Protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of an intervention to increase the use of traffic light food labelling in UK shoppers (the FLICC trial)

Background: Traffic light labelling of foods—a system that incorporates a colour-coded assessment of the level of total fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt on the front of packaged foods—has been recommended by the UK Government and is currently in use or being phased in by many UK manufacturers and retailers. This paper describes a protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of an intervention designed to increase the use of traffic light labelling during real-life food purchase decisions.

Methods/design: The objectives of this two-arm randomised controlled pilot trial are to assess recruitment, retention and data completion rates, to generate potential effect size estimates to inform sample size calculations for the main trial and to assess the feasibility of conducting such a trial. Participants will be recruited by email from a loyalty card database of a UK supermarket chain. Eligible participants will be over 18 and regular shoppers who frequently purchase ready meals or pizzas. The intervention is informed by a review of previous interventions encouraging the use of nutrition labelling and the broader behaviour change literature. It is designed to impact on mechanisms affecting belief and behavioural intention formation as well as those associated with planning and goal setting and the adoption and maintenance of the behaviour of interest, namely traffic light label use during purchases of ready meals and pizzas. Data will be collected using electronic sales data via supermarket loyalty cards and web-based questionnaires and will be used to estimate the effect of the intervention on the nutrition profile of purchased ready meals and pizzas and the behavioural mechanisms associated with label use. Data collection will take place over 48 weeks. A process evaluation including semi-structured interviews and web analytics will be conducted to assess feasibility of a full trial.

Discussion: The design of the pilot trial allows for efficient recruitment and data collection. The intervention could be generalised to a wider population if shown to be feasible in the main trial.

Allocating Participants to Groups In Educational Trials: What Does Random Mean?

What is meant by the term random? Do we understand how to identify which type of randomisation to use in our future research projects? We, as researchers, often explain randomisation to potential research participants as being a 50/50 chance of selection to either an intervention or control group, akin to drawing numbers out of a hat. Is this an accurate explanation? And are all methods of randomisation equal? This paper aims to guide the researcher through the different techniques used to randomise participants with examples of how they can be used in educational research.

The effectiveness of disaster risk communication: a systematic review of intervention studies

INTRODUCTION: A disaster is a serious disruption to the functioning of a community that exceeds its capacity to cope within its own resources. Risk communication in disasters aims to prevent and mitigate harm from disasters, prepare the population before a disaster, disseminate information during disasters and aid subsequent recovery. The aim of this systematic review is to identify, appraise and synthesise the findings of studies of the effects of risk communication interventions during four stages of the disaster cycle.

METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science and grey literature sources for randomised trials, cluster randomised trials, controlled and uncontrolled before and after studies, interrupted time series studies and qualitative studies of any method of disaster risk communication to at-risk populations. Outcome criteria were disaster-related knowledge and behaviour, and health outcomes.

RESULTS: Searches yielded 5,224 unique articles, of which 100 were judged to be potentially relevant. Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria, and two additional studies were identified from other searching. The studies evaluated interventions in all four stages of the disaster cycle, included a variety of man-made, natural and infectious disease disasters, and were conducted in many disparate settings. Only one randomised trial and one cluster randomised trial were identified, with less robust designs used in the other studies. Several studies reported improvements in disaster-related knowledge and behaviour.

DISCUSSION: We identified and appraised intervention studies of disaster risk communication and present an overview of the contemporary literature. Most studies used non-randomised designs that make interpretation challenging. We do not make specific recommendations for practice but highlight the need for high-quality randomised trials and appropriately-analysed cluster randomised trials in the field of disaster risk communication where these can be conducted within an appropriate research ethics framework.

Impact of non-pharmacological interventions on prevention and treatment of delirium in critically ill patients: protocol for a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative research

Background: Critically ill patients have an increased risk of developing delirium during their intensive care stay.To date, pharmacological interventions have not been shown to be effective for delirium management but non-pharmacological interventions have shown some promise. The aim of this systematic review is to identify effective non-pharmacological interventions for reducing the incidence or the duration of delirium in critically ill patients.

Methods: We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, AMED, psycINFO and the Cochrane Library.We will include studies of critically ill adults and children. We will include randomised trials and controlled trials which measure the effectiveness of one or more non-pharmacological interventions in reducing incidence or duration ofdelirium in critically ill patients. We will also include qualitative studies that provide an insight into patients and their families’ experiences of delirium and non-pharmacological interventions. Two independent reviewers will assess studies for eligibility, extract data and appraise quality. We will conduct meta-analyses if possible or present results narratively.Qualitative studies will also be reviewed by two independent reviewers, and a specially designed quality assessment tool incorporating the CASP framework and the POPAY framework will be used to assess quality.

Discussion: Although non-pharmacological interventions have been studied in populations outside of intensive care units and multicomponent interventions have successfully reduced incidence and duration of delirium, no systematic review of non-pharmacological interventions specifically targeting delirium in critically ill patients have been undertaken to date. This systematic review will provide evidence for the development of a multicomponent intervention for delirium management of critically ill patients that can be tested in a subsequent multicentre randomised trial.

Do Cochrane summaries help student midwives understand the findings of Cochrane systematic reviews: the BRIEF randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Abstracts and plain language summaries (PLS) are often the first, and sometimes the only, point of contact between readers and systematic reviews. It is important to identify how these summaries are used and to know the impact of different elements, including the authors' conclusions. The trial aims to assess whether (a) the abstract or the PLS of a Cochrane Review is a better aid for midwifery students in assessing the evidence, (b) inclusion of authors' conclusions helps them and (c) there is an interaction between the type of summary and the presence or absence of the conclusions.

