5 resultados para Primary contribution
em CentAUR: Central Archive University of Reading - UK
Resumo:
Charities need to understand why volunteers choose one brand rather than another in order to attract more volunteers to their organisation. There has been considerable academic interest in understanding why people volunteer generally. However, this research explores the more specific question of why a volunteer chooses one charity brand rather than another. It builds on previous conceptualisations of volunteering as a consumption decision. Seen through the lens of the individual volunteer, it considers the under-researched area of the decision-making process. The research adopts an interpretivist epistemology and subjectivist ontology. Qualitative data was collected through depth interviews and analysed using both Means-End Chain (MEC) and Framework Analysis methodology. The primary contribution of the research is to theory: understanding the role of brand in the volunteer decision-making process. It identifies two roles for brand. The first is as a specific reason for choice, an ‘attribute’ of the decision. Through MEC, volunteering for a well-known brand connects directly through to a sense of self, both self-respect but also social recognition by others. All four components of the symbolic consumption construct are found in the data: volunteers choose a well-known brand to say something about themselves. The brand brings credibility and reassurance, it reduces the risk and enables the volunteer to meet their need to make a difference and achieve a sense of accomplishment. The second closely related role for brand is within the process of making the volunteering decision. Volunteers built up knowledge about the charity brands from a variety of brand touchpoints, over time. At the point of decision-making that brand knowledge and engagement becomes relevant, enabling some to make an automatic choice despite the significant level of commitment being made. The research identifies four types of decision-making behaviour. The research also makes secondary contributions to MEC methodology and to the non-profit context. It concludes within practical implications for management practice and a rich agenda for future research.
Resumo:
Although the somatosensory homunculus is a classically used description of the way somatosensory inputs are processed in the brain, the actual contributions of primary (SI) and secondary (SII) somatosensory cortices to the spatial coding of touch remain poorly understood. We studied adaptation of the fMRI BOLD response in the somatosensory cortex by delivering pairs of vibrotactile stimuli to the finger tips of the index and middle fingers. The first stimulus (adaptor) was delivered either to the index or to the middle finger of the right or left hand, whereas the second stimulus (test) was always administered to the left index finger. The overall BOLD response evoked by the stimulation was primarily contralateral in SI and was more bilateral in SII. However, our fMRI adaptation approach also revealed that both somatosensory cortices were sensitive to ipsilateral as well as to contralateral inputs. SI and SII adapted more after subsequent stimulation of homologous as compared with nonhomologous fingers, showing a distinction between different fingers. Most importantly, for both somatosensory cortices, this finger-specific adaptation occurred irrespective of whether the tactile stimulus was delivered to the same or to different hands. This result implies integration of contralateral and ipsilateral somatosensory inputs in SI as well as in SII. Our findings suggest that SI is more than a simple relay for sensory information and that both SI and SII contribute to the spatial coding of touch by discriminating between body parts (fingers) and by integrating the somatosensory input from the two sides of the body (hands).
Resumo:
This study has explored the underlying causes of preventable drug-related admissions to hospital, from primary care through semi-structured interviews and review of patients’ medical records. Analysis of the data has revealed that communication failures between different groups of healthcare professionals and between healthcare professionals and patients contribute to preventable drug-related admissions, as do knowledge gaps about medication in both healthcare professionals and patients. In addition, working conditions for community pharmacists severely limit their ability to effectively act as a safety barrier to patients receiving inappropriate medication. Limitations include heavy workloads, lack of access to patients’ clinical information, poor relationships with general practitioners and time restrictions. The results of this study represent an important addition to our understanding of the contribution of human error as an underlying cause of preventable drug-related morbidity, and the factors which contribute to errors occurring in the primary healthcare setting.
Resumo:
Research on the cortical sources of nociceptive laser-evoked brain potentials (LEPs) began almost two decades ago (Tarkka and Treede, 1993). Whereas there is a large consensus on the sources of the late part of the LEP waveform (N2 and P2 waves), the relative contribution of the primary somatosensory cortex (S1) to the early part of the LEP waveform (N1 wave) is still debated. To address this issue we recorded LEPs elicited by the stimulation of four limbs in a large population (n=35). Early LEP generators were estimated both at single-subject and group level, using three different approaches: distributed source analysis, dipolar source modeling, and probabilistic independent component analysis (ICA). We show that the scalp distribution of the earliest LEP response to hand stimulation was maximal over the central-parietal electrodes contralateral to the stimulated side, while that of the earliest LEP response to foot stimulation was maximal over the central-parietal midline electrodes. Crucially, all three approaches indicated hand and foot S1 areas as generators of the earliest LEP response. Altogether, these findings indicate that the earliest part of the scalp response elicited by a selective nociceptive stimulus is largely explained by activity in the contralateral S1, with negligible contribution from the secondary somatosensory cortex (S2).
Resumo:
Evolutionary developmental genetics brings together systematists, morphologists and developmental geneticists; it will therefore impact on each of these component disciplines. The goals and methods of phylogenetic analysis are reviewed here, and the contribution of evolutionary developmental genetics to morphological systematics, in terms of character conceptualisation and primary homology assessment, is discussed. Evolutionary developmental genetics, like its component disciplines phylogenetic systematics and comparative morphology, is concerned with homology concepts. Phylogenetic concepts of homology and their limitations are considered here, and the need for independent homology statements at different levels of biological organisation is evaluated. The role of systematics in evolutionary developmental genetics is outlined. Phylogenetic systematics and comparative morphology will suggest effective sampling strategies to developmental geneticists. Phylogenetic systematics provides hypotheses of character evolution (including parallel evolution and convergence), stimulating investigations into the evolutionary gains and losses of morphologies. Comparative morphology identifies those structures that are not easily amenable to typological categorisation, and that may be of particular interest in terms of developmental genetics. The concepts of latent homology and genetic recall may also prove useful in the evolutionary interpretation of developmental genetic data.