text:
using P02_DatabaseFirst.Data;
using P02_DatabaseFirst.Data.Models;
using System;
using System.Globalization;
using System.Linq;

namespace P02_DatabaseFirst
{
    public class Startup
    {
        public static void Main()
        {
            var db = new SoftUniAdvContext();

            EmployeesFullInformation(db);

            EmployeesWithSalaryOver50000(db);

            EmployeesFromResearchAndDevelopment(db);

            AddingNewAddressAndUpdatingEmployee(db);

            EmployeesAndProjects(db);

            AddressesByTown(db);

            Employee147(db);

            DepartmentsWithMoreThanFiveEmployees(db);

            FindLatestTenProjects(db);

            IncreaseSalaries(db);

            FindEmployeesFirstNameStartingWithSa(db);

            DeleteProjectById(db);

            RemoveTowns(db);
        }

        private static void RemoveTowns(SoftUniAdvContext db)
        {
            using (db)
            {
                var townToRemove = Console.ReadLine();

                db.Employees.Where(e => e.Address.Town.Name.Equals(townToRemove)).ToList().ForEach(e => e.AddressId = null);

                var addressesToRemove = db.Addresses.Where(a => a.Town.Name.Equals(townToRemove));

                db.Addresses.RemoveRange(addressesToRemove);

                db.Towns.Remove(db.Towns.First(t => t.Name.Equals(townToRemove)));

                if (addressesToRemove.Count() == 1)
                {
                    Console.WriteLine($"1 address in {townToRemove} was deleted");
                }
                else
                {
                    Console.WriteLine($"{addressesToRemove.Count()} addresses in {townToRemove} were deleted");
                }
            }
        }

        private static void DeleteProjectById(SoftUniAdvContext db)
        {
            using (db)
            {
                db.EmployeesProjects.RemoveRange(db.EmployeesProjects.Where(ep => ep.ProjectId == 2));

                db.Projects.Remove(db.Projects.First(p => p.ProjectId == 2));

                db.SaveChanges();

                db.Projects.Take(10).Select(p => p.Name).ToList().ForEach(n => Console.WriteLine(n));
            }
        }

        private static void FindEmployeesFirstNameStartingWithSa(SoftUniAdvContext db)
        {
            using (db)
            {
                db.Employees
                    .Where(e => e.FirstName.StartsWith("Sa"))
                    .Select(e => new
                    {
                        e.FirstName,
                        e.LastName,
                        e.JobTitle,
                        e.Salary
                    })
                    .OrderBy(e => e.FirstName).ThenBy(e => e.LastName)
                    .ToList()
                    .ForEach(e => Console.WriteLine($"{e.FirstName} {e.LastName} - {e.JobTitle} - (${e.Salary:f2})"));
            }
        }

        private static void IncreaseSalaries(SoftUniAdvContext db)
        {
            using (db)
            {
                db.Employees
                    .Where(e => e.Department.Name.Equals("Engineering") || e.Department.Name.Equals("Tool Design") || e.Department.Name.Equals("Marketing") || e.Department.Name.Equals("Information Services"))
                    .Select(e => new
                    {
                        e.FirstName,
                        e.LastName,
                        Salary = e.Salary + (e.Salary * 0.12m)
                    })
                    .OrderBy(e => e.FirstName).ThenBy(e => e.LastName)
                    .ToList()
                    .ForEach(e => Console.WriteLine($"{e.FirstName} {e.LastName} (${e.Salary:f2})"));
            }
        }

        private static void FindLatestTenProjects(SoftUniAdvContext db)
        {
            using (db)
            {
                db.Projects
                    .OrderByDescending(p => p.StartDate)
                    .Take(10)
                    .Select(p => new
                    {
                        p.Name,
                        p.Description,
                        StartDate = p.StartDate.ToString("M/d/yyyy h:mm:ss tt", CultureInfo.InvariantCulture)
                    })
                    .OrderBy(p => p.Name)
                    .ToList()
                    .ForEach((p) =>
                    {
                        Console.WriteLine(p.Name);
                        Console.WriteLine();
                        Console.WriteLine(p.Description);
                        Console.WriteLine();
                        Console.WriteLine(p.StartDate);
                    });
            }
        }

        private static void DepartmentsWithMoreThanFiveEmployees(SoftUniAdvContext db)
        {
            using (db)
            {
                db.Departments
                    .Where(d => d.Employees.Count > 5)
                    .OrderBy(d => d.Employees.Count).ThenBy(d => d.Name)
                    .Select(d => new
                    {
                        ManagerName = $"{d.Manager.FirstName} {d.Manager.LastName}",
                        d.Name,
                        Employees = d.Employees.Select(e => new
                        {
                            Name = $"{e.FirstName} {e.LastName}",
                            e.JobTitle
                        })
                    })
                    .ToList()
                    .ForEach((d) =>
                    {
                        Console.WriteLine($"{d.Name} – {d.ManagerName}");

                        foreach (var employee in d.Employees)
                        {
                            Console.WriteLine($"{employee.Name} - {employee.JobTitle}");
                        }

                        Console.WriteLine("----------");
                    });
            }
        }

        private static void Employee147(SoftUniAdvContext db)
        {
            using (db)
            {
                db.Employees
                    .Where(e => e.EmployeeId == 147)
                    .Select(e => new
                    {
                        Name = $"{e.FirstName} {e.LastName}",
                        e.JobTitle,
                        Projects = e.EmployeeProjects.Select(ep => ep.Project.Name).OrderBy(pn => pn)
                    })
                    .ToList()
                    .ForEach((e) =>
                    {
                        Console.WriteLine($"{e.Name} - {e.JobTitle}");

                        foreach (var project in e.Projects)
                        {
                            Console.WriteLine(project);
                        }
                    });
            }
        }

        private static void AddressesByTown(SoftUniAdvContext db)
        {
            using (db)
            {
                db.Addresses
                    .OrderByDescending(a => a.Employees.Count).ThenBy(a => a.Town.Name).ThenBy(a => a.AddressText)
                    .Take(10)
                    .Select(a => new
                    {
                        AddressText = a.AddressText,
                        TownName = a.Town.Name,
                        EmployeeCount = a.Employees.Count
                    })
                    .ToList()
                    .ForEach(a => Console.WriteLine($"{a.AddressText}, {a.TownName} - {a.EmployeeCount} employees"));
            }
        }

        private static void EmployeesAndProjects(SoftUniAdvContext db)
        {
            using (db)
            {
                db.Employees.Where(e => e.EmployeeProjects.Any(ep => ep.Project.StartDate.Year >= 2001 && ep.Project.StartDate.Year <= 2003))
                            .Take(30)
                            .Select(e => new
                            {
                                Name = $"{e.FirstName} {e.LastName}",
                                ManagerName = $"{e.Manager.FirstName} {e.Manager.LastName}",
                                Projects = e.EmployeeProjects.Select(ep => new
                                {
                                    ProjectName = ep.Project.Name,
                                    StartDate = ep.Project.StartDate,
                                    EndDate = ep.Project.EndDate
                                })
                            })
                            .ToList()
                            .ForEach((e) =>
                            {
                                Console.WriteLine($"{e.Name} – Manager: {e.ManagerName}");

                                var format = "M/d/yyyy h:mm:ss tt";

