Magnetic superlens-enhanced inductive coupling for wireless power transfer

Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories, USA

Magnetic metamaterial superlens for increased range wireless power transfer.

The ability to wirelessly power electrical devices is becoming of greater urgency as a component of energy conservation and sustainability efforts. Due to health and safety concerns, most wireless power transfer (WPT) schemes utilize very low frequency, quasi-static, magnetic fields; power transfer occurs via magneto-inductive (MI) coupling between conducting loops serving as transmitter and receiver. At the "long range" regime - referring to distances larger than the diameter of the largest loop - WPT efficiency in free space falls off as (1/d)(6); power loss quickly approaches 100% and limits practical implementations of WPT to relatively tight distances between power source and device. A "superlens", however, can concentrate the magnetic near fields of a source. Here, we demonstrate the impact of a magnetic metamaterial (MM) superlens on long-range near-field WPT, quantitatively confirming in simulation and measurement at 13-16 MHz the conditions under which the superlens can enhance power transfer efficiency compared to the lens-less free-space system.

Explanatory Model for the Use of Traditional Medicines in Kilimanjaro, Tanzania

Introduction: Traditional medicines are one of the most important means of achieving total health care coverage globally, and their importance in Tanzania extends beyond the impoverished rural areas. Their use remains high even in urban settings among the educated middle and upper classes. They are a critical component healthcare in Tanzania, but they also can have harmful side effects. Therefore we sought to understand the decision-making and reasoning processes by building an explanatory model for the use of traditional medicines in Tanzania.

Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study between December 2013 and June 2014 in the Kilimanjaro Region of Tanzania. Using purposive sampling methods, we conducted focus group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth interviews of key informants, and the qualitative data were analyzed using an inductive Framework Method. A structured survey was created, piloted, and then administered it to a random sample of adults. We reported upon the reliability and validity of the structured survey, and we used triangulation from multiple sources to synthesize the qualitative and quantitative data.

Results: A total of five FGDs composed of 59 participants and 27 in-depth interviews were conducted in total. 16 of the in-depth interviews were with self-described traditional practitioners or herbal vendors. We identified five major thematic categories that relate to the decision to use traditional medicines in Kilimanjaro: healthcare delivery, disease understanding, credibility of the traditional practices, health status, and strong cultural beliefs.

A total of 473 participants (24.1% male) completed the structured survey. The most common reasons for taking traditional medicines were that they are more affordable (14%, 12.0-16.0), failure of hospital medicines (13%, 11.1-15.0), they work better (12%, 10.7-14.4), they are easier

to obtain (11%, 9.48-13.1), they are found naturally or free (8%, 6.56-9.68), hospital medicines have too many chemical (8%, 6.33-9.40), and they have fewer side effects (8%, 6.25-9.30). The most common uses of traditional medicines were for symptomatic conditions (42%), chronic diseases (14%), reproductive problems (11%), and malaria and febrile illnesses (10%). Participants currently taking hospital medicines for chronic conditions were nearly twice as likely to report traditional medicines usage in the past year (RR 1.97, p=0.05).

Conclusions: We built broad explanatory model for the use of traditional medicines in Kilimanjaro. The use of traditional medicines is not limited to rural or low socioeconomic populations and concurrent use of traditional medicines and biomedicine is high with frequent ethnomedical doctor shopping. Our model provides a working framework for understanding the complex interactions between biomedicine and traditional medicine. Future disease management and treatment programs will benefit from this understanding, and it can lead to synergistic policies with more effective implementation.

Barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias: thematic analysis of scholarly articles and stakeholder interviews.

BACKGROUND: When the nature and direction of research results affect their chances of publication, a distortion of the evidence base - termed publication bias - results. Despite considerable recent efforts to implement measures to reduce the non-publication of trials, publication bias is still a major problem in medical research. The objective of our study was to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to prevent or reduce publication bias. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the scholarly literature and extracted data from articles. Further, we performed semi-structured interviews with stakeholders. We performed an inductive thematic analysis to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 39 articles. Thirty-four of 89 invited interview partners agreed to be interviewed. We clustered interventions into four categories: prospective trial registration, incentives for reporting in peer-reviewed journals or research reports, public availability of individual patient-level data, and peer-review/editorial processes. Barriers we identified included economic and personal interests, lack of financial resources for a global comprehensive trial registry, and different legal systems. Facilitators identified included: raising awareness of the effects of publication bias, providing incentives to make data publically available, and implementing laws to enforce prospective registration and reporting of clinical trial results. CONCLUSIONS: Publication bias is a complex problem that reflects the complex system in which it occurs. The cooperation amongst stakeholders to increase public awareness of the problem, better tailoring of incentives to publish, and ultimately legislative regulations have the greatest potential for reducing publication bias.