Search

The different countries that death and dying researchers reside within often shape not only research agendas but also research methodologies. The United Kingdom and the United States are two examples of countries that share a common language and intellectual history but their discourses on death have been very different. These differences are partly explained through cultural practices, and also government funding of research, definitions of death and end-of-life planning education. In this article, we argue that early death scholarship in the United States impacted death research and outcomes in both the US and the UK, but that recent scholarship in both countries has caused the two countries to diverge in two major areas: (1) the methodological approaches to death studies and (2) the educational training of medical and hospice personnel in direct contact with the dying. We argue that in order for death studies to fully benefit from trans-Atlantic dialogue on death, both countries need to move towards a more integrated trans-disciplinary model. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The author discusses the fair participant selection in a certain clinical trial. She notes that the patients who will participate must remain in close proximity to the site for the entire duration of the study. The author emphasizes that groups should not be excluded from the opportunity to participate without a good scientific reason or particular susceptibility to risk, otherwise the trial would indeed be unfair and unethical.

Background: The Global Fund encourages operational research (OR) in all its grants; however very few reports describe this aspect. In India, Project Axshya was supported by a Global Fund grant to improve the reach and visibility of the government Tuberculosis (TB) services among marginalised and vulnerable communities. OR was incorporated to build research capacity of professionals working with the national TB programme and to generate evidence to inform policies and practices. Objectives: To describe how Project Axshya facilitated building OR capacity within the country, helped in addressing several TB control priority research questions, documented project activities and their outcomes, and influenced policy and practice. Methods: From September 2010 to September 2016, three key OR-related activities were implemented. First, practical output-oriented modular training courses were conducted (n = 3) to build research capacity of personnel involved in the TB programme, co-facilitated by The Union, in collaboration with the national TB programme, WHO country office and CDC, Atlanta. Second, two large-scale Knowledge, Attitude and Practice (KAP) surveys were conducted at baseline and mid-project to assess the changes pertaining to TB knowledge, attitudes and practices among the general population, TB patients and health care providers over the project period. Third, studies were conducted to describe the project's core activities and outcomes. Results: In the training courses, 44 participant teams were supported to develop research protocols on topics of national priority, resulting in 28 peer-reviewed scientific publications. The KAP surveys and description of project activities resulted in 14 peer-reviewed publications. Of the published papers at least 12 have influenced change in policy or practice. Conclusions: OR within a Global Fund supported TB project has resulted in building OR capacity, facilitating research in areas of national priority and influencing policy and practice. We believe this experience will provide guidance for undertaking OR in Global Fund projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]