) and wrote the key recommendations. © 2020 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Lt

ヒトプロテイン/肺クララ細胞10kDa蛋白の病態検査上の意義の解明

出版社

Additional file 1: of Factors affecting the implementation of childhood vaccination communication strategies in Nigeria: a qualitative study

Guide for interviews with programme managers, social mobilization officers and development partners. (PDF 340 kb

Rural-urban distribution of focus group discussions, interviews and observation of respondents.

<p>Rural-urban distribution of focus group discussions, interviews and observation of respondents.</p