                                foreach (var project in e.Projects)
                                {
                                    if (project.EndDate == null)
                                    {
                                        Console.WriteLine($"--{project.ProjectName} - {project.StartDate.ToString(format, CultureInfo.InvariantCulture)} - not finished");
                                    }
                                    else
                                    {
                                        Console.WriteLine($"--{project.ProjectName} - {project.StartDate.ToString(format, CultureInfo.InvariantCulture)} - {((DateTime)project.EndDate).ToString(format, CultureInfo.InvariantCulture)}");
                                    }
                                }
                            });
            }
        }

        private static void AddingNewAddressAndUpdatingEmployee(SoftUniAdvContext db)
        {
            using (db)
            {
                var address = new Address()
                {
                    AddressText = "Vitoshka 15",
                    TownId = 4
                };

                db.Addresses.Add(address);

                var employee = db.Employees.First(e => e.LastName.Equals("Nakov"));
                employee.Address = address;

                db.SaveChanges();

                db.Employees.OrderByDescending(e => e.AddressId).Take(10).Select(e => e.Address.AddressText).ToList().ForEach(a => Console.WriteLine(a));
            }
        }

        private static void EmployeesFromResearchAndDevelopment(SoftUniAdvContext db)
        {
            using (db)
            {
                db.Employees.Where(e => e.Department.Name.Equals("Research and Development"))
                    .OrderBy(e => e.Salary).ThenByDescending(e => e.FirstName)
                    .Select(e => new { e.FirstName, e.LastName, e.Department.Name, e.Salary})
                    .ToList().ForEach(e => Console.WriteLine($"{e.FirstName} {e.LastName} from {e.Name} - ${e.Salary:f2}"));
            }
        }

        private static void EmployeesWithSalaryOver50000(SoftUniAdvContext db)
        {
            using (db)
            {
                db.Employees.Where(e => e.Salary > 50000).OrderBy(e => e.FirstName).Select(e => e.FirstName).ToList().ForEach(e => Console.WriteLine(e));
            }
        }

        private static void EmployeesFullInformation(SoftUniAdvContext db)
        {
            using (db)
            {
                var employees = db.Employees;

                foreach (var employee in employees.OrderBy(e => e.EmployeeId))
                {
                    Console.WriteLine($"{employee.FirstName} {employee.LastName} {employee.MiddleName} {employee.JobTitle} {employee.Salary:f2}");
                }
            }
        }
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Italian actress, filmmaker and veteran insect reenactor Isabella Rossellini has teamed up with Burt's Bees to create a thoroughly bizarre set of PSAs titled "Burt Talks to the Bees," which look at the troubling decline in bee populations due to colony collapse disorder. Donning a paper beard, Rossellini takes the role of "Burt" himself, a real-life beekeeper who founded the company some 25 years ago, and imagines the conversations he might have with his own bee population about their plight (the bees too, played by Rossellini). The videos come just in time for National Pollinator Week, which was established by the US Senate five years ago to raise awareness of declining pollinator populations. Find out more and watch the PSAs over on Ecouterre!
Italian actress, filmmaker and veteran insect reenactor Isabella Rossellini has teamed up with Burt's Bees to create a thoroughly bizarre set of PSAs titled "Burt Talks to the Bees," which look at the troubling decline in bee populations due to colony collapse disorder. Donning a paper beard, Rossellini takes the role of "Burt" himself, a real-life beekeeper who founded the company some 25 years ago, and imagines the conversations he might have with his own bee population about their plight (the bees too, played by Rossellini). The videos come just in time for National Pollinator Week, which was established by the US Senate five years ago to raise awareness of declining pollinator populations. Find out more and watch the PSAs over on Ecouterre!


If you've been following TWR's adoration of Fashion Guru Diane Vreeland ( there was the accessory range, the film and then another book) you'll be interested to know there's a new book out, written by Amanda MacKenzie Stuart. I haven't read it yet but it got great reviews by Helen Brown in The Guardian this Saturday. One for the fashion library methinks.
I finished it last month, it is fantastic and quite inspiring! My copy is all marked up with underlines, her commentary is still so relevant today.


text:
GAVI calls for $7.5B to protect 300 million children by 2020
by Carly Helfand |
The GAVI Alliance has already saved about 6 million lives through its funding of low-cost immunization for developing countries. And now, it's looking to save 6 million more through 2020.
GAVI Chair Dagfinn Høybråten
To do so, the organization Tuesday called on donors to back its plans to help immunize 300 million children between 2016 and 2020--plans that will require $7.5 billion in addition to the $2 billion it already has on hand for that period.
"We are faced with an historic opportunity to support countries to build sustainable immunization programs that will protect entire generations of children," GAVI Chair Dagfinn Høybråten said in a statement. "The investments we all make now can ensure the equivalent of two children every second will be reached with GAVI-supported vaccines for five years and secure the future health and economic prosperity of all our children in years to come."
GAVI, supported by the World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, world governments and others, uses its funding to negotiate with drugmakers like GlaxoSmithKline ($GSK), Sanofi ($SNY) and Merck ($MRK) to cut vaccine prices for the world's poorest countries. The alliance's efforts have led to a 37% decrease in cost for a GAVI-eligible country to vaccinate a child against preventable conditions like HPV and rotavirus since 2010.
The European Commission, co-host of a GAVI replenishment event this week in Brussels, has already kicked off the contributions, pledging to increase the EU's chip-in to the alliance €175 million, up from €39 million in the previous period.
EU President José Manuel Barroso
"It is horrible and unacceptable that around 1.5 million children still die each year from diseases which could be prevented by a simple vaccine," EU President José Manuel Barroso told the conference. "…We are committed, in the long term, to doing all we can to make sure that more men, women and children have access to life saving vaccines, no matter where they live."
- read the GAVI release
- read the EU release
Merck vaccine hopeful to battle Pfizer's Prevnar in phase 3
Merck has a big target in mind for its pneumococcal vaccine V114: Prevnar 13, the world's best-selling shot—and its phase 3 program shows it.
by Eric Sagonowsky Apr 18, 2018 9:29am
Merck's Ebola vaccine appears to provide long-term shield: study
A Lancet Infectious Diseases study shows antibody response persists for two years or more after a single shot of Merck's rVSV-ZEBOV vaccine.
by Angus Liu Apr 17, 2018 11:15am
Pfizer R&D chief sees pipeline shots filling Prevnar decline
Behind the under-pressure blockbuster Prevnar 13 are several pipeline vaccines Pfizer hopes will propel future growth.
by Eric Sagonowsky Apr 10, 2018 10:10am
Carly Helfand

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


US-based Sensor Products LLC is a world leader in the manufacture and distribution of tactile pressure sensing solutions. Their sensors are used in applications as diverse as tire testing to semiconductor manufacturing to R&D labs to space missions.
Smiths Detection offers advanced security solutions in civil and military markets worldwide, developing and manufacturing government-regulated technology products that identify explosives, chemical and biological agents, weapons, and contraband.
Smiths Detection manufactures technologically advanced security solutions to detect and identify explosives, chemical and biological agents, weapons, and contraband, plus specialist applications for life sciences and food manufacturing industries.


In a city full of broken homes, Denzel Howard's burned to the ground.
Sitting in honors chemistry class at Leo 14 months ago last week, Howard received a text message from a cousin urging him to get home immediately.
The track-and-field standout saw smoke and flames throughout his three-block sprint home from the small Catholic school on the South Side. His biggest fear was not realized, but the damage was irreparable.
As it turned out, Mirtha Howard was working, which has served as a useful reminder that as bad as things got, they could have been worse.
Howard, a senior sprinter and member of the 400-meter relay team that finished second in the state in Class 1A last year, isn't the only Leo runner to overcome adversity and get his life back on track.
None has dealt with more.
"Everything was gone," Howard said. "We lost everything. We've been moving around. I lived with my auntie in Harvey, then with my sister in Dixmoor and now I'm on 83rd and Dorchester.
Determined to stay off the streets and focus on his lifelong goal of attending college, Howard used track as an escape and learned to play the piano through the After School Matters program.
He leaned on his mother and Leo track coach and athletic director Edward Adams for support, refused to fall behind in school and gained acceptance to Computer Systems Institute, where he will attend after becoming the first member of his family to graduate high school.
In a city full of broken homes, Rueben Blackwell's is being mended.
When his mother died four years ago, Blackwell moved in with one of the five sisters he has from that side of his family.
He has two additional sisters through his father, though that side of his family was not a part of his life.
Blackwell recently moved from the South Side to Rogers Park to live with his father.
An honors student and state-championship contender in the hurdles, Blackwell is being recruited by several colleges and has narrowed his choices to Alcorn State and Mississippi Valley State.
"You have to find other ways to motivate yourself," Blackwell said. "Some kids have their father to push them. When I met Mr. Adams, to me, he was my motivation. He and my sister kept me on the right path.
In a city full of broken homes, Bruce Gray counts his blessings.
Gray and his three sisters grew up in a stable, loving environment.
Gray said his mother and father battled alcohol and substance abuse problems, and he and his sisters have lived with their grandmother since the senior was in first grade.
He said his parents' absence — they live separately in Wisconsin — still bothers him. Adams was the only person he ever spoke to about his parents until being interviewed for this story.
"My mother is better now," said Gray, a state-championship contender in the sprints who is being recruited by North Central, Benedictine and Miami (Ohio).


text:
Canción del Sur es un álbum editado por la banda chilena Los Jaivas en el año 1977. Corresponde a la tercera producción grabada en Argentina, y marca una continuación del sonido rock progresivo del disco El Indio, de 1975 y una aproximación a la sonoridad característica de los arreglos para instrumentos electrónicos y folclóricos de discos posteriores, como Alturas de Macchu Picchu y Obras de Violeta Parra. De hecho, constituye la primera aparición formal del minimoog en un disco de Los Jaivas, hecho que resultaría capital en el sonido de la banda.

