231,865 research outputs found
Fast track children's hearing pilot : final report of the evaluation of the pilot
No full textThis report presents key findings of the evaluation of the Fast Track children’s hearings pilot in Scotland. The research was undertaken by staff at the Universities of Glasgow, Stirling and Strathclyde between February 2003 and January 2005
[Report to Chief J. E. Curry, by an unknown author #1]
No full textReport to Chief J. E. Curry, by an unknown author. The report contains a list of officers who gave depositions to the United States Attorney
[Report to Chief J. E. Curry, by an unknown author #2]
No full textReport to Chief J. E. Curry, by an unknown author. The report contains a list of officers who gave depositions to the United States Attorney
The Importance of Pilot Studies
No full textThe term 'pilot studies' refers to mini versions of a full-scale study (also called 'feasibility' studies), as well as the specific pre-testing of a particular research instrument such as a questionnaire or interview schedule.
Pilot studies are a crucial element of a good study design. Conducting a pilot study does not guarantee success in the main study, but it does increase the likelihood.
Pilot studies fulfil a range of important functions and can provide valuable insights for other researchers. There is a need for more discussion amongst researchers of both the process and outcomes of pilot studies
What is a pilot or feasibility study? A review of current practice and editorial policy
No full textBackground: In 2004, a review of pilot studies published in seven major medical journals during 2000-01 recommended that the statistical analysis of such studies should be either mainly descriptive or focus on sample size estimation, while results from hypothesis testing must be interpreted with caution. We revisited these journals to see whether the subsequent recommendations have changed the practice of reporting pilot studies. We also conducted a survey to identify the methodological components in registered research studies which are described as 'pilot' or 'feasibility' studies. We extended this survey to grant-awarding bodies and editors of medical journals to discover their policies regarding the function and reporting of pilot studies.
Methods: Papers from 2007-08 in seven medical journals were screened to retrieve published pilot studies. Reports of registered and completed studies on the UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN) Portfolio database were retrieved and scrutinized. Guidance on the conduct and reporting of pilot studies was retrieved from the websites of three grant giving bodies and seven journal editors were canvassed.
Results: 54 pilot or feasibility studies published in 2007-8 were found, of which 26 (48%) were pilot studies of interventions and the remainder feasibility studies. The majority incorporated hypothesis-testing (81%), a control arm (69%) and a randomization procedure (62%). Most (81%) pointed towards the need for further research. Only 8 out of 90 pilot studies identified by the earlier review led to subsequent main studies. Twelve studies which were interventional pilot/feasibility studies and which included testing of some component of the research process were identified through the UKCRN Portfolio database. There was no clear distinction in use of the terms 'pilot' and 'feasibility'. Five journal editors replied to our entreaty. In general they were loathe to publish studies described as 'pilot'.
Conclusion: Pilot studies are still poorly reported, with inappropriate emphasis on hypothesis-testing. Authors should be aware of the different requirements of pilot studies, feasibility studies and main studies and report them appropriately. Authors should be explicit as to the purpose of a pilot study. The definitions of feasibility and pilot studies vary and we make proposals here to clarify terminology
Pilot Projects in Water Management
No full textPilot projects appear in many forms in policy making and management. In an effort to understand the nature and use of pilot projects and improve their effectiveness, we undertake a practice-based and theoretical study of the pilot project phenomenon. First, we examine the roles assigned to pilot projects in the policy development literature and explore their use in a Dutch water innovation platform. Second, we determine characteristics of pilot projects to deepen insights into the nature of the pilot project phenomenon and the dimensions useful in the design of pilot projects. Third, we identify three pilot types and nine ways to use a pilot project and we develop a Pilot Project Nonagon that can be used to assess pilot projects’ uses and to compare stakeholders’ perspectives on these uses. Fourth, we identify hurdles to diffusion of the knowledge developed from pilot projects and suggest strategies to overcome these. Lastly, we formulate a research agenda aimed at addressing the identified knowledge gaps.Multi Actor SystemsTechnology, Policy and Managemen
Understanding pilot biodynamical feedthrough coupling in helicopter adverse roll axis instability via lateral cyclic feedback control
No full textThe authors thank Joost Venrooij, Project Leader at the Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, for providing the experimental results obtained on SIMONA flight simulator (TU Delft).The paper reassesses the mechanism of biodynamical feedthrough coupling to helicopter body motion in lateral-roll helicopter tasks. An analytical bio-aeroelastic pilot–vehicle model is first developed and tested for various pilot's neuromuscular adaptions in the lateral/roll axis helicopter tasks. The results demonstrate that pilot can destabilize the low-frequency regressing lead-lag rotor mode; however he/she is destabilizing also the high-frequency advancing lag rotor mode. The mechanism of pilot destabilization involves three vicious energy circles, i.e. lateral-roll, flap-roll and flap-lag motions, in a very similar manner as in the air resonance phenomenon. For both modes, the destabilization is very sensitive to an increase of the steady state rotor coning angle that increases the energy transfers from flap to lag motion through Coriolis forces. The analytical linear time-invariant model developed in this paper can be also used to investigate designs proneness to lateral/roll aeroelastic rotorcraft–pilot couplings.This work was supported by the “Complex Mechanical Systems Dynamics” Chair – Airbus Group Foundation and the engineering school Arts et Metiers Paristech
