Sustainability factors in Industrialised Building System

In Malaysia, Industrialised Building Systems (IBS) are being promoted as a potential to enhance sustainability by the building industry and government. Known elsewhere as prefabricated construction, IBS employs a combination of ready-made components in the construction of buildings that promote quality of production, enhance simplification of construction processes and minimise on-site work. The components are manufactured in a factory either on or off site. They are then positioned and assembled into building structures. The unique characteristic of IBS has the potential to respond well to the sustainability challenge facing the construction industry. Despite the promises however, IBS has yet to be effectively implemented in Malaysia. There are often misconceptions among key stakeholders about IBS applications and some of the rating schemes fail to assess IBS towards sustainability deliverables. A holistic approach to improving IBS implementation is necessary to consider sustainability perceptions on IBS among key stakeholders. As IBS design is one of the most important development phases to incorporate sustainability requirements and expectations, a framework of embedding sustainability factors into IBS design is being developed through research. This paper presents an improved IBS design process focused on sustainability, showing where and how sustainability should be assessed to improve IBS construction. The framework being developed can provide guidance and decision making assistance to not only design consultants but all relevant stakeholders by integrating sustainability concepts into IBS applications. Outcome of the research will also provide a benchmark for developing countries in adopting prefabricated construction systems.

Learning and teaching from the edge to centre stage : Critical factors in embedding sustainable university-wide engagement in external awards and grants funding initiatives.

Teaching awards, grants and fellowships are strategies used to recognise outstanding contributions to learning and teaching, encourage innovation, and to shift learning and teaching from the edge to centre stage. Examples range from school, faculty and institutional award and grant schemes to national schemes such as those offered by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC), the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in the United States, and the Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning in higher education in the United Kingdom. The Queensland University of Technology (QUT) has experienced outstanding success in all areas of the ALTC funding since the inception of the Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in 2004. This paper reports on a study of the critical factors that have enabled sustainable and resilient institutional engagement with ALTC programs. As a lens for examining the QUT environment and practices, the study draws upon the five conditions of the framework for effective dissemination of innovation developed by Southwell, Gannaway, Orrell, Chalmers and Abraham (2005, 2010): 1. Effective, multi-level leadership and management 2. Climate of readiness for change 3. Availability of resources 4. Comprehensive systems in institutions and funding bodies 5. Funding design The discussion on the critical factors and practical and strategic lessons learnt for successful university-wide engagement offer insights for university leaders and staff who are responsible for learning and teaching award, grant and associated internal and external funding schemes.