En abril de 2008, la edición chilena de la revista Rolling Stone situó a este álbum como el 16.º mejor disco chileno de todos los tiempos.

Historia
Canción del Sur nace de la experiencia de Los Jaivas al vivir en Zárate, Provincia de Buenos Aires y Buenos Aires Capital Federal entre 1973 y 1977, desde donde proyectaron giras por diferentes países de Latinoamérica, además del interior de Argentina, lo que les permitió descubrir esta cultura, y sus paisajes, generando imágenes y sentimientos que marcaron la creatividad del grupo. En particular, sus visitas a la Patagonia son las que inspiran el tema del título del disco. Para este álbum la banda está conformada por seis integrantes: Pájaro Canzani, en bajo, reemplaza a Julio Anderson (que había reemplazado a Mario Mutis para las sesiones de El Indio), y el sexto Jaiva Alberto Ledo se les une en variados instrumentos de cuerda y viento. Como ambos cantan, es posible aumentar las armonías vocales desarrolladas en cada tema, lo que es apreciable en varios cortes de este disco y los sencillos que le siguieron.

Contenido

Hay tres temas principales en el disco; el tema que le da título evoca con una letra poética y nostálgica los paisajes del sur de Latinoamérica y sirve de escenario para la irrupción del minimoog (ejecutado en un extenso solo por Eduardo Parra) como instrumento clave en el sonido de Los Jaivas. "Dum-Dum Tambora" es una extensa improvisación rock basada en una temática popular uruguaya, y el extenso instrumental "Danzas" combina diversos elementos de folclore latinoamericano con guitarras y sintetizadores provenientes del rock tradicional. Los otros temas, más breves, permiten a los músicos explorar otros estilos: "La Vida Mágica, ¡Ay Sí!" es un acercamiento a la cueca chilena; "Canción para los Pájaros" tiene ritmos populares del Amazonas y "En la Cumbre de un Cerro" y "Frescura Antigua" permiten que el grupo se conecte con su lado más americanista.

La edición en CD de Canción del Sur contiene, además, dos singles: uno, editado en Latinoamérica con la venia del grupo, traía como lado Al optimista tema "En Tus Horas" y como lado B una versión primitiva del "Mambo de Machaguay", que después sería regrabado en las sesiones de Aconcagua (1982); el otro, gestado por un productor externo (Eddy Owens), es señalado como una de las grabaciones más extrañas de Los Jaivas, al no tener nada que ver con su estilo de creación: se trata de dos canciones que combinan el disco con sonidos andinos, en una mezcla comercial y desechable. Los músicos graban estos dos temas, pero jamás los interpretan en vivo, y actualmente ríen al recordar su contenido.

Datos

Lista de canciones (edición original)

Letra, música y arreglos de Los Jaivas en todos los temas, excepto donde se indique:

Lado A
"La Vida Mágica, ¡Ay Sí!" – 3:17
"En la Cumbre de un Cerro" – 5:06
"Canción para los Pájaros" – 3:03
Instrumental
"Dum Dum Tambora" – 7:58
Letra: Popular uruguaya; Música y arreglos: Los Jaivas
Este tema había sido grabado por Pájaro Canzani junto con su grupo de los 70, Aguaragua

Lado B
"Canción del Sur" – 7:43
"Danzas" – 8:46
Instrumental
"Frescura Antigua" – 3:20
Instrumental

Los Jaivas - Canción del Sur - 1977 [Cd Extended]

01. La Vida Mágica, Ay Sí (3:21)
02. En La Cumbre De Un Cerro (5:06)
03. Canción Para Los Pájaros (3:14)
04. Dum Dum Tambora (7:50)
05. Canción Del Sur (7:39)
06. Danzas (8:44)
07. Frescura Antigua (3:18)
08. En Tus Horas (3:46) - bonus track
09. Mambo de Machaguay (3:34) - bonus track
10. Sueňo del Inca (3:39) - bonus track
11. Bebida Mágica (2:55) - bonus track

Músicos
Los Jaivas
Gato Alquinta – Voz, Guitarra eléctrica, Guitarra acústica, Quena, Tarka, Flauta dulce, Trutruca, Zampoña, Silbido, Pito, Cascabeles, Afoxé, Palmas, Coros
Gabriel Parra – Batería, Tumbadora, Xilófono, Caxexé, Trutruca, Tarka, Silbido, Coros
Claudio Parra – Piano, Chinchecordio, Xilófono, Carillón, Tarka, Matraca, Trutruca, Güiro, Pito, Palmas
Eduardo Parra – Piano eléctrico, Minimoog, Trutruca, Bongó, Balafón, Afoxé, Palmas
Pájaro Canzani – Bajo, Guitarra acústica, Guitarra folk (Solo en En Tus Horas y Frescura Antigua), Voz, Berimbao, Ganca, Kultrum, Cajita, Cascabeles, Palmas, Silbido, Guitarra eléctrica (Solo en Mambo de Machaguay),Coros
Alberto Ledo – Charango, Tarka, Zampoña, Trutruca, Palmas, Silbido, Coros

Invitados
Luis "D'Artagnan" Sarmiento: Coros en "La Vida Mágica ¡Ay Sí!", Palmas en "Dum Dum Tambora"
Alejandro Parra: Efectos en "Canción para los Pájaros", Coros y Palmas en "Dum Dum Tambora"
Carlos "Rosko" Melo: Palmas en "Dum Dum Tambora"
Patricio y Miguel: Palmas en "Dum Dum Tambora"

Personal

Ingenieros de grabación: Carlos García, Tito Huber
Ingeniero de remezcla: Jean Claude Leferre
Asistente de grabación: Carlos "Rosko" Melo
Ingeniero de masterización digital: Fréderic Marin
Director artístico: Luis "D'Artagnan" Sarmiento
Productor ejecutivo: Geoff Gibas
"En Tus Horas" y "Mambo de Machaguay"
Grabados y remixados en los estudios EMI Odeón de Buenos Aires, octubre de 1976
Ingeniero de grabación y remezcla: Carlos García
Director artístico: Luis "D'Artagnan" Sarmiento
Ingeniero de masterización digital: Fréderic Marin
"Bebida Mágica" y "Sueño del Inca"
Grabados en los estudios Pathé-Marconi de París, verano de 1978 **Ingeniero de grabación: Jean Claude Lefevre **Productor: Eddy Owens **Ingeniero de masterización digital: Fréderic Marin *Ilustración portada: René Olivares *Diseño gráfico: Méric & Fuentes Ltda.
 Ediciones
El LP fue también originalmente editado en Francia. La edición de CD con los cuatro bonus tracks correspondientes a los sencillos de 1976 y 1978, grabados con la misma formación del grupo, fue lanzada al mercado en 1994.

 Compilaciones
"Canción del Sur" aparece en Obras Cumbres (2002), compilado que también contiene una versión en vivo (grabada en Londres en 1979) de "La Vida Mágica, ¡Ay Sí!", originalmente recopilada en En El Bar-Restaurant 'Lo Que Nunca Se Supo' (2000). "Sueño del Inca", "Canción del Sur", "La Vida Mágica, ¡Ay Sí!", "Mambo de Machaguay" y "En Tus Horas" aparecieron en la compilación Mambo de Machaguay'', que recopiló todos los trabajos de Los Jaivas en Argentina.

