| 1. |
- Farrow, R., et al.
(författare)
-
GO-GN Conceptual Frameworks Guide
- 2021
-
Bok (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- If you’re a doctoral researcher (in any discipline) or someone who produces research in a professional capacity you’ve perhaps encountered the phrase “conceptual framework”. Sometimes a whole chapter of a Ph.D or Ed.D might be given over to investigating the relevance of different frameworks for an area of inquiry, or to synthesizing several frameworks together to ground the approach taken to answering a specific research question. Alternatively, you might not have heard much mention of conceptual frameworks or how they relate to what you are trying to achieve with your research. A conceptual framework brings together a set of ideas and articulates the different concepts that will be used in a study or research project. Because this is highly contextual - and often specific to a particular research question or approach - there aren’t really any general rules that cover how to do this. In addition, there is a lot of ambiguity and impreciseness in the language used to describe this stuff. Sometimes people talk about theoretical frameworks, or models, or a ‘theory of action’ that guides their research project. But do these mean different things? And are there differences between disciplines? In an empirical project the conceptual framework might be used to determine the kinds of questions to ask in a survey, or which data points to collect and focus on. A conceptual framework might be used to generate a hypothesis that is to be tested, or to facilitate the interpretation of results. On the qualitative side a conceptual framework might be used to provide the right kinds of descriptions at different stages of the research process; to identify or explore categories of analysis; or to guide and refine the conclusions drawn by a study. All of these things can happen in a single project! Given the importance and centrality of these frameworks, it might be surprising to learn that relatively little has been written about using them in research. There’s certainly a lot less published about this than research methods or methodology, for instance. (Though different methods often come with specific conceptual frameworks built in or with a more obvious alignment). So, to start making sense of all this we begin by looking at some of the papers that offer systematic guidance or understanding of the role of conceptual frameworks in research. As this guide progresses we’ll bring in perspectives from GO-GN members on their experiences with developing and using conceptual frameworks.
|
|
| 2. |
- Källander, K., et al.
(författare)
-
Universal versus conditional day 3 follow-up for children with non-severe unclassified fever at the community level in Ethiopia: A cluster-randomised non-inferiority trial
- 2018
-
Ingår i: PLoS Medicine. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1549-1277 .- 1549-1676. ; 15:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: With declining malaria prevalence and improved use of malaria diagnostic tests, an increasing proportion of children seen by community health workers (CHWs) have unclassified fever. Current community management guidelines by WHO advise that children seen with non-severe unclassified fever (on day 1) should return to CHWs on day 3 for reassessment. We compared the safety of conditional follow-up reassessment only in cases where symptoms do not resolve with universal follow-up on day 3. Methods and findings: We undertook a 2-arm cluster-randomised controlled non-inferiority trial among children aged 2–59 months presenting with fever and without malaria, pneumonia, diarrhoea, or danger signs to 284 CHWs affiliated with 25 health centres (clusters) in Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples’ Region, Ethiopia. The primary outcome was treatment failure (persistent fever, development of danger signs, hospital admission, death, malaria, pneumonia, or diarrhoea) at 1 week (day 8) of follow-up. Non-inferiority was defined as a 4% or smaller difference in the proportion of treatment failures with conditional follow-up compared to universal follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of children brought for reassessment, antimicrobial prescription, and severe adverse events (hospitalisations and deaths) after 4 weeks (day 29). From December 1, 2015, to November 30, 2016, we enrolled 4,595 children, of whom 3,946 (1,953 universal follow-up arm; 1,993 conditional follow-up arm) adhered to the CHW’s follow-up advice and also completed a day 8 study visit within ±1 days. Overall, 2.7% had treatment failure on day 8: 0.8% (16/1,993) in the conditional follow-up arm and 4.6% (90/1,953) in the universal follow-up arm (risk difference of treatment failure −3.81%, 95% CI −∞, 0.65%), meeting the prespecified criterion for non-inferiority. There were no deaths recorded by day 29. In the universal follow-up arm, 94.6% of caregivers reported returning for reassessment on day 3, in contrast to 7.5% in the conditional follow-up arm (risk ratio 22.0, 95% CI 17.9, 27.2, p < 0.001). Few children sought care from another provider after their initial visit to the CHW: 3.0% (59/1,993) in the conditional follow-up arm and 1.1% (22/1,953) in the universal follow-up arm, on average 3.2 and 3.4 days later, respectively, with no significant difference between arms (risk difference 1.79%, 95% CI −1.23%, 4.82%, p = 0.244). The mean travel time to another provider was 2.2 hours (95% CI 0.01, 5.3) in the conditional follow-up arm and 2.6 hours (95% CI 0.02, 4.5) in the universal follow-up arm (p = 0.82); the mean cost for seeking care after visiting the CHW was 26.5 birr (95% CI 7.8, 45.2) and 22.8 birr (95% CI 15.6, 30.0), respectively (p = 0.69). Though this study was an important step to evaluate the safety of conditional follow-up, the high adherence seen may have resulted from knowledge of the 1-week follow-up visit and may therefore not transfer to routine practice; hence, in an implementation setting it is crucial that CHWs are well trained in counselling skills to advise caregivers on when to come back for follow-up. Conclusions: Conditional follow-up of children with non-severe unclassified fever in a low malaria endemic setting in Ethiopia was non-inferior to universal follow-up through day 8. Allowing CHWs to advise caregivers to bring children back only in case of continued symptoms might be a more efficient use of resources in similar settings. © 2018 Public Library of Science. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
| 3. |
- Parkin, S. J., et al.
(författare)
-
Highly birefringent vaterite microspheres: production, characterization and applications for optical micromanipulation
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Optics Express. - 1094-4087. ; 17:24, s. 21944-21955
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper reports on a simple synthesis and characterization of highly birefringent vaterite microspheres, which are composed of 20-30 nm sized nanocrystalls. Scanning electron microscopy shows a quite disordered assembly of nanocrystals within the microspheres. However, using optical tweezers, the effective birefringence of the microspheres was measured to Delta n = 0.06, which compares to Delta n = 0.1 of vaterite single crystals. This suggests a very high orientation of the nanocrystals within the microspheres. A hyperbolic model of the direction of the optical axis throughout the vaterite spherulite best fits the experimental data. Results from polarized light microscopy further confirm the hyperbolic model. (C) 2009 Optical Society of America
|
|
