769 resultados para reporters and reporting
Resumo:
This study investigates the logics or values that shape the social and environmental reporting (SER) and SER assurance (SERA) process. The influence of logics is observed through a study of the conceptualisation and operationalisation of the materiality concept by accounting and non-accounting assurors and their assurance statements. We gathered qualitative data from interviews with both accounting and non-accounting assurors. We analysed the interplay between old and new logics that are shaping materiality as a reporting concept in SER. SER is a rich field in which to study the dynamics of change because it is a voluntary, unregulated, qualitative reporting arena. It has a broad, stakeholder audience, where accounting and non-accounting organisations are in competition. There are three key findings. First, the introduction of a new, stakeholder logic has significantly changed the meaning and role of materiality. Second, a more versatile, performative, social understanding of materiality was portrayed by assurors, with a forward-looking rather than a historic focus. Third, competing logics have encouraged different beliefs about materiality, and practices, to develop. This influenced the way assurors theorised the concept and interpreted outcomes. A patchwork of localised understandings of materiality is developing. Policy implications both in SERA and also in financial audit are explored.
Resumo:
We estimated the sensitivity, i.e., the proportion of all cases of adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) reported to the Brazilian passive surveillance for adverse events following immunization (PSAEFI) with the diphtheria-tetanus-whole-cell pertussis-Haemophilus influenzae type b (DTwP/Hib) vaccine, as well as investigating factors associated with AEFIs reporting. During 2003-2004, 8303 AEFIs associated with DTwP-Hib were reported; hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes (HHEs), fever and convulsions being the most common. Cure without sequel was achieved in 98.4% of the cases. The mean sensitivity of the PSAEFI was 22.3% and 31.6%, respectively, for HHE and convulsions, varying widely among states. Reporting rates correlated positively with the Human Development Index and coverage of adequate prenatal care, correlating negatively with infant mortality rates. Quality of life indicators and the degree of organization of health services are associated with greater PSAEFI sensitivity. In addition to consistently describing the principal AEFIs, PSAEFI showed the DTwP/Hib vaccine to be safe and allayed public fears related to its use. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Resumo:
The aim of the present study was to determine whether under-reporting rates vary between dietary pattern Clusters. Subjects were sixty-five Brazilian women. During 3 weeks, anthropometric data were collected. total energy expenditure (TEE) was determined by the doubly labelled water method and diet Was Measured. Energy intake (El) and the daily frequency of consumption per 1000 kJ of twenty-two food groups were obtained from a FFQ. These frequencies were entered into a Cluster analysis procedure in order to obtain dietary patterns. Under-reporters were defined Lis those who did not lose more than 1 kg of body weight during the study and presented EI:TEE less than 0.82. Three dietary pattern clusters were identified and named according to their most recurrent food groups: sweet foods (SW). starchy foods (ST) and health), (H). Subjects from the healthy cluster had the lowest mean EI:TEE (SW = 0.86, ST = 0.71 and H = 0.58: P = 0.003) and EI - TEE (SW = -0.49 MJ, ST = - 3.20 MJ and H = -5.09 MJ; P = 0.008). The proportion of Under-reporters was 45.2 (95 % CI 35.5, 55.0) % in the SW Cluster: 58.3 (95 % CI 48.6, 68.0) % in the ST Cluster and 70.0 (95 % CI 61.0, 79) % in the H cluster (P=0.34). Thus, in Brazilian women, Under-reporting of El is not uniformly distributed among, dietary pattern clusters and tends to be more severe among subjects from the healthy cluster. This cluster is more consistent with both dietary guidelines and with what lay individuals usually consider `healthy eating`.
Resumo:
This paper analyzes some forms of linguistic manipulation in Japanese in newspapers when reporting on North Korea and its nuclear tests. The focus lies on lexical ambiguity in headlines and journalist’s voices in the body of the articles, that results in manipulation of the minds of the readers. The study is based on a corpus of nine articles from two of Japan’s largest newspapers Yomiuri Online and Asahi Shimbun Digital. The linguistic phenomenon that contribute to create manipulation are divided into Short Term Memory impact or Long Term Memory impact and examples will be discussed under each of the categories.The main results of the study are that headlines in Japanese newspapers do not make use of an ambiguous, double grounded structure. However, the articles are filled with explicit and implied attitudes as well as attributed material from people of a high social status, which suggests that manipulation of the long term memory is a tool used in Japanese media.
Resumo:
The strategic management of information plays a fundamental role in the organizational management process since the decision-making process depend on the need for survival in a highly competitive market. Companies are constantly concerned about information transparency and good practices of corporate governance (CG) which, in turn, directs relations between the controlling power of the company and investors. In this context, this article presents the relationship between the disclosing of information of joint-stock companies by means of using XBRL, the open data model adopted by the Brazilian government, a model that boosted the publication of Information Access Law (Lei de Acesso à Informação), nº 12,527 of 18 November 2011. Information access should be permeated by a mediation policy in order to subsidize the knowledge construction and decision-making of investors. The XBRL is the main model for the publishing of financial information. The use of XBRL by means of new semantic standard created for Linked Data, strengthens the information dissemination, as well as creates analysis mechanisms and cross-referencing of data with different open databases available on the Internet, providing added value to the data/information accessed by civil society.
Resumo:
In New World primates, mixed-species troops have been reported. Here, we analysed the performance of affiliative and agonistic behaviours of Callithrix jacchus and Callithrix penicillata living in mixed groups. For this purpose, we recorded the interaction of the individuals from two groups located in Bauru city, in the state of Sao Paulo (Brazil). Our data show that in both groups, affiliative behaviours appeared more frequently than agonistic ones. We concluded that there is cohesion inside the mixed-species troops observed. We suggest that a deeper knowledge about the social behaviour of mixed-species troop species certainly may be useful in projects linked with the management of the impact caused by them.
Resumo:
Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.
Resumo:
Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.
Resumo:
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Critical incident reporting alone does not necessarily improve patient safety or even patient outcomes. Substantial improvement has been made by focusing on the further two steps of critical incident monitoring, that is, the analysis of critical incidents and implementation of system changes. The system approach to patient safety had an impact on the view about the patient's role in safety. This review aims to analyse recent advances in the technique of reporting, the analysis of reported incidents, and the implementation of actual system improvements. It also explores how families should be approached about safety issues. RECENT FINDINGS: It is essential to make as many critical incidents as possible known to the intensive care team. Several factors have been shown to increase the reporting rate: anonymity, regular feedback about the errors reported, and the existence of a safety climate. Risk scoring of critical incident reports and root cause analysis may help in the analysis of incidents. Research suggests that patients can be successfully involved in safety. SUMMARY: A persisting high number of reported incidents is anticipated and regarded as continuing good safety culture. However, only the implementation of system changes, based on incident reports, and also involving the expertise of patients and their families, has the potential to improve patient outcome. Hard outcome criteria, such as standardized mortality ratio, have not yet been shown to improve as a result of critical incident monitoring.
Resumo:
Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.
Resumo:
The objective of this analysis was to assess and compare the 5- and 10-year survival of different types of tooth-supported and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and single crowns (SCs), and to describe the incidence of biological and technical complications with emphasis on quality of reporting.