METHODS: Eight hundred thirteen midwifery students from nine universities in the UK and Ireland were recruited to this 2 × 2 factorial trial (abstract versus PLS, conclusions versus no conclusions). They were randomly allocated to one of four groups and asked to recall knowledge after reading one of four summary formats of two Cochrane Reviews, one with clear findings and one with uncertain findings. The primary outcome was the proportion of students who identified the appropriate statement to describe the main findings of the two reviews as assessed by an expert panel.

RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in correct response between the abstract and PLS groups in the clear finding example (abstract, 59.6 %; PLS, 64.2 %; risk difference 4.6 %; CI -0.2 to 11.3) or the uncertain finding example (42.7 %, 39.3 %, -3.4 %, -10.1 to 3.4). There was no significant difference between the conclusion and no conclusion groups in the example with clear findings (conclusions, 63.3 %; no conclusions, 60.5 %; 2.8 %; -3.9 to 9.5), but there was a significant difference in the example with uncertain findings (44.7 %; 37.3 %; 7.3 %; 0.6 to 14.1, p = 0.03). PLS without conclusions in the uncertain finding review had the lowest proportion of correct responses (32.5 %). Prior knowledge and belief predicted student response to the clear finding review, while years of midwifery education predicted response to the uncertain finding review.

CONCLUSIONS: Abstracts with and without conclusions generated similar student responses. PLS with conclusions gave similar results to abstracts with and without conclusions. Removing the conclusions from a PLS with uncertain findings led to more problems with interpretation.

Face matching impairment in developmental prosopagnosia

Developmental prosopagnosia (DP) is commonly referred to as ‘face blindness’, a term that implies a perceptual basis to the condition. However, DP presents as a deficit in face recognition and is diagnosed using memory-based tasks. Here, we test face identification ability in six people with DP, who are severely impaired on face memory tasks, using tasks that do not rely on memory. First, we compared DP to control participants on a standardised test of unfamiliar face matching using facial images taken on the same day and under standardised studio conditions (Glasgow Face Matching Test; GFMT). DP participants did not differ from normative accuracy scores on the GFMT. Second, we tested face matching performance on a test created using images that were sourced from the Internet and so vary substantially due to changes in viewing conditions and in a person’s appearance (Local Heroes Test; LHT). DP participants show significantly poorer matching accuracy on the LHT relative to control participants, for both unfamiliar and familiar face matching. Interestingly, this deficit is specific to ‘match’ trials, suggesting that people with DP may have particular difficulty in matching images of the same person that contain natural day-to-day variations in appearance. We discuss these results in the broader context of individual differences in face matching ability.

The Contemporary Group, October 24, 1979

Concert program for The Contemporary Group, October 24, 1979

A Doctoral Concert Featuring Compositions by Brad Sherman,June 9, 1999

A Doctoral Concert Featuring Compositions by Brad Sherman, June 9, 1999

University Chorale Talent Show February 10, 2007

Concert Program for University Chorale Talent Show February 10, 2007

Creating SHAREDVALUE: A How-to Guide for the New Corporate (R)evolution

Competitividad y valor compartido

2004-05 Board of Trustees

The 2004-2005 Board of Trustees. Pictured here from left to right are: Front Row - Val Fleming; Dr. Patricia Teal; Wendy Staff; Dr. Norris Walker, Chair; Dr. David Atkinson, President and Vice Chancellor; Dr. Val Jaeger; Donna Scott; and Steven Lalinovich. Middle Row - Mike Farrell, Secretary to the University; Rudi Kroeker; Brandon Larry, President, Brock University Students' Union; Dr. Terry Boak, Vice-President, Academic and Provost; Mitzi Banders; Geeta Powell; Dr. Sid Segalowitz; Tom Gauld; Karin Jahnke-Haslam; and Dr. Mohammed Dore. Back Row - David Edwards, Immediate Past Chair; Bruce Wormald; Willy Heldbuechel, Vice-Chair; Brad Clarke; David Howes, Vice-Chair; Mark Steinman; Peter Partridge; Michael Sidenberg; Angelo Nitsopoulos; Steven Pillar, Vice President, Finance and Administration; Ron Dubien, Chief Information Officer. Absent from photo - Dr. Raymond Moriyama, Chancellor; Eleanor Ross; Jagoda Pike; Dr. Mary Frances Richardson; and Nick Brown.

1998 Brock Baseball Team

1998 Brock Badger men's baseball team photo. Front Row (L to R): Bill Gillen, Ryan Villers, Greg Arbour, Mark Cheeseman, Andrew Tinnish, Rick Bottomley, Matt Fletcher, Brad Namtzu, Darryl Presley, Dan Pino, Grant Giffen, Mike Caruso, Mark Reilly Back Row (L to R): Jeff Lounsbury (Head Coach), Jayar Green, Creston Rudolph, Ryan Fisher, Jamie Trull, Stefan Strecker, Andrew Robb, Jeremy Walker, Ryan Johns, Matt Stezycki, Steve Lester, Fabio Del Rio, Jarrod Haase, Jess Dixon, Rick Falconer (Pitching Coach) Absent: Marc Purdy, Ian Bala, Marc LePage (Asst. Coach), Waybe Briggs-Jude (Asst. Coach)