The psychosocial factors influencing aggressive driving behaviour

Many drivers in highly motorised countries believe that aggressive driving is increasing. While the prevalence of the behaviour is difficult to reliably identify, the consequences of on-road aggression can be severe, with extreme cases resulting in property damage, injury and even death. This research program was undertaken to explore the nature of aggressive driving from within the framework of relevant psychological theory in order to enhance our understanding of the behaviour and to inform the development of relevant interventions. To guide the research a provisional ‘working’ definition of aggressive driving was proposed encapsulating the recurrent characteristics of the behaviour cited in the literature. The definition was: “aggressive driving is any on-road behaviour adopted by a driver that is intended to cause physical or psychological harm to another road user and is associated with feelings of frustration, anger or threat”. Two main theoretical perspectives informed the program of research. The first was Shinar’s (1998) frustration-aggression model, which identifies both the person-related and situational characteristics that contribute to aggressive driving, as well as proposing that aggressive behaviours can serve either an ‘instrumental’ or ‘hostile’ function. The second main perspective was Anderson and Bushman’s (2002) General Aggression Model. In contrast to Shinar’s model, the General Aggression Model reflects a broader perspective on human aggression that facilitates a more comprehensive examination of the emotional and cognitive aspects of aggressive behaviour. Study One (n = 48) examined aggressive driving behaviour from the perspective of young drivers as an at-risk group and involved conducting six focus groups, with eight participants in each. Qualitative analyses identified multiple situational and person-related factors that contribute to on-road aggression. Consistent with human aggression theory, examination of self-reported experiences of aggressive driving identified key psychological elements and processes that are experienced during on-road aggression. Participants cited several emotions experienced during an on-road incident: annoyance, frustration, anger, threat and excitement. Findings also suggest that off-road generated stress may transfer to the on-road environment, at times having severe consequences including crash involvement. Young drivers also appeared quick to experience negative attributions about the other driver, some having additional thoughts of taking action. Additionally, the results showed little difference between males and females in the severity of behavioural responses they were prepared to adopt, although females appeared more likely to displace their negative emotions. Following the self-reported on-road incident, evidence was also found of a post-event influence, with females being more likely to experience ongoing emotional effects after the event. This finding was evidenced by ruminating thoughts or distraction from tasks. However, the impact of such a post-event influence on later behaviours or interpersonal interactions appears to be minimal. Study Two involved the quantitative analysis of n = 926 surveys completed by a wide age range of drivers from across Queensland. The study aimed to explore the relationships between the theoretical components of aggressive driving that were identified in the literature review, and refined based on the findings of Study One. Regression analyses were used to examine participant emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses to two differing on-road scenarios whilst exploring the proposed theoretical framework. A number of socio-demographic, state and trait person-related variables such as age, pre-study emotions, trait aggression and problem-solving style were found to predict the likelihood of a negative emotional response such as frustration, anger, perceived threat, negative attributions and the likelihood of adopting either an instrumental or hostile behaviour in response to Scenarios One and Two. Complex relationships were found to exist between the variables, however, they were interpretable based on the literature review findings. Factor analysis revealed evidence supporting Shinar’s (1998) dichotomous description of on-road aggressive behaviours as being instrumental or hostile. The second stage of Study Two used logistic regression to examine the factors that predicted the potentially hostile aggressive drivers (n = 88) within the sample. These drivers were those who indicated a preparedness to engage in direct acts of interpersonal aggression on the road. Young, male drivers 17–24 years of age were more likely to be classified as potentially hostile aggressive drivers. Young drivers (17–24 years) also scored significantly higher than other drivers on all subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992) and on the ‘negative problem orientation’ and ‘impulsive careless style’ subscales of the Social Problem Solving Inventory – Revised (D’Zurilla, Nezu & Maydeu-Olivares, 2002). The potentially hostile aggressive drivers were also significantly more likely to engage in speeding and drink/drug driving behaviour. With regard to the emotional, cognitive and behavioural variables examined, the potentially hostile aggressive driver group also scored significantly higher than the ‘other driver’ group on most variables examined in the proposed theoretical framework. The variables contained in the framework of aggressive driving reliably