The Paris Agreement Compliance Mechanism: Beyond COP 26

Without an international tribunal or tools like trade sanctions, there is little to coerce or encourage adherence with environmental treaties. The Paris Agreement, the governing global agreement to address climate change, relies on voluntary global cooperation. Countries determine their own commitments by setting nationally determined contributions of greenhouse gases emissions. The main mandatory elements of the agreement are reporting requirements. The success of the agreement turns on whether countries comply with these requirements. Article 15 of the Paris Agreement establishes a Compliance Committee and sets forth the mechanisms to ensure and facilitate compliance with the agreement. Yet, as with the rest of the Paris Agreement, Article 15 does not have teeth and relies on the good behavior of the countries of the world. This brief contribution describes the mechanics of Article 15 while also highlighting concerns and issues at stake. This background should be helpful in responding to COP 26 in Glasgow and beyond

Potentially Identifying Variables Reported in 100 Qualitative Health Research Articles: Implications for Data Sharing and Secondary Analysis

There is a growing trend in social science research to share qualitative data in a repository for others to access. However, some researchers are reticent to share qualitative data. One major concern is how to de-identify qualitative data while maintaining adequate contextual detail to allow secondary users to meaningfully interpret de-identified data. To help inform discussions regarding qualitative data sharing, we reviewed 100 qualitative health science studies to determine what potentially identifying variables (PIVs) are reported in the published literature. There are relatively few PIVs reported in each qualitative study; the majority of studies (n=64) reported two or fewer PIVs. The most commonly reported PIVs were profession, sex or gender, and age. Our findings can help guide de-identification efforts going forward as presumably the PIVs that are most commonly reported provide essential contextual details that will also be needed by secondary users, while PIVs that are rarely reported may not provide essential contextual information for interpretation of data. This suggests it is possible to share qualitative data that are both de-identified and useful for secondary analysis. As data are shared, we recommend researchers mask study sites, as these may uniquely increase the chance of re-identification.In der sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschung gibt es einen wachsenden Trend, qualitative Daten in einem Repository für andere zugänglich zu machen. Einige Forscher*innen sind jedoch zurückhaltend, wenn es um die Weitergabe qualitativer Daten geht. Ein Hauptproblem für sie ist die Frage, wie anonymisiert und gleichzeitig ein angemessener Detailkontext beibehalten werden kann, damit Sekundärnutzer*innen Daten sinnvoll interpretieren können. Um die Diskussion über die gemeinsame Nutzung qualitativer Daten zu unterstützen, haben wir 100 qualitative gesundheitswissenschaftliche Studien darauf hin untersucht, welche potenziell identifizierenden Variablen (PIVs) berichtet wurden. In der Mehrheit der Studien (n=64) waren es relativ wenige, nämlich max. zwei PIVs. Die am häufigsten berichteten PIVs waren Beruf, Geschlecht oder Gender und Alter. Unsere Ergebnisse können als Orientierungshilfe für künftige De-Identifizierungsbemühungen dienen, da die am häufigsten berichteten PIVs vermutlich wesentliche kontextbezogene Details liefern, die auch von Sekundärnutzer*innen benötigt werden, während PIVs, die selten berichtet werden, möglicherweise keine wesentlichen kontextbezogenen Informationen für die Interpretation von Daten enthalten. Dies deutet darauf hin, dass es möglich ist, qualitative Daten weiterzugeben, die sowohl de-identifiziert als auch für Sekundäranalysen nützlich sind. Bei der Weitergabe von Daten empfehlen wir, die Studienorte zu maskieren, da diese die Wahrscheinlichkeit einer Identifizierung erhöhen können

Texas public relations association members' perceptions of an academic major in agricultural communications and journalism

The purpose of this study was to determine Texas Public Relations Association (TPRA) members' perception of the word agriculture and how that perception influences perceptions of the skills and qualifications of graduates from agricultural communications and journalism (AGCJ) programs. A researcher-developed electronic questionnaire was used for data collection. Of accessible population of 148 TPRA members, 83 responded to the questionnaire, yielding a response rate of 56.08%. This descriptive study found that TPRA members did not have a negative perception of agriculture or the AGCJ major, but there was a lack of awareness of the AGCJ major and respondents had low self-perceived agricultural knowledge. Writing, interpersonal skills, public relations, editing, and media relations were considered to be the five most important skills in the public relations profession; however, AGCJ graduates were perceived to be only somewhat competent in these skills. Respondents ranked AGCJ as seventh of eight majors according to how well prepared graduates were perceived to be for entry-level public relations positions. Results indicated a positive correlation between awareness of the AGCJ major and perception of the major; therefore, the lack of awareness influenced the less positive perception of the major

Enabling qualitative research data sharing using a natural language processing pipeline for deidentification: Moving beyond HIPAA Safe Harbor identifiers

