What influences a patients decision to use custom-made orthopaedic shoes?

Background Despite potential benefits, some patients decide not to use their custom-made orthopaedic shoes (OS). Factors are known in the domains ‘usability’, ‘communication and service’, and ‘opinion of others’ that influence a patient’s decision to use OS. However, the interplay between these factors has never been investigated. The aim of this study was to explore the interplay between factors concerning OS, and the influences thereof on a patient’s decision to use OS. Methods A mixed-methods design was used, combining qualitative and quantitative data by means of sequential data analysis and triangulation. Priority was given to the qualitative part. Qualitative data was gathered with a semi-structured interview covering the three domains. Data was analysed using the framework approach. Quantitative data concerned the interplay between factors and determining a rank-order for the importance of factors of ‘usability’. Results A patient’s decision to use OS was influenced by various factors indicated as being important and by acceptance of their OS. Factors of ‘usability’ were more important than factors of ‘communication’; the ‘opinion of others’ was of limited importance. An improvement of walking was indicated as the most important factor of ‘usability’. The importance of other factors (cosmetic appearance and ease of use) was determined by reaching a compromise between these factors and an improvement of walking. Conclusions A patient’s decision to use OS is influenced by various factors indicated as being important and by acceptance of their OS. An improvement of walking is the most important factor of ‘usability’, the importance of other factors (cosmetic appearance and ease of use) is determined by reaching compromises between these factors and an improvement of walking. Communication is essential to gain insight in a patient’s acceptance and in the compromises they are willing to reach. This makes communication the key for clinicians to influence a patient’s decision to use OS.

Steel-concrete-steel composite columns subjected to lateral impact

Concrete-filled double skin tube (CFDST) is a creative innovation of steel-concrete-steel composite construction, formed by two concentric steel tubes separated by a concrete filler. Over the recent years, this column form has been widely used as a new sustainable alternative to existing structural bridge piers and building columns. Since they could be vulnerable to impact from passing vessels or vehicles, it is necessary to understand their behaviour under lateral impact loads. With this in mind, physical tests on full scale columns were performed using an innovative horizontal impact testing system to obtain the failure modes, the time history of the impact force, reaction forces and global lateral deflection as well as permanent local buckling profile of the columns. The experimental testing was complemented and supplemented by developing and using an advanced finite element analysis model. The model was validated by comparing the numerical results against experimental data. The findings of this study will serve as a benchmark reference for future analysis and design of CFDST columns.

Food waste, power, and corporate social responsibility in the Australian food supply chain

By examining corporate social responsibility (CSR) and power within the context of the food supply chain, this paper illustrates how food retailers claim to address food waste while simultaneously setting standards that result in the large-scale rejection of edible food on cosmetic grounds. Specifically, this paper considers the powerful role of food retailers and how they may be considered to be legitimately engaging in socially responsible behaviors to lower food waste, yet implement practices that ultimately contribute to higher levels of food waste elsewhere in the supply chain. Through interviews with key actors in the Australian fresh fruit and vegetable supply chain, we highlight the existence of a legitimacy gap in corporate social responsibility whereby undesirable behaviors are pushed elsewhere in the supply chain. It is argued that the structural power held by Australia’s retail duopoly means that supermarkets are able to claim virtuous and responsible behaviors, despite counter claims from within the fresh food industry that the food supermarkets’ private quality standards mean that fresh food is wasted. We argue that the supermarkets claim CSR kudos for reducing food waste at the expense of other supply chain actors who bear both the economic cost and the moral burden of waste, and that this is a consequence of supermarkets’ remarkable market power in Australia.