Referencias

Enlaces externos
Jaivamigos

Álbumes de Los Jaivas
Álbumes de Chile de 1977

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


HUNTINGTON, W.Va., May 22, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- PREMIER FINANCIAL BANCORP, INC. (PREMIER), (nasdaq/gms:PFBI) a $1.5 billion community financial holding company with two community bank subsidiaries announced today that the board of directors has declared a 5 for 4 stock split payable to shareholders of record on June 4, 2018 and a $0.15 cash dividend payable to shareholders of record on June 15, 2018.
President and CEO, Robert W. Walker stated, "We are pleased to reward our shareholders with both the stock split and the cash dividend. The board reflected on the positive earnings performance of the company in 2017 and the first quarter of 2018, as well as the positive impact of the lower corporate income tax rate resulting from the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act, and their desire to provide shareholders with increased value. The declared stock split will result in shareholders receiving 1 additional share of common stock for every 4 shares of common stock they already own on June 4, 2018 (the record date). The shares will be added to their ownership record automatically on the payable date, June 8, 2018, with any resulting fractions of a share paid in cash at the rate of $21.23 per whole share. Since the record date of the cash dividend is after the issuance of the 5 for 4 stock split, shareholders will receive the $0.15 per share cash dividend on those additional shares, effectively increasing the cash dividend by 25% as well."
At its regularly scheduled May meeting, the board of directors resolved to issue the 5 for 4 stock split to common shareholders of record on June 4, 2018, payable to shareholders on June 8, 2018, and declared the $0.15 per share cash dividend to common shareholders of record on June 15, 2018. The cash dividend will be paid to shareholders on June 29, 2018, the last business day of the quarter.


text:
RJRC Publications
Currently viewing the tag: "news poverty"
Call for papers: Conference on local news and its future
On October 27, 2016 · In What's new
Local journalism in many jurisdictions is under threat as news outlets scale back operations, consolidate or close altogether, and many online local news sites struggle to stay afloat. Policy makers, citizens and others are now joining journalists in sounding the alarm about these losses and the potential impact on communities.
Is no news bad news? Local journalism and its future is a two-day conference scheduled for June 3-4, 2017 and organized by the Ryerson Journalism Research Centre. The conference, which will be held on the Ryerson University campus in Toronto, Ont., Canada, will bring together journalists, citizens, policy makers, educators and Canadian and international scholars to share the latest research related to local journalism and to explore potential solutions to the problems faced by this sector.
The conference will feature public panels as well as scholarly presentations dealing with local news-related issues.
The deadline for the submission of panel ideas and abstracts for research papers is Jan. 5, 2017. Presenters will be notified about the decision by Feb. 1, 2017.
For more information, click here for our Call For Papers: cfp-local-journalism-english_french-version
New research project examines local news poverty
On November 23, 2015 · In Home, What's new
The impact of newsroom cutbacks, consolidations and closures will be the focus of a new study examining local news poverty in communities outside of Canada's major media centres.
Residents of Canada's largest cities can turn to multiple sources for local news, but people who live in smaller cities, suburban municipalities and rural areas typically have fewer options, and in recent years their choices have become even more limited, says research team member April Lindgren, principle investigator for the Local News Research Project at Ryerson University's School of Journalism.
"Access to local news is important to the democratic vibrancy and health of a community because people who have access to news are then equipped to participate in decisions that affect them," Lindgren said." This project will examine the extent to which local news poverty is an issue outside of major cities where often there are still multiple newspapers and many other local news sources."
The local news poverty research team brings together scholars with expertise in journalism, social media research and participatory mapping. In addition to Lindgren, it includes Jaigris Hodson, an assistant professor of interdisciplinary studies at Royal Roads University, and Jon Corbett, an associate professor in community, culture and global studies at the University of British Columbia, Okanagan.
Mapping changes to the local news landscape
The first phase of the local news poverty study involves the launch of a crowd-sourced map that documents gains, losses, service increases, and service reductions at local online, radio, television and newspaper outlets across the country. Lindgren is responsible for the map's actual content, while the map itself is based on the Geolive participatory mapping tool developed by Corbett's SPICE Lab (Spatial Information for Community Mapping).
"This map was unlike any other map we've tried in the past primarily because of the complexity of the information that needed to be presented," Corbett said, noting that users will be able to view changes over time in a variety of ways including by media type and media ownership. When the map is launched in early 2016 it will present data on news outlet launches, closures and consolidations dating back to 2008.
Once the map is open for business, members of the public will be able to add information about changes to the local news landscape in their community. Lindgren says outreach for the crowd-sourced map will be done in phases to encourage regular contributions of new information over time. News about the map's availability will be shared, for instance, with the community associated with the Geothinkresearch project, which provided funding for the map's creation. Organizations serving journalists and news media, media workers' unions, and communications and journalism scholars will also be encouraged to contribute.
"I'm hoping that we can also get the news media interested in the map so the general public will find out about it and add information to it," Lindgren said, noting that the crowd-sourced data will be vetted to ensure the map's accuracy. The map will also include a link to a survey that asks citizens about the availability of local news in their communities and whether their information needs are being met.
Investigating local news coverage of the 2015 federal election
In its initial phase, the project will also examine the role of local news coverage and social media in the 2015 federal election.
"We want to see how much news coverage there was of local contests for MP – what could people find out from their local news media and did they get enough information to make an informed decision," said Lindgren, who will supervise the content analysis of news produced by traditional news sites in eight Canadian communities. Data on local reporting on the election was gathered by scraping all local news media websites in each community.
"To the extent that local coverage of the election reflects the vibrancy and viability of local news media, it may well be a proxy for local coverage in general and an indicator of different levels of local news poverty in different communities," Lindgren said.
Hodson, meanwhile, is the principle investigator for Election News, local information and community discourse: Is Twitter the new public sphere? a SSHRC-funded project that will investigate the role of social media in disseminating news and information about the local races in the same eight cities, towns and rural municipalities.
"The common assumption is that social media activity can more than make up for any decline in local media coverage on an issue or event, such as an election," Hodson said. "However, we feel that we need more research to determine if this type of activity is in fact occurring. This project will help us find that out."
Hodson will investigate the extent to which Twitter and Facebook were used to share news and information about the local races in the eight communities. They include Brandon, Manitoba, the British Columbia cities of Kamloops and Nanaimo, and the Ontario municipalities of Brampton, Oakville, Thunder Bay, City of Kawartha Lakes and Peterborough.
Lindgren, who is co-investigator on the SSHRC project, said the communities were selected based on their location, whether they were suburban or rural, and their proximity to a major media market. The list also includes municipalities that have experienced a major disruption in local news sources (such as the closure of a daily newspaper or television station) and others where the media landscape has been relatively undisturbed.
Survey: Did voters get the news they needed to cast an informed vote?
The outcomes of the website and social media content analyses will be examined in conjunction with the results of a survey conducted during the 2015 campaign. The survey asked voters questions about where they went for news about the local contest for MP, whether they used social media to comment on or share local election news, and whether their local media gave them enough information to cast informed votes in the 2015 federal election.
"Among other things, we're hoping this survey data will help us investigate whether there is any correlation between the amount of coverage of the local races for Parliament and voter participation," Lindgren said.
This story originally appeared on the Local News Research Project website.
Ryerson School of Journalism
Journalism Cases - Canada
Search RJRC
Under the Nazis' Thumb: A lunch and learn
'Like fiction — except it's true': Exploring Bill Reynolds' philosophy of literary journalism
My double life: Journalists who also write fiction and poetry
WATCH – Ryan McMahon: The 2019 Atkinson Lecture
Lunch, learn and meditate with Ann Rauhala
Université Laval's Colette Brin brings digital news research to Ryerson
From the Page to the Stage: Creating Live Journalism
WATCH: JHR Emerging Voices panel
Tweets by @RyersonRJRC


Simple and current. The NMD combines the best vintage style with an innovative design. This Woman's slipper features a top-of-the-point with a stamped design and includes a synthetic Nobuk panel and a leather stiffener on the heel. Incorporates the technology boostt that gives you a more comfortable footprint and has EVA inserts in the midsole.


MGVCL Recruitment 2016 : Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited has published recruitment notification about MGVCL Recruitment. MGVCL is looking for eligible candidates for fill up 22 posts of Jr Engineer/Vidyut Sahayak in Electrical Department. Aspirants have required qualification for MGVCL Jobs they can apply for above said post. The candidates who wish to participate in the concerned recruitment can read complete details from official advertisement published at the website of MGVCL for this purpose.
Educational Qualification: B.E or B.Tech in Electrical) or Electrical and Electronics from a recognized university with minimum 60 percent marks for UR/PH-UR and 55% marks for ST/PH-ST and SEBC/ PH-SEBC category candidates.