OBJECTIVE: Sharing health research data is essential for accelerating the translation of research into actionable knowledge that can impact health care services and outcomes. Qualitative health research data are rarely shared due to the challenge of deidentifying text and the potential risks of participant reidentification. Here, we establish and evaluate a framework for deidentifying qualitative research data using automated computational techniques including removal of identifiers that are not considered HIPAA Safe Harbor (HSH) identifiers but are likely to be found in unstructured qualitative data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed and validated a pipeline for deidentifying qualitative research data using automated computational techniques. An in-depth analysis and qualitative review of different types of qualitative health research data were conducted to inform and evaluate the development of a natural language processing (NLP) pipeline using named-entity recognition, pattern matching, dictionary, and regular expression methods to deidentify qualitative texts. RESULTS: We collected 2 datasets with 1.2 million words derived from over 400 qualitative research data documents. We created a gold-standard dataset with 280K words (70 files) to evaluate our deidentification pipeline. The majority of identifiers in qualitative data are non-HSH and not captured by existing systems. Our NLP deidentification pipeline had a consistent F1-score of ∼0.90 for both datasets. CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate that NLP methods can be used to identify both HSH identifiers and non-HSH identifiers. Automated tools to assist researchers with the deidentification of qualitative data will be increasingly important given the new National Institutes of Health (NIH) data-sharing mandate

Are we ready to share qualitative research data? Knowledge and preparedness among qualitative researchers, IRB Members, and data repository curators

Data sharing maximizes the value of data, which is time and resource intensive to collect. Major funding bodies in the United States (US), like the National Institutes of Health (NIH), require data sharing and researchers frequently share de-identified quantitative data. In contrast, qualitative data are rarely shared in the US but the increasing trend towards data sharing and open science suggest this may be required in future. Qualitative methods are often used to explore sensitive health topics raising unique ethical challenges regarding protecting confidentiality while maintaining enough contextual detail for secondary analyses. Here, we report findings from semi-structured in-depth interviews with 30 data repository curators, 30 qualitative researchers, and 30 IRB staff members to explore their experience and knowledge of QDS. Our findings indicate that all stakeholder groups lack preparedness for QDS. Researchers are the least knowledgeable and are often unfamiliar with the concept of sharing qualitative data in a repository. Curators are highly supportive of QDS, but not all have experienced curating qualitative data sets and indicated they would like guidance and standards specific to QDS. IRB members lack familiarity with QDS although they support it as long as proper legal and regulatory procedures are followed. IRB members and data curators are not prepared to advise researchers on legal and regulatory matters, potentially leaving researchers who have the least knowledge with no guidance. Ethical and productive QDS will require overcoming barriers, creating standards, and changing long held practices among all stakeholder groups

Assessing clinical research coordinator knowledge of good clinical practice: An evaluation of the state of the art and a test validation study

This paper describes the development and validation of a new 32-item test of knowledge of good clinical practice (GCP) administered to 625 clinical research coordinators. GCP training is mandated by study sponsors including the US National Institutes of Health. The effectiveness of training is rarely assessed, and the lack of validated tests is an obstacle to assessment. The GCP knowledge test was developed following evaluation of two existing widely used GCP tests to ensure it accurately reflects the content of current training. The final GCP knowledge test demonstrated good reliability

Development of a resource guide to help patients receive appropriate care

After 10 years researching physician wrongdoing (i.e., sexual violations, improper prescribing, and unnecessary procedures), we developed a resource guide to help patients receive appropriate care and respond to inappropriate care. We gathered evaluative patient feedback, engaged physicians, and disseminated the guide. It is available at beforeyourvisit.org

Barriers and facilitators to qualitative data sharing in the United States: A survey of qualitative researchers

Qualitative health data are rarely shared in the United States (U.S.). This is unfortunate because gathering qualitative data is labor and time-intensive, and data sharing enables secondary research, training, and transparency. A new U.S. federal policy mandates data sharing by 2023, and is agnostic to data type. We surveyed U.S. qualitative researchers (N = 425) on the barriers and facilitators of sharing qualitative health or sensitive research data. Most researchers (96%) have never shared qualitative data in a repository. Primary concerns were lack of participant permission to share data, data sensitivity, and breaching trust. Researcher willingness to share would increase if participants agreed and if sharing increased the societal impact of their research. Key resources to increase willingness to share were funding, guidance, and de-identification assistance. Public health and biomedical researchers were most willing to share. Qualitative researchers need to prepare for this new reality as sharing qualitative data requires unique considerations

Surface Smoothing: A Way Back in Early Brain

Abstract. In this article we propose to investigate the analogy between early cortical folding process and cortical smoothing by mean curvature flow. First, we introduce a one-parameter model that is able to fit a developmental trajectory as represented in a Volume-Area plot and we propose an efficient optimization strategy for parameter estimation. Second, we validate the model on forty cortical surfaces of preterm newborns by comparing global geometrical indices and trajectories of central sulcus along developmental and simulation time.