| 11. |
- Brander, Søren, et al.
(författare)
-
Biochemical evidence of both copper chelation and oxygenase activity at the histidine brace
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Scientific Reports. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2045-2322 .- 2045-2322. ; 10:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase (LPMO) and copper binding protein CopC share a similar mononuclear copper site. This site is defined by an N-terminal histidine and a second internal histidine side chain in a configuration called the histidine brace. To understand better the determinants of reactivity, the biochemical and structural properties of a well-described cellulose-specific LPMO from Thermoascus aurantiacus (TaAA9A) is compared with that of CopC from Pseudomonas fluorescens (PfCopC) and with the LPMO-like protein Bim1 from Cryptococcus neoformans. PfCopC is not reduced by ascorbate but is a very strong Cu(II) chelator due to residues that interacts with the N-terminus. This first biochemical characterization of Bim1 shows that it is not redox active, but very sensitive to H2O2, which accelerates the release of Cu ions from the protein. TaAA9A oxidizes ascorbate at a rate similar to free copper but through a mechanism that produce fewer reactive oxygen species. These three biologically relevant examples emphasize the diversity in how the proteinaceous environment control reactivity of Cu with O2.
|
|
| 12. |
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
- Fantini, R, et al.
(författare)
-
EU FP7 INFSO-ICT-317669 METIS, D3.2 First performance results for multi-node/multi-antenna transmission technologies
- 2014
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This deliverable describes the current results of the multi-node/multi-antenna technologies investigated within METIS and analyses the interactions within and outside Work Package 3. Furthermore, it identifies the most promising technologies based on the current state of obtained results. This document provides a brief overview of the results in its first part. The second part, namely the Appendix, further details the results, describes the simulation alignment efforts conducted in the Work Package and the interaction of the Test Cases. The results described here show that the investigations conducted in Work Package 3 are maturing resulting in valuable innovative solutions for future 5G systems.
|
|
| 15. |
- Hasson, H., et al.
(författare)
-
To do or not to do - Balancing governance and professional autonomy to abandon low-value practices : A study protocol
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Implementation Science. - : BioMed Central Ltd.. - 1748-5908. ; 14:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Many interventions used in health care lack evidence of effectiveness and may be unnecessary or even cause harm, and should therefore be de-implemented. Lists of such ineffective, low-value practices are common, but these lists have little chance of leading to improvements without sufficient knowledge regarding how de-implementation can be governed and carried out. However, decisions regarding de-implementation are not only a matter of scientific evidence; the puzzle is far more complex with political, economic, and relational interests play a role. This project aims at exploring the governance of de-implementation of low-value practices from the perspectives of national and regional governments and senior management at provider organizations. Methods: Theories of complexity science and organizational alignment are used, and interviews are conducted with stakeholders involved in the governance of low-value practice de-implementation, including national and regional governments (focusing on two contrasting regions in Sweden) and senior management at provider organizations. In addition, an ongoing process for governing de-implementation in accordance with current recommendations is followed over an 18-month period to explore how governance is conducted in practice. A framework for the governance of de-implementation and policy suggestions will be developed to guide de-implementation governance. Discussion: This study contributes to knowledge about the governance of de-implementation of low-value care practices. The study provides rich empirical data from multiple system levels regarding how de-implementation of low-value practices is currently governed. The study also makes a theoretical contribution by applying the theories of complexity and organizational alignment, which may provide generalizable knowledge about the interplay between stakeholders across system levels and how and why certain factors influence the governance of de-implementation. The project employs a solution-oriented perspective by developing a framework for de-implementation of low-value practices and suggesting practical strategies to improve the governance of de-implementation. The framework and strategies can thereafter be evaluated for validity and impact in future studies.
|
|
| 16. |
- Ingvarsson, S., et al.
