Université de Sherbrooke

About: Université de Sherbrooke is a education organization based out in Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Receptor. The organization has 14922 authors who have published 28783 publications receiving 792511 citations. The organization is also known as: Universite de Sherbrooke & Sherbrooke University.

Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 levels: a systematic review of 12 years of educational research

Abstract: The relationship that exists between students and science and technology (S&T) is a complex and important one. If it is positive, then social, economic and environmental consequences are to be expected. Yet, many problems of interest/motivation/attitude (I/M/A) towards S&T have been recorded. A lot of research has been conducted on this topic and a certain number of syntheses have been proposed, but very few of them have followed sufficiently systematic procedures. In this article, we offer a synthetic and systematic description of 228 research articles that were published between 2000 and 2012 and indexed in the ERIC database under I/M/A for S&T at K-12 levels. We focus on the origin of these articles, on the constructs they use and define, on the instruments, and finally on the results they provide, whether correlative or causal. Conclusions and recommendations for future research and interventions are formulated.

Multimorbidity's many challenges

Abstract: Patients with multiple conditions are the rule rather than the exception in primary care.1 In a recent study of 21 family practices in the Saguenay region, Quebec, the prevalence of multimorbidity was 69% in 18-44 year olds, 93% in 45-64 year olds, and 98% in those aged over 65, and the number of chronic conditions varied from 2.8 in the youngest to 6.4 in the oldest.1 Other countries report a similar burden.2 3 The number of Americans with multimorbidity is estimated to rise from 60 million in 2000 to 81 million by 2020.4 Having multiple chronic medical conditions is associated with poor outcomes: patients have decreased quality of life,5 psychological distress,6 longer hospital stays, more postoperative complications, a higher cost of care, and higher mortality. Multimorbidity also affects processes of care and may result in complex self care needs7; challenging organisational problems (accessibility, coordination, consultation time); polypharmacy; increased use of emergency facilities; difficulty in applying guidelines; and fragmented, costly, and ineffective care. Yet most research and clinical practice is still based on a single disease paradigm which may not be appropriate for patients with complex and overlapping health problems. Classic clinical trials tend to emphasise efficacy at the expense of effectiveness. In doing so, they exclude patients with multiple conditions, thereby compromising the external validity and the relevance of the trials for this population.8 Research on multimorbidity is in its infancy.9 So far, most research has investigated the epidemiology of multimorbidity, its effect on physical functioning, and its measurement. Much less studied is the effect of multimorbidity on processes of care and what constitutes “best care” for these patients. Areas for potential investigation of multimorbidity fall primarily into three categories—defining and categorising the population; developing the tools needed to explore multimorbidity and its consequences; and using these tools to investigate promising processes of care. Who are the patients with several conditions? What is their risk profile? How do we distinguish multimorbidity from related concepts such as complexity, frailty, and polypharmacy? How do we classify multimorbidity and comorbidity in terms of conditions that need disparate versus congruent treatment strategies? For example, how does the patient with coronary disease, hypertension, and diabetes differ from the one with pulmonary disease, arthritis, and depression? In which situations is a subjective or an objective measure of multimorbidity more appropriate? Investigators have begun to look at several of these complex questions, but standards have not yet been developed.10 The results of prevalence studies reveal a complex picture of coexisting diseases. We now require a clear conceptual framework that includes consistent measures of multimorbidity and permits comparisons between studies. This will facilitate the next step—investigating improved processes of care. What are the best processes for making decisions in the context of multiple, often ill defined, problems and fragmentary evidence?11 How should we assess the shifting priorities of patients and providers, design adaptive responses to unpredictable aspects of the illnesses, and organise multiple resources to achieve specific health goals?11 What affects processes of care, and what constitutes best care? Which outcomes matter to these patients in which situations? How do we implement whatever best care turns out to be? Answers to these questions will require continual experimentation, with substantial innovation and reform in healthcare delivery and organisation. Models of collaborative, patient centered, and goal oriented care are more likely to meet the complex needs of patients with multimorbidity. Involving patients in the research process and making good use of mixed methods research designs that incorporate both patient and provider perspectives may also help answer complex clinical questions. The study of multimorbidity is particularly appropriate for the international research community for several reasons. Research is in its infancy, and appropriate collaboration may minimise redundancy and promote efficient and timely research. Different international communities have varied access to administrative data that can be used to paint broad pictures of caring for people with several conditions. The World Health Organization has given priority during the next decade to worldwide prevention and care of chronic illness.12 International collaboration specifically among primary care researchers may result in patient centered and low tech care practices that can be translated into practice in varied settings and across different healthcare systems. As a step towards facilitating this collaboration, we have started a virtual research community to discuss research questions specifically directed towards international communication on multimorbidity (www.med.usherbrooke.ca/cirmo/). The increasing number of primary care research networks in many countries also offers an ideal setting for collaboration to occur. The time has come not only to include people of all ages with multimorbidity in research efforts, but to focus on improving the care of this vulnerable and growing population.

Global meta-analysis reveals no net change in local-scale plant biodiversity over time

Abstract: Global biodiversity is in decline. This is of concern for aesthetic and ethical reasons, but possibly also for practical reasons, as suggested by experimental studies, mostly with plants, showing that biodiversity reductions in small study plots can lead to compromised ecosystem function. However, inferring that ecosystem functions will decline due to biodiversity loss in the real world rests on the untested assumption that such loss is actually occurring at these small scales in nature. Using a global database of 168 published studies and >16,000 nonexperimental, local-scale vegetation plots, we show that mean temporal change in species diversity over periods of 5–261 y is not different from zero, with increases at least as likely as declines over time. Sites influenced primarily by plant species’ invasions showed a tendency for declines in species richness, whereas sites undergoing postdisturbance succession showed increases in richness over time. Other distinctions among studies had little influence on temporal richness trends. Although maximizing diversity is likely important for maintaining ecosystem function in intensely managed systems such as restored grasslands or tree plantations, the clear lack of any general tendency for plant biodiversity to decline at small scales in nature directly contradicts the key assumption linking experimental results to ecosystem function as a motivation for biodiversity conservation in nature. How often real world changes in the diversity and composition of plant communities at the local scale cause ecosystem function to deteriorate, or actually to improve, remains unknown and is in critical need of further study.

Age‐specific survival in five populations of ungulates: evidence of senescence

Abstract: Methodological problems in describing patterns of senescence in wild pop- ulations have until recently impeded progress in understanding the evolution of a process that decreases individual fitness. We investigated age- and sex-specific survival in five populations of three species of ungulates (roe deer, Capreolus capreolus; bighorn sheep, Ovis canadensis; and isard, Rupicapra pyrenaica), using recent statistical developments of capture-mark-recapture models and long-term (12 to 22 yr) data on marked individuals. The yearly survival of females aged 2-7 yr was remarkably similar and very high (92- 95%) in all five populations. Survival of adult males varied among species and populations. Survival decreased from 8 yr onward for both sexes in all populations, suggesting that senescence was a common phenomenon. Male survival was lower than female survival, and the gender difference increased with age. The extent of sex differences in survival was related neither to sexual dimorphism in mass nor to the level of polygyny, suggesting that species differences in social behavior, particularly mating system and the level of male- male aggression, may be more important than simply the level of polygyny in explaining sexual differences in survival. Our results underline the advantages of long-term monitoring of marked individuals for the study of evolutionary ecology.