J. Willard Marriott dressed in Air Force pilot gear boarding a plane during the "Joint Civilian Orientation Conference."
No full textPhotograph of J. Willard Marriott and an unidentified man, J. Willard dressed in Air Force pilot gear boarding a plane during the "Joint Civilian Orientation Conference, 1954.
Questions asked and answered in pilot and feasibility randomized controlled trials
No full textAbstract Background In the last decade several authors have reviewed the features of pilot and feasibility studies and advised on the issues that should be addressed within them. We extend this literature by examining published pilot/feasibility trials that incorporate random allocation, examining their stated objectives, results presented and conclusions drawn, and comparing drug and non-drug trials. Methods A search of EMBASE and MEDLINE databases for 2000 to 2009 revealed 3652 papers that met our search criteria. A random sample of 50 was selected for detailed review. Results Most of the papers focused on efficacy: those reporting drug trials additionally addressed safety/toxicity; while those reporting non-drug trials additionally addressed methodological issues. In only 56% (95% confidence intervals 41% to 70%) were methodological issues discussed in substantial depth, 18% (95% confidence interval 9% to 30%) discussed future trials and only 12% (95% confidence interval 5% to 24%) of authors were actually conducting one. Conclusions Despite recent advice on topics that can appropriately be described as pilot or feasibility studies the large majority of recently published papers where authors have described their trial as a pilot or addressing feasibility do not primarily address methodological issues preparatory to planning a subsequent study, and this is particularly so for papers reporting drug trials. Many journals remain willing to accept the pilot/feasibility designation for a trial, possibly as an indication of inconclusive results or lack of adequate sample size.</p
‘Putting Life in Years’ (PLINY) telephone friendship groups research study: pilot randomised controlled trial
No full textBackground - Loneliness in older people is associated with poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We undertook a parallel-group randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telephone befriending for the maintenance of HRQoL in older people. An internal pilot tested the feasibility of the trial and intervention.
Methods - Participants aged >74 years, with good cognitive function, living independently in one UK city were recruited through general practices and other sources, then randomised to: (1) 6 weeks of short one to one telephone calls, followed by 12 weeks of group telephone calls with up to six participants, led by a trained volunteer facilitator; or (2) a control group. The main trial required the recruitment of 248 participants in a 1-year accrual window, of whom 124 were to receive telephone befriending. The pilot specified three success criteria which had to be met in order to progress the main trial to completion: recruitment of 68 participants in 95 days; retention of 80% participants at 6 months; successful delivery of telephone befriending by local franchise of national charity. The primary clinical outcome was the Short Form (36) Health Instrument (SF-36) Mental Health (MH) dimension score collected by telephone 6 months following randomisation.
Results - We informed 9,579 older people about the study. Seventy consenting participants were randomised to the pilot in 95 days, with 56 (80%) providing valid primary outcome data (26 intervention, 30 control). Twenty-four participants randomly allocated to the research arm actually received telephone befriending due to poor recruitment and retention of volunteer facilitators. The trial was closed early as a result. The mean 6-month SF-36 MH scores were 78 (SD 18) and 71 (SD 21) for the intervention and control groups, respectively (mean difference, 7; 95% CI, -3 to 16).
Conclusions - Recruitment and retention of participants to a definitive trial with a recruitment window of 1 year is feasible. For the voluntary sector to recruit sufficient volunteers to match demand for telephone befriending created by trial recruitment would require the study to be run in more than one major population centre, and/or involve dedicated management of volunteers
- …