(författare)
-
Why do they do it? : A grounded theory study of the use of low-value care among primary health care physicians
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Implementation Science. - : BioMed Central Ltd. - 1748-5908. ; 15:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The use of low-value care (LVC) is widespread and has an impact on both the use of resources and the quality of care. However, few studies have thus far studied the factors influencing the use of LVC from the perspective of the practitioners themselves. The aim of this study is to understand why physicians within primary care use LVC. Methods: Six primary health care centers in the Stockholm Region were purposively selected. Focus group discussions were conducted with physicians (n = 31) working in the centers. The discussions were coded inductively using a grounded theory approach. Results: Three main reasons for performing LVC were identified. Uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do was related to being unaware of the LVC status of a practice, guidelines perceived as conflicting, guidelines perceived to be irrelevant for the target patient population, or a lack of trust in the guidelines. Perceived pressure from others concerned patient pressure, pressure from other physicians, or pressure from the health care system. A desire to do something for the patients was associated with the fact that the visit in itself prompts action, symptoms to relieve, or that patients' emotions need to be reassured. The three reasons are interdependent. Uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do have made it more difficult to handle the pressure from others and to refrain from doing something for the patients. The pressure from others and the desire to do something for the patients enhanced the uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do. Furthermore, the pressure from others influenced the desire to do something for the patients. Conclusions: Three reasons work together to explain primary care physicians’ use of LVC: uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do, perceived pressure from others, and the desire to do something for the patients. The reasons may, in turn, be influenced by the health care system, but the decision nevertheless seemed to be up to the individual physician. The findings suggest that the de-implementation of LVC needs to address the three reasons from a systems perspective.
|
|
| 17. |
|
|
| 18. |
- Mosson, R., et al.
(författare)
-
Building implementation capacity (BIC) : A longitudinal mixed methods evaluation of a team intervention
- 2019
-
Ingår i: BMC Health Services Research. - : BioMed Central Ltd.. - 1472-6963. ; 19:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Managers and professionals in health and social care are required to implement evidence-based methods. Despite this, they generally lack training in implementation. In clinical settings, implementation is often a team effort, so it calls for team training. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of the Building Implementation Capacity (BIC) intervention that targets teams of professionals, including their managers. Methods: A non-randomized design was used, with two intervention cases (each consisting of two groups). The longitudinal, mixed-methods evaluation included pre-post and workshop-evaluation questionnaires, and interviews following Kirkpatrick's four-level evaluation framework. The intervention was delivered in five workshops, using a systematic implementation method with exercises and practical working materials. To improve transfer of training, the teams' managers were included. Practical experiences were combined with theoretical knowledge, social interactions, reflections, and peer support. Results: Overall, the participants were satisfied with the intervention (first level), and all groups increased their self-rated implementation knowledge (second level). The qualitative results indicated that most participants applied what they had learned by enacting new implementation behaviors (third level). However, they only partially applied the implementation method, as they did not use the planned systematic approach. A few changes in organizational results occurred (fourth level). Conclusions: The intervention had positive effects with regard to the first two levels of the evaluation model; that is, the participants were satisfied with the intervention and improved their knowledge and skills. Some positive changes also occurred on the third level (behaviors) and fourth level (organizational results), but these were not as clear as the results for the first two levels. This highlights the fact that further optimization is needed to improve transfer of training when building teams' implementation capacity. In addition to considering the design of such interventions, the organizational context and the participants' characteristics may also need to be considered to maximize the chances that the learned skills will be successfully transferred to behaviors.
|
|
| 19. |
|
|
| 20. |
- Nilsen, P., et al.
(författare)
-
Theories, models and frameworks for de-implementation of low-value care : A scoping review of the literature
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Implementation Research and Practice. - 2633-4895.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Achieving an evidence-based practice not only depends on implementation of evidence-based interventions (programs, methods, etc.) but also requires de-implementing interventions that are not evidence-based, that is, low-value care (LVC). Thus, de-implementation is the other side of the coin of an evidence-based practice. However, this is quite a new topic and knowledge is lacking concerning how de-implementation and implementation processes and determinants might differ. It is almost mandatory for implementation researchers to use theories, models, and frameworks (i.e., “theoretical approaches”) to describe, guide, or explain implementation processes and determinants. To what extent are such approaches also used with regard to de-implementation of LVC? And what are the characteristics of such approaches when analyzing de-implementation processes? We reviewed the literature to explore issues such as these. We identified only 10 studies describing theoretical approaches that have been used concerning de-implementation of LVC. Five studies presented approaches developed specifically for de-implementation of LVC and five studies applied an already-existing approach usually applied to analyze implementation processes. Most of the theoretical approaches we found suggest a multi-level understanding of de-implementation of LVC, that is, successfully de-implementing LVC may require strategies that target teams, departments, and organizations and merely focus on individual health care practitioners. The findings point to the need for more research to identify the most important processes and determinants for successful de-implementation of LVC, and to explore differences between de-implementation and implementation. In terms of practice and policy implications, the study underscores the relevance of addressing multiple levels when attempting to de-implement LVC.
|
|
