19 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
In pursuit of ‘safe’ water: the burden of personal injury from water fetching in 21 low-income and middle income countries
Introduction: Water fetching for household needs can cause injury, but documentation of the burden of harm globally has been limited. We described the frequency, characteristics and correlates of water-fetching injuries in 24 sites in 21 low-income and middle-income countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean. Methods: In a survey of 6291 randomly selected households, respondents reported whether and how they had experienced water-fetching injuries. Responses were coded for injury type, mechanism, bodily location and physical context. We then identified correlates of injury using a multilevel, mixed-effects logistic regression model. Results: Thirteen per cent of respondents reported at least one water-fetching injury. Of 879 injuries, fractures and dislocations were the most commonly specified type (29.2%), and falls were the most commonly specified mechanism (76.4%). Where specified, 61.1% of injuries occurred to the lower limbs, and dangerous terrain (69.4%) was the most frequently reported context. Significant correlates included being female (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.96); rural (OR 4.80, 95% CI 2.83 to 8.15) or periurban residence (OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.64 to 4.60); higher household water insecurity scores (1.09, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.10) and reliance on surface water (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.22) or off-premise water sources that required queueing (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.49). Conclusion These data suggest that water-fetching injuries are an underappreciated and largely unmeasured public health challenge. We offer guidelines for comprehensive data collection on injuries to better capture the true burden of inadequate water access. Such data can guide the design of interventions to reduce injury risk and promote equitable water access solutions
Many Labs 5:Testing pre-data collection peer review as an intervention to increase replicability
Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect (p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3?9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276?3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (?r = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols (r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols (r = .04) and the original RP:P replications (r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies (r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00?.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19?.50)
music-encoding/music-encoding: MEI 5.0
<p>About version 5.0</p><p>Release 5.0 of MEI focuses primarily on the guidelines, development infrastructure, and consistency, with only limited changes to the specifications. Perhaps the most important additions are the introduction of the MEI Basic customization, and the availability of an auto-generated PDF version of the Guidelines (<a href="https://music-encoding.org/guidelines/v5/content/introduction.html#aboutVersion">see the guidelines for more details</a>). The Release Managers for MEI 5.0 were the @music-encoding/technical-team-co-chairs, @bwbohl and @musicEnfanthen .</p><p><strong>Full Changelog</strong>: <a href="https://github.com/music-encoding/music-encoding/compare/v4.0.1...v5.0">https://github.com/music-encoding/music-encoding/compare/v4.0.1...v5.0</a></p><p>The Music Encoding Initiative schema and guidelines development repository at the time of the MEI 5.0 release.</p>