1,721,060 research outputs found
INC883563 Supplemental Table1 - Supplemental material for Can the UK 24-item family satisfaction in the intensive care unit questionnaire be used to evaluate quality improvement strategies aimed at improving family satisfaction with the ICU? A qualitative study
No full textSupplemental material, INC883563 Supplemental Table1 for Can the UK 24-item family satisfaction in the intensive care unit questionnaire be used to evaluate quality improvement strategies aimed at improving family satisfaction with the ICU? A qualitative study by Susannah Lyes, Alvin Richards-Belle, Bronwen Connolly, Kathryn M Rowan, Lisa Hinton and Louise Locock in Journal of the Intensive Care Society</p
Correction: Partner experiences of "Near-miss" events in pregnancy and childbirth in the UK: A qualitative study (vol 9, e91735, 2014)
Full text linkThe affiliation for the second author is incomplete. Louise Locock should have the following added to her affiliation: Health Experiences Fellow, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Care in Funerals: Learning from the Ways COVID-19 Disrupted Funeral Provision in the UK, 2021-2022
No full textThe Care in Funerals project drew upon 67 semi-structured qualitative interviews with 68 individuals who had been bereaved, and/or worked or volunteered in deathcare and funeral provision in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic. Interviews explored their experiences during the pandemic, evaluations of what was good and what was less good, how they responded, and suggestions of what might be improved going forward. They also examined what interviewees understood by the term 'care' in relation to funerals.
All participants gave informed consent to participate. Interviews had a mean length of one hour, and were conducted using video calling software or, in some cases, telephone, between April 2021 and April 2022.
This dataset consists of 63 transcripts (two interviewees were interviewed together in one case) all of which have had identifying details removed such that the participants cannot be identified. Four transcripts have been withheld as permission was not granted by participants for their inclusion in a data repository.Funeral provision in the UK was significantly disrupted when COVID-19 infection control policies constrained how and by whom bodies could be attended to and moved to burial/cremation sites; how funeral directors and celebrants could communicate with bereaved families; and possibilities for gathering for funerals, mourning and memorialising activities. The regulations generated significant distress and perceptions of injustice. They also prompted the development of new funeral practices - inviting important questions about funeral provision.
Our interdisciplinary research starts from a recognition of funeral provision as a form of care (and set of caring practices) oriented towards people who have died and their bereaved family, friends and communities. It addresses neglected ethical aspects of funeral provision, including, in the context of COVID-19, questions of fairness and the moral dimensions of distress evident in family members' and funeral directors' worries about not fulfilling important responsibilities, or doing wrong, to those who have died or been bereaved.
Our ethical analyses will be grounded in an ethnographic examination of changed practices and experiences that includes:
(1) analysis of funeral artefacts, including online films, tribute pages, and written accounts;
(2) interviews with diverse bereaved family members, funeral directors and celebrants.
We will attend carefully to what people consider good and right (or not) and why in different circumstances. We will develop practical ethical analyses of post-death care that address tensions between different purposes of funerals and diverse perspectives on post-death responsibilities. Discussion events with key stakeholders will inform the development of resources for future policy and practice.</p
A licence to drive? : Neurological illness, loss and disruption
Full text linkWe are grateful to the participants who gave us their time in the four original projects. We would like to thank Dr Carol Dumelow and Dr Rachel Miller who conducted the interviews for MND and Parkinson’s and Nia Roberts for conducting a literature search for the epilepsy module. Thank you to performers at a fundraising event for Parkinson’s hosted by the Oxford Playhouse. During the writing of this article Louise Locock was supported by NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. We would also like to thank the two anonymous peer reviewers for their helpful insights and guidance. Funding for the four original projects was through: MND Association (MND), NHS Service Delivery and Organisation Research and Development Programme (Parkinson’s & MND); Sir Siegmund Warburg’s Voluntary Settlement Welton Foundation (epilepsy); the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and NIHR National School for Primary Care Research; (TIA). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the NHS or the Department of Health.Peer reviewe
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