text:
How pragmatic is it? Lessons learned using PRECIS and RE-AIM for determining pragmatic characteristics of research
Bridget Gaglio1,
Siobhan M Phillips2,
Suzanne Heurtin-Roberts2,
Michael A Sanchez2 &
Russell E Glasgow3
The need for high-quality evidence that is applicable in real-world, routine settings continues to increase. Pragmatic trials are designed to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in real-world settings, whereas explanatory trials aim to test whether an intervention works under optimal situations. There is a continuum between explanatory and pragmatic trials. Most trials have aspects of both, making it challenging to label and categorize a trial and to evaluate its potential for translation into practice.
We summarize our experience applying the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) combined with external validity items based on the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to three studies to provide a more robust and comprehensive assessment of trial characteristics related to translation of research. We summarize lessons learned using domains from the combined frameworks for use in study planning, evaluating specific studies, and reviewing the literature and make recommendations for future use.
A variety of coders can be trained to use the PRECIS and RE-AIM domains. These domains can also be used for diverse purposes, content areas, and study types, but are not without challenges. Both PRECIS and RE-AIM domains required modification in two of the three studies to evaluate and rate domains specific to study type. Lessons learned involved: dedicating enough time for training activities related to the domains; use of reviewers with a range of familiarity with specific study protocols; how to best adapt ratings that reflect complex study designs; and differences of opinion regarding the value of creating a composite score for these criteria.
Combining both frameworks can specifically help identify where and how a study is and is not pragmatic. Using both PRECIS and RE-AIM allows for standard reporting of key study characteristics related to pragmatism and translation. Such measures should be used more consistently to help plan more pragmatic studies, evaluate progress, increase transparency of reporting, and integrate literature to facilitate translation of research into practice and policy.
Over the last several years, there has been a substantial movement toward practical, pragmatic implementation research that will translate into usable health-related policies, programs and practices [1]–[4]. Pragmatic research is conducted internationally in wide ranging settings [5]–[8]. Funding to support pragmatic research and evaluation is provided by major health institutions such as the National Institutes of Health in the United States (U.S.), the U.S. Department of Veterans Health Affairs, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, and the National Health Service's National Institute for Health Research in the United Kingdom [9],[10]. Pragmatic research is increasingly being conducted in networks of primary care practices, health maintenance organizations, and other research networks such as the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute patient-powered research networks and the clinical data research networks [11].
The differentiation of pragmatic from explanatory research can be traced to a seminal paper by Schwartz and Lellouch [12] wherein they define explanatory research as conducted under optimal circumstances to determine the 'efficacy' of an intervention while pragmatic research tests an intervention under usual conditions. This distinction is important because trials are frequently designed as explanatory investigations, when the researchers' intent is actually to answer the pragmatic question of effectiveness under usual or differing conditions. Inasmuch as trials are inadequately formulated for the type of research question asked, research outcomes are compromised and effort wasted [12]. The importance of pragmatic research has been given a major boost by the development of criteria and evaluation tools intended to increase transparency of research and results reporting and provide a means for practitioners and policy makers to assess local applicability of trial findings [13]–[15].
The 'Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary' or PRECIS framework was developed to assist trial designers to assess where a trial is positioned along the pragmatic to explanatory continuum [16]. The main purpose of PRECIS is to determine the degree to which study design decisions align with the trial's stated purpose, and thus was originally intended to be used at the design stage. The tool is comprised of 10 domains: participant eligibility criteria, experimental intervention flexibility, experimental intervention practitioner expertise, comparison intervention, comparison intervention practitioner expertise, follow-up intensity, primary trial outcome, participant compliance with prescribed intervention, practitioner adherence to study protocol, and analysis of primary outcome (see Table 1).
Table 1 Summary of the Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework criteria
The original intent of the PRECIS framework was to inform trial designs by providing a visual display in the form of a hub and spoke diagram, where each of the 10 domains are represented by a line depicting the pragmatic-explanatory continuum. No numerical anchors were originally used. The endpoint closest to the hub represented a more explanatory study, whereas the endpoint furthest away from the hub represented a more pragmatic study [16]. However, modifications have been proposed and tested in variety of ways in an attempt to expand its utility to evaluate studies post completion, including use in systematic reviews [17]–[21]. Modifications have included quantifying the pragmatic-explanatory nature of a study by using numeric rating systems, where each domain is scored on a Likert-type scale. The original scale ranged from 0 to 4 where 0 represented an extremely pragmatic study and 4 was extremely explanatory. Over time the range most commonly used has been 1 to 5 (scales of 0 to 4 and 1 to 20 have also been used) [22]. Regardless of which scale is used, all have transposed the endpoints so the smaller number represents an extremely explanatory study and the larger number represents an extremely pragmatic study. Another modification was made to accommodate evaluating systematic reviews. Each study in a systematic review is scored individually on each of the 10 original PRECIS domains [20]. After the individual scoring, a 10-domain average for each individual trial can be calculated, as well as a single domain average across all trials included in the review and an overall combined average for the entire systematic review. Regardless of which version was used, all studies concluded that PRECIS was useful in designing trials and assessing the level of pragmatism of a trial or a body of evidence. However, PRECIS does not include domains to evaluate generalizability and applicability of a pragmatic trial to a specific context. Thus, additional domains are required.
The RE-AIM framework, which is an acronym for reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance, was created out of the need for improved reporting on key issues related to robustness, translatability, and public health impact of health research [23],[24]. RE-AIM was developed as a response to trends toward research conducted under optimal efficacy conditions instead of in real-world, complex settings [25] and is intended to be used at all stages of research from planning through evaluation and reporting, and across different types of research (e.g., effectiveness, implementation, and dissemination trials) [26]. RE-AIM domains address issues focused on setting and participant representativeness, setting/site engagement with intervention, intervention adaptation during the study, program sustainability, and monetary/resource costs of an intervention. Over the past 14 years, RE-AIM has been applied to a wide range of conditions and study settings and has evolved to include additional items necessary for translation of research findings, such as use of qualitative methods and assessment of unanticipated consequences, both negative and positive (e.g. generalization effects). These domains address pragmatic and external validity issues not included within the PRECIS domains and are shown in Table 1. Originally, RE-AIM domains were not defined by a rating scale [23]. The first scale was modeled after our first use of the PRECIS rating scale that ranged from 0 to 4, where 0 represented an extremely pragmatic study and 4 was extremely explanatory. With subsequent uses of the RE-AIM domains, the scale has been changed to remain identical to the PRECIS scale where the smaller number represents an extremely explanatory study and the larger number represents an extremely pragmatic study.
The purpose of this article is to build on the work that has been done on the use and applicability of the PRECIS and RE-AIM frameworks by summarizing our experience applying these models to three studies that have combined both frameworks to provide a more robust and comprehensive assessment of issues related to translation of research. We begin by describing experiences of using both PRECIS and RE-AIM frameworks in three different studies. Thereafter, we summarize lessons learned using the combined criteria and make recommendations for future use. We conclude with a discussion on implications for the broader issue of designing and reporting results for studies intended to promote translation into policy and practice.
Description of studies to illustrate use of the frameworks
The following three studies illustrate our experiences applying both PRECIS and RE-AIM frameworks. These three studies were selected because they are the only studies to our knowledge that have combined both frameworks, we have access to the data, and they illustrate different applications (e.g., planning, use to describe different interventions in a collaborative project and to conduct a literature review).
The Practice-Based Opportunities for Weight Reduction (POWER) Trials Collaborative Research Group included three individual studies funded by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) [19]. Although the studies did not share a common intervention protocol, all three tested a primary care-based intervention to reduce weight among obese primary care patients who had at least one other cardiovascular disease risk factor [27]. The POWER trials had common components to facilitate potential cross-site comparisons, but each protocol also incorporated distinct, trial-specific elements including different interventions and different secondary outcome measurements (see Table 2).
Table 2 Use of the Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) Framework domains to evaluate three studies
The second study was a systematic review of eHealth cancer prevention and control intervention trials [28]. For this review, eHealth interventions were defined as 'the use of emerging information and communication technology, especially the Internet, to improve or enable health and health care', [29] and included email, mobile phone text or applications, interactive voice response, automated and electronic programs, and computer tailored print but excluded telemedicine targeted solely at clinicians that did not have a patient or consumer facing interface. It included 113 studies across the cancer control continuum (i.e., primary prevention, screening, treatment/disease management, survivorship, and end-of-life care) [30].
The third study is the My Own Health Report (MOHR) trial whose primary purpose was to study clinical implementation of and patient experience with the use of an automated health risk assessment and feedback system to help clinics focus on patient-centered care issues [31]. The MOHR trial used a paired, cluster randomized delayed intervention design with nine pairs of primary care clinics. The trial combined elements of pragmatic trials, implementation science, systems science [32], and mixed methods approaches with practical outcome measures [33]. Research teams identified and selected matched clinics that were similar in type (e.g., federally qualified health center, practice based research network, family practice, or internal medicine), and clinical characteristics including geographic region, approximate size and level of electronic health record integration. One clinic in each pair was randomized to early implementation while the second clinic was assigned to the delayed implementation condition.
Training on use of the domains
The three evaluations were conducted during different phases of the research process. For the POWER study, evaluation occurred during the implementation phase of the project. The eHealth evaluation was conducted after study completion as the review consisted solely of published literature, and the MOHR evaluation was conducted in the planning phase. A variety of reviewers were used in the three different evaluation exercises as described in Table 2. In the POWER trial, reviewers familiar and not familiar with the research protocols being evaluated were used. In eHealth, one reviewer was the lead investigator for one of the included studies. However, he was not assigned to review the study. None of the other reviewers were associated with any of the published works included in the review. In the MOHR trial, individuals indirectly associated with the study were used as reviewers. In all three cases, individuals were highly educated and trained in the research process as described below and in Table 2.