distinguished potentially hostile aggressive drivers from other drivers (Nagalkerke R2 = .39). Study Three used a case study approach to conduct an in-depth examination of the psychosocial characteristics of n = 10 (9 males and 1 female) self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers. The self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers were aged 24–55 years of age. A large proportion of these drivers reported a Year 10 education or better and average–above average incomes. As a group, the drivers reported committing a number of speeding and unlicensed driving offences in the past three years and extensive histories of violations outside of this period. Considerable evidence was also found of exposure to a range of developmental risk factors for aggression that may have contributed to the driver’s on-road expression of aggression. These drivers scored significantly higher on the Aggression Questionnaire subscales and Social Problem Solving Inventory Revised subscales, ‘negative problem orientation’ and ‘impulsive/careless style’, than the general sample of drivers included in Study Two. The hostile aggressive driver also scored significantly higher on the Barrett Impulsivity Scale – 11 (Patton, Stanford & Barratt, 1995) measure of impulsivity than a male ‘inmate’, or female ‘general psychiatric’ comparison group. Using the Carlson Psychological Survey (Carlson, 1982), the self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers scored equal or higher scores than the comparison group of incarcerated individuals on the subscale measures of chemical abuse, thought disturbance, anti-social tendencies and self-depreciation. Using the Carlson Psychological Survey personality profiles, seven participants were profiled ‘markedly anti-social’, two were profiled ‘negative-explosive’ and one was profiled as ‘self-centred’. Qualitative analysis of the ten case study self-reports of on-road hostile aggression revealed a similar range of on-road situational factors to those identified in the literature review and Study One. Six of the case studies reported off-road generated stress that they believed contributed to the episodes of aggressive driving they recalled. Intense ‘anger’ or ‘rage’ were most frequently used to describe the emotions experienced in response to the perceived provocation. Less frequently ‘excitement’ and ‘fear’ were cited as relevant emotions. Notably, five of the case studies experienced difficulty articulating their emotions, suggesting emotional difficulties. Consistent with Study Two, these drivers reported negative attributions and most had thoughts of aggressive actions they would like to take. Similarly, these drivers adopted both instrumental and hostile aggressive behaviours during the self-reported incident. Nine participants showed little or no remorse for their behaviour and these drivers also appeared to exhibit low levels of personal insight. Interestingly, few incidents were brought to the attention of the authorities. Further, examination of the person-related characteristics of these drivers indicated that they may be more likely to have come from difficult or dysfunctional backgrounds and to have a history of anti-social behaviours on and off the road. The research program has several key theoretical implications. While many of the findings supported Shinar’s (1998) frustration-aggression model, two key areas of difference emerged. Firstly, aggressive driving behaviour does not always appear to be frustration driven, but can also be driven by feelings of excitation (consistent with the tenets of the General Aggression Model). Secondly, while the findings supported a distinction being made between instrumental and hostile aggressive behaviours, the characteristics of these two types of behaviours require more examination. For example, Shinar (1998) proposes that a driver will adopt an instrumental aggressive behaviour when their progress is impeded if it allows them to achieve their immediate goals (e.g. reaching their destination as quickly as possible); whereas they will engage in hostile aggressive behaviour if their path to their goal is blocked. However, the current results question this assertion, since many of the hostile aggressive drivers studied appeared prepared to engage in hostile acts irrespective of whether their goal was blocked or not. In fact, their behaviour appeared to be characterised by a preparedness to abandon their immediate goals (even if for a short period of time) in order to express their aggression. The use of the General Aggression Model enabled an examination of the three components of the ‘present internal state’ comprising emotions, cognitions and arousal and how these influence the likelihood of a person responding aggressively to an on-road situation. This provided a detailed insight into both the cognitive and emotional aspects of aggressive driving that have important implications for the design of relevant countermeasures. For example, the findings highlighted the potential value of utilising Cognitive Behavioural Therapy with aggressive drivers, particularly the more hostile offenders. Similarly, educational efforts need to be mindful of the way that person-related factors appear to influence one’s perception of another driver’s behaviour as aggressive or benign. Those drivers with a predisposition for aggression were more likely to perceive aggression or ‘wrong doing’ in an ambiguous on-road situation and respond with instrumental and/or hostile behaviour, highlighting the importance of perceptual processes in aggressive driving behaviour.

