| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Hansson, Gunnar C., 1951, et al.
(författare)
-
Molecular cloning of a cDNA coding for a region of an apoprotein from the 'insoluble' mucin complex of rat small intestine.
- 1994
-
Ingår i: Biochemical and biophysical research communications. - 0006-291X. ; 198:1, s. 181-90
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The major part of rat small intestinal mucins occurs as an 'insoluble' glycoprotein complex unextractable in 6 M guanidinium chloride unless disulfide bonds are cleaved. One of the trypsin-resistant high-glycosylated domains of this complex (glycopeptide A) was recently isolated. We have now deglycosylated it with HF, injected it into rabbits and the obtained antiserum was used for expression cloning providing a cDNA clone (VR-1A). This clone contained an open reading frame of 235 amino acids composed of two regions. The deduced N-terminal 53 amino acids included seven Cys residues and only one Ser, followed by a region of 182 residues with 64% Ser and Thr but devoid of Cys residues. Analysis of mRNA revealed a transcript of about 12 kb, identical in size to a band labelled with a probe based on the rat mucin-like protein (MLP/Muc2) cDNA. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis of genomic rat DNA showed identical bands (380 and 500 kb) when blots were sequentially probed with the MLP/Muc2 probe and VR-1A. A panel of mouse x rat hybrids was used to localize the gene corresponding to both VR-1A and Muc2 to rat chromosome 1. The results strongly suggest that the 'insoluble' mucin complex of the rat small intestine is encoded by the Muc2 gene.
|
|
| 5. |
- Hasson, H., et al.
(författare)
-
The adaptation and fidelity tool to support social service practitioners in balancing fidelity and adaptations : Longitudinal, mixed-method evaluation study
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Implementation Research and Practice. - : SAGE Publications Ltd. - 2633-4895. ; 4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Evidence-based interventions (EBIs) seldom fit seamlessly into a setting and are often adapted. The literature identifies practitioners’ management of fidelity and adaptations as problematic but offers little guidance. This study aimed to investigate practitioners’ perceptions of the feasibility and usability of an intervention aimed to support them in fidelity and adaptation management when working with EBIs. Methods: The intervention, the adaptation and fidelity tool (A-FiT), was developed based on the literature, along with input from social service practitioners and social services’ Research and Development units’ personnel. The intervention consisted of two workshops where the participants were guided through a five-step process to manage fidelity and adaptations. It was tested in a longitudinal mixed-method intervention study with 103 practitioners from 19 social service units in Stockholm, Sweden. A multimethod data collection was employed, which included interviews at follow-up, questionnaires at baseline and follow-up (readiness for change and self-rated knowledge), workshop evaluation questionnaires (usability and feasibility) after each workshop, and documentation (participants’ notes on worksheets). To analyze the data, qualitative content analysis, Kruskal–Wallis tests, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were performed. Results: Overall, the practitioners had a positive perception of the intervention and perceived it as relevant for fidelity and adaptation management (mean ratings over 7.0 on usability and feasibility). The workshops also provided new knowledge and skills to manage fidelity and adaptations. Furthermore, the intervention provided insights into the practitioners’ understanding about adaptation and fidelity through a more reflective approach. Conclusion: Practical tools are needed to guide professionals not only to adhere to intervention core elements but also to help them to manage fidelity and adaptation. The proposed A-FiT intervention for practitioners’ management of both fidelity and adaptation is a novel contribution to the implementation literature. Potentially, the next step is an evaluation of the intervention's impact in an experimental design.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