While the training process for the reviewers varied across each evaluation, all began in a similar fashion with reviewers studying the original PRECIS article [16] and the PowerPoint presentation by Dr. Sackett [34], and having two or more group meetings to discuss application of the rating criteria. The POWER study was our first use of the PRECIS framework. After review and discussions on applying the PRECIS domains to the POWER protocols, it was evident that additional domains were necessary to capture key contextual factors for translation. Thus the additional domains from the RE-AIM framework were added. Reviewers then re-assessed each of the protocols with the additional RE-AIM domains. The eHealth study had reviewers not familiar with the RE-AIM framework read the original RE-AIM article [23] in addition to reviewing the PRECIS training materials. Multiple training sessions were held to develop consensus on both frameworks among raters on all domains. The rating form that included both sets of evaluation criteria was piloted and refined based on the ratings of a subsample of four papers by all reviewers. After refinements and clarification of the rating process, all reviewers evaluated two additional papers to pilot the revised criteria. The MOHR study conducted a one-hour training session to review the criteria as a group and instructions for using the criteria.
Use of the domains
All three projects were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale for the PRECIS and RE-AIM domains. The POWER study used the original 0 – 4 scale, as described in the Sackett presentation, where 0 was extremely pragmatic and 4 was extremely explanatory. However, the eHealth study used a 1 – 5 rating scale, as described in Koppenaal, et al.[20], and the MOHR study used a 0 – 4 scale, both such that the lower score, the more explanatory the trial and the higher the score, the more pragmatic the trial. In addition, the POWER and eHealth studies created composite scores for both PRECIS and RE-AIM domains.
In the POWER study, reviewers independently rated each of the three protocols on all PRECIS and RE-AIM domains using a paper rating form. In the eHealth study, two reviewers were randomly assigned to each study and reviewers rated approximately 38 studies each. All rating information for each study was collected via a web-based form in Survey Monkey. In the MOHR trial, reviewers rated the study protocol using a paper rating form.
Different approaches to inter-rater reliability were used because the three different studies had vastly different designs, strategies for allocating reviewers, number of reviewers, and number of studies rated per reviewer. Therefore, the approaches to assessing inter-rater reliability differed as well. For POWER, intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated for individual items and an overall kappa was calculated for each of the composite scores [19]. In the eHealth review, weighted percent agreement scores for PRECIS and RE-AIM domains were calculated [28]. For the MOHR study, percent agreement score for each PRECIS and RE-AIM domain was calculated using a standard of exact agreement [31].
Experiences using PRECIS and RE-AIM to evaluate three different studies
The POWER trial was our first experience using PRECIS and the first numerical rating using RE-AIM domains. Although the PRECIS article examples and the presentation were useful background, there were several issues that were unclear to some reviewers, and we found it necessary to add explicit anchors for the ratings and to rate and discuss example studies not part of the formal evaluation. We also identified one person from each of the three POWER research centers very familiar with that center's protocol, not a reviewer (e.g., a program manager) who was available to answer any questions and clarify issues that were unclear to reviewers from the study protocols.
The review of eHealth cancer prevention and control intervention trials was the first published article using PRECIS and RE-AIM to evaluate eHealth intervention (EHI) studies. Several unanticipated issues were unique to applying such domains to EHI studies. For studies in which EHI replaced practitioners with no personal or phone contact, 'not applicable' ratings were applied to relevant PRECIS domains on practitioner expertise and practitioner compliance to study protocol. Any discrepancies in 'not applicable' ratings between reviewers were identified and discussed for consensus during the data cleaning process. Additionally, reviewers had to discuss and agree upon assignment of experimental and control interventions for studies in which multiple interventions were compared. For these studies, the most intensive intervention served as the experimental arm and the least intensive intervention served as the control arm. We also found that few studies reported on factors related to cost and setting representativeness relevant to the RE-AIM domains and therefore, could not rate such aspects of the individual studies.
Because the MOHR study only used three reviewers for one protocol that they were already familiar with, there were far fewer issues in terms of training and rating. However, the reviewers did feel that the RE-AIM domains did not capture one factor they felt was important to generalizability, patient engagement. As such, this domain was added and rated. The reviewers tended to rate some aspects of the protocol highly with regard to pragmatism and generalizability. However, this was not consistent across specific domains and consensus discussions seemed to resolve any bias towards these responses.
Lessons learned using PRECIS and RE-AIM frameworks
These three diverse applications illustrate that both the PRECIS and RE-AIM frameworks can be used for diverse purposes and across diverse content areas and types of studies. The following lessons can be taken from this experience. First, although the domains can be reliably coded by a variety of research staff after a short training activity, time should be dedicated to discussions about precise definitions for each domain and practice using the criteria (see Table 2). Second, reviewers in all studies found that the RE-AIM domains in combination with the PRECIS domains addressed important additional information related to pragmatic research. Both sets of domains can reveal meaningful differences across studies and across domains within a study. The most consistent and largest differences across studies were that studies were less pragmatic on the RE-AIM domains than on the original PRECIS domains (see Table 3). In particular, adaption, sustainability, and costs were seldom reported. It is both sobering and ironic that these types of issues are precisely the ones about which stakeholders most need information to consider adoption and replication of an intervention program [3]. Third, two of the three evaluations had reviewers who were directly or somewhat directly related to the study being evaluated. It was observed that reviewers directly involved with a study tended to rate their own study as more pragmatic than others. Having reviewers who are both familiar and unfamiliar with an intervention or program could help minimize, or control for, this finding. Fourth, given the nature of eHealth interventions, reliance on technology as the intervention delivery mechanism, the role of the practitioner (i.e., practitioner expertise and adherence in PRECIS) was not applicable to many of the self-administered intervention studies. The impact of not scoring these two PRECIS domains is unclear and thus warrants further discussion on how to best incorporate or properly rate domains when used with eHealth and other automated intervention studies.
Table 3 Average ratings (standard deviation) on PRECIS and RE-AIM domains: scores by study
Fifth, given the PRECIS and RE-AIM domains focus on trials that have explicit experimental and control arms, reviewers had to designate study arms as experimental or control in research that compared three or more interventions. This is likely to present similar challenges to research that studies multiple arms, such as comparative effectiveness research, adaptive design interventions, or multi-component intervention trials. Sixth, there was difference of opinion regarding the value of calculating a summary score for both PRECIS and RE-AIM domains. Calculating such a score can be helpful but also potentially misleading. The summary score can give a sense as to where a study falls on the pragmatic-explanatory continuum as whole, but it masks the diversity of the individual domains. For example, two studies could have an identical overall PRECIS summary score. However, one study might have been much more explanatory in terms of eligibility criteria for trial participants and the other trial much more pragmatic on this domain. It is recommended that when overall summary scores are used, individual domains should also be reported to identify how results on different domains contribute to the overall score and to be able to assess how each domain aligns with the purpose of the study.
An increasing number of programs and studies claim to be pragmatic. Use of both PRECIS and RE-AIM frameworks can be used to demonstrate specifically where and how an individual study, or group of studies, is and is not pragmatic. Comparing ratings of domains within the same study allows for understanding the pragmatic versus explanatory design elements of the trial. Whereas comparing domain ratings across trials allows clinicians, policy makers, and study reviewers to compare across studies to make meaningful judgments about which intervention has generalizability and applicability to their population(s) of interest and the level of reasonable effectiveness that can be expected in different contextual settings versus those in explanatory trials.
Several evaluation frameworks have been developed to facilitate translation of research findings. However, many are designed solely for evaluation [35]. Combining both PRECIS and RE-AIM allows for standard reporting of both development and evaluation over the life course of a study. In the planning phase of a study, PRECIS allows for assessing the match between the trial design and the research and RE-AIM can be used to provide greater detail relative to some PRECIS domains (e.g., description of eligibility criteria and calculation of reach), and also to address other issues not in PRECIS important to potential adopting settings (e.g., costs required, representativeness of settings). RE-AIM can be used across the entire span of the study to understand the why behind success or failure of a study by describing the context in which the study occurred [36]. PRECIS can be used periodically throughout the study and at study conclusion to assess how adaptations and changes made over the course of the study impact the design and whether the end result still aligned with the original purpose of the study, respectively.
There is considerable benefit to using both frameworks to assess key components necessary for designing and reporting results for studies intended to promote translation of research into practice and policy. However, there are still many questions that need to be explored as use of both frameworks increases. First, what is the best rating scale to use? Is a 5-point Likert scale or some other scale the best way to evaluate a study or should one solely use a diagram without defined end-points? Is there value to using a scale to assess each PRECIS and RE-AIM domain or is a visual diagram sufficient? If a visual diagram is sufficient, is the PRECIS 'spoke and hub' diagram effective for also displaying the RE-AIM domains?
Second, use of some PRECIS domains to rate some health services studies is currently problematic. For example, in the eHealth review, there were studies that evaluated automated interventions without involvement of practitioners, with no personal or phone contact. 'Not applicable' ratings were applied to the PRECIS domains on practitioner expertise and practitioner compliance to study protocol (see Additional file 1). Is this the right way to apply the domains or should it be given a score? Moreover, usual care comparison conditions could be viewed as either explanatory or pragmatic depending on the lens of the evaluator. For example, how would participant compliance be rated when a health educator meets with a patient regarding self-management of diabetes and the educator encourages the individual to problem solve concerning self-monitoring their blood sugar levels and/or exercise more frequently to reach their health goals? This is usual care so could be viewed as extremely pragmatic in nature. However, it could also be viewed as being explanatory as it is encouraging patients to be more compliant. Thus, use of RE-AIM in addition to PRECIS can help complete, or at minimum, provide additional information to help understand why PRECIS domains might be viewed as not relevant or interpreted differently by two different evaluators.
