University of York

About: University of York is a education organization based out in York, York, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Health care. The organization has 22089 authors who have published 56925 publications receiving 2458285 citations. The organization is also known as: York University & Ebor..

Effects of differences in mineralization on the mechanical properties of bone

Abstract: There is a considerable variation in the mineralization of bone; normal, non-pathological compact bone has ash masses ranging from 45 to 85% by mass. This range of mineralization results in an even greater range of mechanical properties. The Young modulus of elasticity can range from 4 to 32 GPa, bending strength from 50 to 300 MPa, and the work of fracture from 200 to 7000 Jm-2. It is not possible for any one type of bone to have high values for all three properties. Very high values of mineralization produce high values of Young modulus but low values of work of fracture (which is a measure of fracture toughness). Rather low values of mineralization are associated with high values of work of fracture but low values of Young modulus and intermediate values of bending strength. The reason for the high value for the Young modulus associated with high mineralization is intuitively obvious, but has not yet been rigorously modelled. The low fracture toughness associated with high mineralization may be caused by the failure of various crack-stopping mechanisms that can act when the mineral crystals in bone have not coalesced, but which become ineffective when the volume fraction of mineral becomes too high. The adoption of different degrees of mineralization by different bones, leading to different sets of mechanical properties, is shown to be adaptive in most cases studied, but some puzzles still remain.

PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews.

Abstract: Introduction For any health intervention, accurate knowledge of both benefits and harms is needed. Systematic reviews often compound poor reporting of harms in primary studies by failing to report harms or doing so inadequately. While the PRISMA statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) helps systematic review authors ensure complete and transparent reporting, it is focused mainly on efficacy. Thus, a PRISMA harms checklist has been developed to improve harms reporting in systematic reviews, promoting a more balanced assessment of benefits and harms. Methods A development strategy, endorsed by the EQUATOR Network and existing reporting guidelines (including the PRISMA statement, PRISMA for abstracts, and PRISMA for protocols), was used. After the development of a draft checklist of items, a modified Delphi process was initiated. The Delphi consisted of three rounds of electronic feedback followed by an in-person meeting. Results The PRISMA harms checklist contains four essential reporting elements to be added to the original PRISMA statement to improve harms reporting in reviews. These are reported in the title (“Specifically mention ‘harms’ or other related terms, or the harm of interest in the review”), synthesis of results (“Specify how zero events were handled, if relevant”), study characteristics (“Define each harm addressed, how it was ascertained (eg, patient report, active search), and over what time period”), and synthesis of results (“Describe any assessment of possible causality”). Additional guidance regarding existing PRISMA items was developed to demonstrate relevance when synthesising information about harms. Conclusion The PRISMA harms checklist identifies a minimal set of items to be reported when reviewing adverse events. This guideline extension is intended to improve harms reporting in systematic reviews, whether harms are a primary or secondary outcome.

Lay perspectives: advantages for health research

Abstract: Although involvement of the consumer is increasingly being advocated in health related research, it is not welcome universally. Furthermore, the underlying rationale is rarely made explicit. Policy makers, health care professionals, and researchers need to be clear about the benefits and ways of including lay perspectives and the criteria for evaluating these. Examples of lay involvement in setting research agendas,1 2 3 4 methodological debate,5 and specific projects4 6 4 are accumulating, but little clear evidence about the benefits and costs of different ways of incorporating lay input into health services research is available. We outline two basic reasons for incorporating lay perspectives into research and discuss some common objections. A framework is offered to help clarify the dimensions of lay involvement in health research. We use the term “lay” to mean people who are neither health care professionals nor health services researchers, but who may have specialised knowledge related to health. This includes patients, the general public, and consumer advocates. The current interest in incorporating lay perspectives into health services research reflects broad social and political trends and developments in health care that have involved some breaching of the boundaries between medical professionals and others. The assumptions that the “experts”–doctors and biomedical researchers—are the best judges of what research is needed and should be exempt from democratic accountability are questioned. In addition, theoretical and empirical work on the philosophy and sociology of science has shown that the culture and values of those involved can influence research and the knowledge derived from it.8 The relevance of much research that has been driven by narrow professional and academic interests is increasingly being questioned.9 10 ![][1] #### Summary points Including lay people in health services research has been mandated politically and could improve the quality and impact of research Patients and … [1]: /embed/graphic-1.gif

Does organisational culture influence health care performance? A review of the evidence.

Abstract: Objective: To review the evidence for a relationship between organisational culture and health care performance.Methods: Qualitative comprehensive review: all empirical studies exploring a relationship between organisational culture (broadly defined) and health care performance (broadly defined) were identified by a comprehensive search of the literature. Study methods and results were analysed qualitatively to provide a narrative review with integrative discussion.Results: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. There was considerable variation in the design, study setting, quality of reporting and aspects of culture/performance considered. Four of the ten studies reviewed in detail claimed to have uncovered supportive evidence for the hypothesis that culture and performance are linked. All the other studies failed to find a link, though none provided strong evidence against the hypothesis.Conclusions: There is some evidence to suggest that organisational culture may be a relevant factor in health care p...