Banham, Martin (ed.). A History of Theatre in Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Index. 478 pp
In: Luso-Brazilian review: LBR, Volume 42, Issue 2, p. 172-174
ISSN: 1548-9957
10 results
Sort by:
In: Luso-Brazilian review: LBR, Volume 42, Issue 2, p. 172-174
ISSN: 1548-9957
In: Luso-Brazilian review: LBR, Volume 51, Issue 2, p. 80-104
ISSN: 1548-9957
In: The Economic Journal, Volume 74, Issue 295, p. 669
In: The Economic Journal, Volume 94, Issue 374, p. 405
Abstract Surveillance of animal movements using electronic tags (i.e., biotelemetry) has emerged as an essential tool for both basic and applied ecological research and monitoring. Advances in animal tracking are occurring simultaneously with changes to technology, in an evolving global scientific culture that increasingly promotes data sharing and transparency. However, there is a risk that misuse of biotelemetry data could increase the vulnerability of animals to human disturbance or exploitation. For the most part, telemetry data security is not a danger to animals or their ecosystems, but for some high-risk cases, as with species' with high economic value or at-risk populations, available knowledge of their movements may promote active disturbance or worse, potential poaching. We suggest that when designing animal tracking studies it is incumbent on scientists to consider the vulnerability of their study animals to risks arising from the implementation of the proposed program, and to take preventative measures. ; DG Roche was supported by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 838237-OPTIMISE
BASE
Telemetry is a key, widely used tool to understand marine megafauna distribution, habitat use, behavior, and physiology; however, a critical question remains: "How many animals should be tracked to acquire meaningful data sets?" This question has wide-ranging implications including considerations of statistical power, animal ethics, logistics, and cost. While power analyses can inform sample sizes needed for statistical significance, they require some initial data inputs that are often unavailable. To inform the planning of telemetry and biologging studies of marine megafauna where few or no data are available or where resources are limited, we reviewed the types of information that have been obtained in previously published studies using different sample sizes. We considered sample sizes from one to >100 individuals and synthesized empirical findings, detailing the information that can be gathered with increasing sample sizes. We complement this review with simulations, using real data, to show the impact of sample size when trying to address various research questions in movement ecology of marine megafauna. We also highlight the value of collaborative, synthetic studies to enhance sample sizes and broaden the range, scale, and scope of questions that can be answered. ; A. M. M. Sequeira was supported by an ARC Grant (DE170100841), and the Australian Institute of Marine Science, G.C. Hays by the Bertarelli Foundation as part of the Bertarelli Programme in Marine Science, and H. J. Calich by an Australian Government RTP scholarship at UWA. Workshop funding was granted to M. Thums, A. M. M. Sequeira, and C. M. Duarte by the UWA Oceans Institute, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, and the Office of Sponsored Research at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST).
BASE
Background: The European Union (EU) aims to optimize patient protection and efficiency of health-care research by harmonizing procedures across Member States. Nonetheless, further improvements are required to increase multicenter research efficiency. We investigated IRB procedures in a large prospective European multicenter study on traumatic brain injury (TBI), aiming to inform and stimulate initiatives to improve efficiency. Methods: We reviewed relevant documents regarding IRB submission and IRB approval from European neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI). Documents included detailed information on IRB procedures and the duration from IRB submission until approval(s). They were translated and analyzed to determine the level of harmonization of IRB procedures within Europe. Results: From 18 countries, 66 centers provided the requested documents. The primary IRB review was conducted centrally (N = 11, 61%) or locally (N = 7, 39%) and primary IRB approval was obtained after one (N = 8, 44%), two (N = 6, 33%) or three (N = 4, 23%) review rounds with a median duration of respectively 50 and 98 days until primary IRB approval. Additional IRB approval was required in 55% of countries and could increase duration to 535 days. Total duration from submission until required IRB approval was obtained was 114 days (IQR 75-224) and appeared to be shorter after submission to local IRBs compared to central IRBs (50 vs. 138 days, p = 0.0074). Conclusion: We found variation in IRB procedures between and within European countries. There were differences in submission and approval requirements, number of review rounds and total duration. Research collaborations could benefit from the implementation of more uniform legislation and regulation while acknowledging local cultural habits and moral values between countries. ; Peer reviewed
BASE
Purpose: Enrolling traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients with an inability to provide informed consent in research is challenging. Alternatives to patient consent are not sufficiently embedded in European and national legislation, which allows procedural variation and bias. We aimed to quantify variations in informed consent policy and practice. Methods: Variation was explored in the CENTER-TBI study. Policies were reported by using a questionnaire and national legislation. Data on used informed consent procedures were available for 4498 patients from 57 centres across 17 European countries. Results: Variation in the use of informed consent procedures was found between and within EU member states. Proxy informed consent (N = 1377;64%) was the most frequently used type of consent in the ICU, followed by patient informed consent (N = 426;20%) and deferred consent (N = 334;16%). Deferred consent was only actively used in 15 centres (26%), although it was considered valid in 47 centres (82%). Conclusions: Alternatives to patient consent are essential for TBI research. While there seems to be concordance amongst national legislations, there is regional variability in institutional practices with respect to the use of different informed consent procedures. Variation could be caused by several reasons, including inconsistencies in clear legislation or knowledge of such legislation amongst researchers. ; Peer reviewed
BASE
Purpose: Enrolling traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients with an inability to provide informed consent in research is challenging. Alternatives to patient consent are not sufficiently embedded in European and national legislation, which allows procedural variation and bias. We aimed to quantify variations in informed consent policy and practice. Methods: Variation was explored in the CENTER-TBI study. Policies were reported by using a questionnaire and national legislation. Data on used informed consent procedures were available for 4498 patients from 57 centres across 17 European countries. Results: Variation in the use of informed consent procedures was found between and within EU member states. Proxy informed consent (N = 1377;64%) was the most frequently used type of consent in the ICU, followed by patient informed consent (N = 426;20%) and deferred consent (N = 334;16%). Deferred consent was only actively used in 15 centres (26%), although it was considered valid in 47 centres (82%). Conclusions: Alternatives to patient consent are essential for TBI research. While there seems to be concordance amongst national legislations, there is regional variability in institutional practices with respect to the use of different informed consent procedures. Variation could be caused by several reasons, including inconsistencies in clear legislation or knowledge of such legislation amongst researchers.
BASE