Third, who should be a reviewer? There are pros and cons to including reviewers who are intimately familiar with a project versus those who are completely independent. Although not investigated in these three studies, these domains could be used by both researchers and stakeholders including patients and practitioners to help collaboratively design pragmatic studies. Additional studies are needed to determine if the finding that those familiar with a study rate it as more pragmatic is a generalizable phenomenon, as we observed in the ratings of the MOHR study. If so, this would imply that familiarity with a study should be balanced across studies to prevent potential bias.
Strengths and limitations
This evaluation only included three studies, and replication, especially in different content areas and types of settings, is needed. Other researchers are invited, especially those involved in team science [37] and community engaged projects to use the PRECIS and RE-AIM frameworks to increase collaboration and transparency, as well as for program planning and adaptations. Also, since the RE-AIM domains were developed to supplement the PRECIS domains for each of the three applications reported, the specific RE-AIM domains varied slightly across studies. The PRECIS domains are due to be revised later in 2014 [22], and at that time, it may be possible to also arrive at a common, standard set of accompanying RE-AIM domains, assuming they are still needed to supplement PRECIS. Strengths of the paper include the consistency of results and general usefulness of these rating tools across three different content areas, different phases of the research enterprise, and by different types of reviewers.
The importance of pragmatic trials and dissemination and implementation research to improve health and health care delivery in the U.S. is gaining increased attention [38],[39]. Reporting on pragmatic rating criteria such as the PRECIS and RE-AIM scales can increase transparency and help reviewers and potential adoption settings make more informed judgments about programs and their applicability to different settings and under different conditions. However, because pragmatic research focuses on real-world applications of interventions, understanding the context in which it occurred is critical. Understanding whether a study design aligns with one's research question in terms of being pragmatic versus explanatory should not stand alone without an understanding of how the context of participants, setting, and processes involved affected the results. We encourage those planning and evaluating health research interventions to use and report on PRECIS and RE-AIM domains, and to contribute to their refinement.
Glasgow RE: What does it mean to be pragmatic? Pragmatic methods, measures, and models to facilitate research translation. Health Educ Behav. 2013, 40: 257-265. 10.1177/1090198113486805.
Lobb R, Colditz GA: Implementation science and its application to population health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2013, 34: 235-251. 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031912-114444.
Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM: Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA. 2003, 290: 1624-1632. 10.1001/jama.290.12.1624.
Zwarenstein M, Treweek S: What kind of randomized trials do we need?. CMAJ. 2009, 180: 998-1000. 10.1503/cmaj.082007.
Rycroft-Malone J, Seers K, Crichton N, Chandler J, Hawkes CA, Allen C, Bullock I, Strunin L: A pragmatic cluster randomised trial evaluating three implementation interventions. Implement Sci. 2012, 7: 80-10.1186/1748-5908-7-80.
Schmidt B, Wenitong M, Esterman A, Hoy W, Segal L, Taylor S, Preece C, Sticpewich A, McDermott R: Getting better at chronic care in remote communities: study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled of community based management. BMC Public Health. 2012, 12: 1-8. 10.1186/1471-2458-12-1017.
Shi GX, Liu CZ, Wang LP: Application of pragmatic randomized controlled trial's design in clinical research of acupuncture. Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi. 2010, 30: 193-196.
Voigt-Radloff S, Graff M, Leonhart R, Schornstein K, Vernooij-Dassen M, Olde-Rikkert M, Huell M: WHEDA study: effectiveness of occupational therapy at home for older people with dementia and their caregivers–the design of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial evaluating a Dutch programme in seven German centres. BMC Geriatr. 2009, 9: 44-10.1186/1471-2318-9-44.
Heisler M, Hofer TP, Schmittdiel JA, Selby JV, Klamerus ML, Bosworth HB, Bermann M, Kerr EA: Improving blood pressure control through a clinical pharmacist outreach program in patients with diabetes mellitus in 2 high-performing health systems: the adherence and intensification of medications cluster randomized, controlled pragmatic trial. Circulation. 2012, 125: 2863-2872. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.089169.
Mays GP, Scutchfield FD: Advancing the science of delivery: public health services and systems research. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2012, 18: 481-484. 10.1097/PHH.0b013e31826833ad.
Mold JW, Peterson KA: Primary care practice-based research networks: working at the interface between research and quality improvement. Ann Fam Med. 2005, 3 (Suppl 1): S12-20. 10.1370/afm.303.
Schwartz D, Lellouch J: Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009, 62: 499-505. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.012.
Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, Pitkin R, Rennie D, Schulz KF, Simel D, Stroup DF: Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996, 276: 637-639. 10.1001/jama.1996.03540080059030.
Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, Altman DG, Tunis S, Haynes B, Oxman AD, Moher D: Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ. 2008, 337: a2390-10.1136/bmj.a2390.
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D: CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010, 63: 834-840. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.005.
Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, Treweek S, Furberg CD, Altman DG, Tunis S, Bergel E, Harvey I, Magid DJ, Chalkidou K: A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009, 62: 464-475. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.011.
Selby P, Brosky G, Oh PI, Raymond V, Ranger S: How pragmatic or explanatory is the randomized, controlled trial? The application and enhancement of the PRECIS tool to the evaluation of a smoking cessation trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012, 12: 1-13. 10.1186/1471-2288-12-101.
Riddle DL, Johnson RE, Jensen MP, Keefe FJ, Kroenke K, Bair MJ, Ang DC: The Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) instrument was useful for refining a randomized trial design: experiences from an investigative team. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010, 63: 1271-1275. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.006.
Glasgow RE, Gaglio B, Bennett G, Jerome GJ, Yeh HC, Sarwer DB, Appel L, Colditz G, Wadden TA, Wells B: Applying the PRECIS criteria to describe three effectiveness trials of weight loss in obese patients with comorbid conditions. Health Serv Res. 2012, 47 (3 pt 1): 1051-1067. 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01347.x.
Koppenaal T, Linmans J, Knottnerus A, Spigt M: Pragmatic vs. explanatory: an adaptation of the PRECIS tool helps to judge the applicability of systematic reviews for daily practice. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011, 64: 1095-1101. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.11.020.
Tosh G, Soares-Weiser K, Adams CE: Pragmatic vs explanatory trials: the pragmascope tool to help measure differences in protocols of mental health randomized controlled trials. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2011, 13: 209-215.
Loudon K, Zwarenstein M, Sullivan F, Donnan P, Treweek S: Making clinical trials more relevant: Improving and validating the PRECIS tool for matching trial design decisions to trial purpose. Trials. 2013, 14: 115-10.1186/1745-6215-14-115.
Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM: Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999, 89: 1322-1327. 10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322.
Glasgow RE, Linnan LA: Evaluation of theory-based interventions. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. Edited by: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K. 2008, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 487-508. 4
Kessler R, Glasgow RE: A proposal to speed translation of healthcare research into practice: dramatic change is needed. Am J Prev Med. 2011, 40: 637-644. 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.02.023.
Gaglio B, Shoup JA, Glasgow RE: The RE-AIM framework: a systematic review of use over time. Am J Public Health. 2013, 103: e38-46. 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301299.
Wells B: Weight loss in obese adults with cardiovascular risk factors: three randomized control trials to assess interventions in clinical practice. Obesity and Weight Management. 2009, 5: 207-209. 10.1089/obe.2009.0504. [http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/obe.2009.0504], [http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/obe.2009.0504]
Sanchez MA, Rabin BA, Gaglio B, Henton M, Elzarrad MK, Purcell P, Glasgow RE: A systematic review of eHealth cancer prevention and control interventions: new technology, same methods and designs?. Transl Behav Med. 2013, 3: 392-401. 10.1007/s13142-013-0224-1.
Eng TR: The eHealth Landscape: A Terrain Map of Emerging Information and Communication Technologies in Health and Health Care. 2001, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton
Rabin BA, Glasgow RE, Kerner JF, Klump MP, Brownson RC: Dissemination and implementation research on community-based cancer prevention: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2010, 38: 443-456. 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.12.035.
Krist AH, Glenn BA, Glasgow RE, Balasubramanian BA, Chambers DA, Fernandez ME, Heurtin-Roberts S, Kessler R, Ory MG, Phillips SM, Ritzwoller DP, Roby DH, Rodriguez HP, Sabo RT, Sheinfeld Gorin SN, Stange KC: Designing a valid randomized pragmatic primary care implementation trial: the my own health report (MOHR) project. Implement Sci. 2013, 8: 73-10.1186/1748-5908-8-73.
Sterman JD: Learning from evidence in a complex world. Am J Public Health. 2006, 96: 505-514. 10.2105/AJPH.2005.066043.
Glasgow RE, Riley WT: Pragmatic measures: what they are and why we need them. Am J Prev Med. 2013, 45: 237-243. 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.03.010.
Sackett D: PrECIs (Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicators). 2009. Accessd: February 13, 2012; [], [http://www.support-collaboration.org/precis.pdf]
Gaglio B, Glasgow RE: Evaluation approaches for dissemination and implementation research. Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health. Edited by: Brownson RC, Colditz G, Proctor E. 2012, Oxford University Press, New York, 327-356.
Kessler RS, Purcell P, Benkeser R, Glasgow RE, Klesges LM, Peek CJ: What does it mean to 'employ' the RE-AIM model?. Eval Health Prof. 2013, 36: 44-66. 10.1177/0163278712446066.
Bennett LM, Gadlin H: Collaboration and team science: from theory to practice. J Investig Med. 2012, 60: 768-775.
National Institutes of Health: Pragmatic Research in Healthcare Settings to Improve Diabetes Prevention and Care (R18). Funding announcement PAR-13-366, 2013. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health. Accessed date: February 18, 2014.
Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute: Pragmatic Clinical Studies and Large Simple Trials to Evaluate Patient-Centered Outcomes. 2014. [] Accessed date: February 18, 2014., [http://www.pcori.org/funding-opportunities/funding-announcements/pragmatic-clinical-studies-and-large-simple-trials-to-evaluate-patient-centered-outcomes/]
Funding Sources: Partially supported by National Heart, Lung, Blood Institute (NHLBI) – Grant #5 U01 HL087071-01, U01 HL087085-01, and U01 HL 087072–01 and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) - Grant # CA124401, CA140959, CA163526, and CA154549. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or views of the National Cancer Institute.
Mid-Atlantic Permanente Research Institute/Kaiser Permanente Mid-Atlantic States, 2101 E. Jefferson Street, Suite 300, Rockville, 20852, MD, USA
Bridget Gaglio
Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences/National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, 3E212, Rockville, 20850, MD, USA
Siobhan M Phillips
, Suzanne Heurtin-Roberts
& Michael A Sanchez
Colorado Health Outcomes Program and Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 13199 E. Montview Blvd, Suite 300, Room 323, Mail Stop F443, Aurora, 80045, CO, USA
Russell E Glasgow
Search for Bridget Gaglio in:
Search for Siobhan M Phillips in:
Search for Suzanne Heurtin-Roberts in:
Search for Michael A Sanchez in:
Search for Russell E Glasgow in:
Correspondence to Bridget Gaglio.
The authors declare they have no competing interests.
BG and REG analyzed the data from the POWER study, MS and BG analyzed the data from the eHealth study, and SP and SHR analyzed the data from the MOHR study. All authors drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Additional file 1: Appendix PRECIS and RE-AIM domains rating form – all 3 studies combined.(DOCX 45 KB)
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Gaglio, B., Phillips, S.M., Heurtin-Roberts, S. et al. How pragmatic is it? Lessons learned using PRECIS and RE-AIM for determining pragmatic characteristics of research. Implementation Sci 9, 96 (2014) doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0096-x
External validity
Research translation