Factors contributing to nurse job satisfaction in the acute hospital setting : a review of recent literature

Aim  To explore and discuss from recent literature the common factors contributing to nurse job satisfaction in the acute hospital setting. Background  Nursing dissatisfaction is linked to high rates of nurses leaving the profession, poor morale, poor patient outcomes and increased financial expenditure. Understanding factors that contribute to job satisfaction could increase nurse retention. Evaluation  A literature search from January 2004 to March 2009 was conducted using the keywords nursing, (dis)satisfaction, job (dis)satisfaction to identify factors contributing to satisfaction for nurses working in acute hospital settings. Key issues  This review identified 44 factors in three clusters (intra-, inter- and extra-personal). Job satisfaction for nurses in acute hospitals can be influenced by a combination of any or all of these factors. Important factors included coping strategies, autonomy, co-worker interaction, direct patient care, organizational policies, resource adequacy and educational opportunities. Conclusions  Research suggests that job satisfaction is a complex and multifactorial phenomenon. Collaboration between individual nurses, their managers and others is crucial to increase nursing satisfaction with their job. Implications for nursing management  Recognition and regular reviewing by nurse managers of factors that contribute to job satisfaction for nurses working in acute care areas is pivotal to the retention of valued staff.

Clinical factors and technological barriers as determinants for the intention to use wireless handheld technology in healthcare environment: an Indian case study

Abstract]: Traditional technology adoption models identified ‘ease of use’ and ‘usefulness’ as the dominating factors for technology adoption. However, recent studies in healthcare have established that these two factors are not always reliable on their own and other factors may influence technology adoption. To establish the identity of these additional factors, a mixed method approach was used and data were collected through interviews and a survey. The survey instrument was specifically developed for this study so that it is relevant to the Indian healthcare setting. We identified clinical management and technological barriers as the dominant factors influencing the wireless handheld technology adoption in the Indian healthcare environment. The results of this study showed that new technology models will benefit by considering the clinical influences of wireless handheld technology, in addition to known factors. The scope of this study is restricted to wireless handheld devices such as PDAs, smart phones, and handheld PCs Gururajan, Raj and Hafeez-Baig, Abdul and Gururajan, Vijaya

Factors that influence Information Systems decisions and outcomes: A summary of key themes from four case studies" (2006). ACIS 2006 Proceedings. Paper 43.

This paper reports a summary of key findings from an examination of Information Systems decision making in four organisations. The study focused on what factors influenced decision makers during the critical preimplementation phase of Information Systems projects when systems were evaluated, selected and acquired. Using data gathered from interviews and organisational documentation, a critical hermeneutic analysis was performed in order to build an understanding of how informational and contextual influences acted on decision makers. Eight broad themes of factors were identified as having influence on decision makers and outcomes.

Factors influencing health promotion activities in midlife and older Australian women with a chronic disease

Background: Chronic diseases including type 2 diabetes are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in midlife and older Australian women. There are a number of modifiable risk factors for type 2 diabetes and other chronic diseases including smoking, nutrition, physical activity and overweight and obesity. Little research has been conducted in the Australian context to explore the perceived barriers to health promotion activities in midlife and older Australian women with a chronic disease. Aims: The primary aim of this study was to explore women’s perceived barriers to health promotion activities to reduce modifiable risk factors, and the relationship of perceived barriers to smoking behaviour, fruit and vegetable intake, physical activity and body mass index. A secondary aim of this study was to investigate nurses’ perceptions of the barriers to action for women with a chronic disease, and to compare those perceptions with those of the women. Methods: The study was divided into two phases where Phase 1 was a cross sectional survey of women, aged over 45 years with type 2 diabetes who were attending Diabetes clinics in the Primary and Community Health Service of the Metro North Health Service District of Queensland Health (N = 22). The women were a subsample of women participating in a multi-model lifestyle intervention, the ‘Reducing Chronic Disease among Adult Australian Women’ project. Phase 2 of the study was a cross sectional online survey of nurses working in Primary and Community Health Service in the Metro North Health Service District of Queensland Health (N = 46). Pender’s health promotion model was used as the theoretical framework for this study. Results: Women in this study had an average total barriers score of 32.18 (SD = 9.52) which was similar to average scores reported in the literature for women with a range of physical disabilities and illnesses. The leading five barriers for this group of women were: concern about safety; too tired; not interested; lack of information about what to do; with lack of time and feeling I can’t do things correctly the equal fifth ranked barriers. In this study there was no statistically significant difference in average total barriers scores between women in the intervention group and those is the usual care group of the parent study. There was also no significant relationship between the women’s socio-demographic variables and lifestyle risk factors and their level of perceived barriers. Nurses in the study had an average total barriers score of 44.48 (SD = 6.24) which was higher than all other average scores reported in the literature. The leading five barriers that nurses perceived were an issue for women with a chronic disease were: lack of time and interferes with other responsibilities the leading barriers; embarrassment about appearance; lack of money; too tired and lack of support from family and friends. There was no significant relationship between the nurses’ sociodemographic and nursing variables and the level of perceived barriers. When comparing the results of women and nurses in the study there was a statistically significant difference in the median total barriers score between the groups (p < 0.001), where the nurses perceived the barriers to be higher (Md = 43) than the women (Md = 33). There was also a significant difference in the responses to the individual barriers items in fifteen of the eighteen items (p < 0.002). Conclusion: Although this study is limited by a small sample size, it contributes to understanding the perception of midlife and older women with a chronic disease and also the perception of nurses, about the barriers to healthy lifestyle activities that women face. The study provides some evidence that the perceptions of women and nurses may differ and argues that these differences may have significant implications for clinical practice. The study recommends a greater emphasis on assessing and managing perceived barriers to health promotion activities in health education and policy development and proposes a conceptual model for understanding perceived barriers to action.