Teesside University

About: Teesside University is a education organization based out in Middlesbrough, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Context (language use). The organization has 2155 authors who have published 5540 publications receiving 118373 citations. The organization is also known as: University of Teesside.

Poverty talk: how people experiencing poverty deny their poverty and why they blame ‘the poor’

Abstract: Drawing on life history interviews with sixty men and women in north-east England who were caught up in ‘the low-pay, no-pay cycle’, this article describes how people living in poverty talk about p...

Cyberspace divide: equality, agency and policy in the information society

Abstract: From the Publisher: Politicians, policy makers and business gurus are all encouraging us to join the information superhighway at the nearest junction or risk being excluded from the social and economic benefits of the information revolution. Cyberspace Divide critically considers the complex relationship between technological change, its effect upon social divisions, its consequences for social action an the emerging strategies for social inclusion in the Information Age. The contributors cover such themes as human interaction, ethical behavior, and the growing disparity between the information rich and the information poor.

BIM in facilities management applications: a case study of a large university complex

Abstract: Purpose – Building information modelling (BIM) in facilities management (FM) applications is an emerging area of research based on the theoretical proposition that BIM information, generated and captured during the lifecycle of a facility, can improve its management. Using this proposition as a starting point, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the value of BIM and the challenges affecting its adoption in FM applications. Design/methodology/approach – Two inter-related research methods are utilised. The literature is utilised to identify the application areas, value and challenges of BIM in FM. Due to the lack of case studies identified in the literature review, and to provide empirical evidence of the value and challenges of BIM in FM, a case study of Northumbria University’s city campus, is used to empirically explore the value and challenges of BIM in FM. Findings – The results demonstrated that BIM value in FM stems from improvement to current manual processes of information handover; improve...

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for older people with hip fractures

Abstract: Background Hip fracture is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in older people, and its impact on society is substantial. After surgery, people require rehabilitation to help them recover. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation is where rehabilitation is delivered by a multidisciplinary team, supervised by a geriatrician, rehabilitation physician or other appropriate physician. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2009. Objectives To assess the effects of multidisciplinary rehabilitation, in either inpatient or ambulatory care settings, for older people with hip fracture. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase (October 2020), and two trials registers (November 2019). Selection criteria We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials of post-surgical care using multidisciplinary rehabilitation of older people (aged 65 years or over) with hip fracture. The primary outcome - 'poor outcome' - was a composite of mortality and decline in residential status at long-term (generally one year) follow-up. The other 'critical' outcomes were health-related quality of life, mortality, dependency in activities of daily living, mobility, and related pain. Data collection and analysis Pairs of review authors independently performed study selection, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We pooled data where appropriate and used GRADE for assessing the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Main results The 28 included trials involved 5351 older (mean ages ranged from 76.5 to 87 years), usually female, participants who had undergone hip fracture surgery. There was substantial clinical heterogeneity in the trial interventions and populations. Most trials had unclear or high risk of bias for one or more items, such as blinding-related performance and detection biases. We summarise the findings for three comparisons below. Inpatient rehabilitation: multidisciplinary rehabilitation versus 'usual care' Multidisciplinary rehabilitation was provided primarily in an inpatient setting in 20 trials. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation probably results in fewer cases of 'poor outcome' (death or deterioration in residential status, generally requiring institutional care) at 6 to 12 months' follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 0.98; 13 studies, 3036 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on an illustrative risk of 347 people with hip fracture with poor outcome in 1000 people followed up between 6 and 12 months, this equates to 41 (95% CI 7 to 69) fewer people with poor outcome after multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Expressed in terms of numbers needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH), 25 patients (95% CI 15 to 100) would need to be treated to avoid one 'poor outcome'. Subgroup analysis by type of multidisciplinary rehabilitation intervention showed no evidence of subgroup differences. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation may result in fewer deaths in hospital but the confidence interval does not exclude a small increase in the number of deaths (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.04; 11 studies, 2455 participants; low-certainty evidence). A similar finding applies at 4 to 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05; 18 studies, 3973 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multidisciplinary rehabilitation may result in fewer people with poorer mobility at 6 to 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.98; 5 studies, 1085 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to very low-certainty evidence, we have little confidence in the findings for marginally better quality of life after multidisciplinary rehabilitation (1 study). The same applies to the mixed findings of some or no difference from multidisciplinary rehabilitation on dependence in activities of daily living at 1 to 4 months' follow-up (measured in various ways by 11 studies), or at 6 to 12 months' follow-up (13 studies). Long-term hip-related pain was not reported. Ambulatory setting: supported discharge and multidisciplinary home rehabilitation versus 'usual care' Three trials tested this comparison in 377 people mainly living at home. Due to very low-certainty evidence, we have very little confidence in the findings of little to no between-group difference in poor outcome (death or move to a higher level of care or inability to walk) at one year (3 studies); quality of life at one year (1 study); in mortality at 4 or 12 months (2 studies); in independence in personal activities of daily living (1 study); in moving permanently to a higher level of care (2 studies) or being unable to walk (2 studies). Long-term hip-related pain was not reported. One trial tested this comparison in 240 nursing home residents. There is low-certainty evidence that there may be no or minimal between-group differences at 12 months in 'poor outcome' defined as dead or unable to walk; or in mortality at 4 months or 12 months. Due to very low-certainty evidence, we have very little confidence in the findings of no between-group differences in dependency at 4 weeks or at 12 months, or in quality of life, inability to walk or pain at 12 months. Authors' conclusions In a hospital inpatient setting, there is moderate-certainty evidence that rehabilitation after hip fracture surgery, when delivered by a multidisciplinary team and supervised by an appropriate medical specialist, results in fewer cases of 'poor outcome' (death or deterioration in residential status). There is low-certainty evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation may result in fewer deaths in hospital and at 4 to 12 months; however, it may also result in slightly more. There is low-certainty evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation may reduce the numbers of people with poorer mobility at 12 months. No conclusions can be drawn on other outcomes, for which the evidence is of very low certainty. The generally very low-certainty evidence available for supported discharge and multidisciplinary home rehabilitation means that we are very uncertain whether the findings of little or no difference for all outcomes between the intervention and usual care is true. Given the prevalent clinical emphasis on early discharge, we suggest that research is best orientated towards early supported discharge and identifying the components of multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation to optimise patient recovery within hospital and the components of multidisciplinary rehabilitation, including social care, subsequent to hospital discharge.