text:
Home Character Introduction Sylum Inspiration: New Characters – James/Mason
Sylum Advent 2017: December 25th
Happy Boxing Day!
Character Introduction / Oceania Clan
Sylum Inspiration: New Characters – James/Mason
Nicolaus Meridius December 25, 2017	 December 2, 2017 One Comment
Oceania: Member
James Conrad is from Westminster area of London. He attended school and then like his father, joined the military. James does not talk about the regiment he was assigned to that brought him to Australia or how his enlistment ended. Just that he parted their company and says, "it was best for all I leave."
After separating from the British infantry James easily blended in with the growing British and American population moving north across Australia where he was often hired by families as security. During his travels he learned about each of the local tribes –from their language and interactions with other tribes to the animals and plants in their area. He tried to keep the peace between the ever growing settler population and the shrinking aboriginal populations as he traveled.
He found that reading his environment and tracking came naturally to him. And he was often called upon to find people who found themselves separated from their settler caravans.
He's somewhere in Queensland at a bar when he has first meets Michael Dundee. He'd just dropped off a group of settlers and Dundee is there at the bar next to him. They share a drink and then Dundee is gone. James thought him an interesting fellow. James stays in the area for several months returning people who get lost and learning from the natives.
He doesn't meet Dundee again until 1862 when they have both somehow become part of the Queensland Relief Expedition who is searching for the missing Burke Willis Expedition. Shortly after arriving in Melbourne James takes ill and Dundee offers to Turn him.
James accepts.
Mason Anne Weaver was named after her grandfather. And since her first roll call most people think she's going to be a boy. Now she mostly uses that to her advantage. She grew-up in suburbs of Chicago during the late 1940s and early 1950s. Her fascination with photography began in her teens when she borrowed her father's old Leica III camera. She began taking photos of the her neighborhood, kids riding bicycles, local pets and the animals at the zoo, the "L" train, and the city. She entered several of her photos in local contest and even managed to win a few.
In 1963, her future prospects, according to her mother, were to find a husband or go to college to find a husband. She opted for college but omitted the plans to find a husband. She decided that her hobby was a good start for a degree in either photography or journalism and pursued it along with a degree English. She began working for the college paper and in her senior year earned a spot to travel to New York City to hear Martin Luther King speak at Riverside Church.
After listening to the "Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence" speech Mason began taking photos at Civil Rights gatherings; as well as the protests in D.C. A few of her photos appeared in newspapers and magazines.
By 1970 she found herself in Vietnam as an investigative photojournalist or, as some would call her depending on what was on the other side of her lens, an "anti-war" photographer. She believes the pictures speak for themselves and she she tried to stay out of the politics of it all.
She was embedded with the MAC V-SOG (Military Assistance Command, Vietnam – Studies and Observations Group). And, by the end of the war in 1973 Mason had one of her photos on the cover of Time magazine.
Her last excursion before leaving Vietnam was to take one more trip into the jungle following a former SAS Captain who was reportedly looking for a down helicopter and it's pilot. The little adventure was more harrowing than being embedded with the MAC V-SOG. After all, she had been right, there was something very suspicious about the story of the downed craft and the pilot. There were chases, gunfire, vampires, dying, and James.
By the end only four people walked out of the jungle. No one talks about it.
#Inspiration Block #Oceania Clan
jackbauerconnie
December 26, 2017 at 7:39 pm	4 years ago