Study participants. A set of participants of the Sant Pau Initiative on Neurodegeneration (SPIN cohort) was included in the study. The SPIN cohort is a multimodal research cohort for biomarker discovery and validation that includes participants with different neurodegenerative dementias, mild cognitive impairment and cognitively normal controls. All participants receive an extensive neurological and neuropsychological evaluation and undergo structural 3T brain MRI, blood extraction, and lumbar puncture for CSF biomarkers. A subset of participants also receives molecular imaging such as 18F- Fluorodeoxyglucose-PET, amyloid and/or Tau PET. More information on the SPIN cohort can be found at xxxxx://xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx/our-research/spin-cohort (Alcolea et al., in preparation). In this study, we included all 94 participants from the SPIN cohort recruited between November 2013 and September 2017 that had available CSF samples and 18F- Florbetapir PET imaging. Their clinical diagnoses were mild cognitive impairment (n=35), AD dementia (n=12), other dementias or neurodegenerative diseases (that included dementia with Lewy bodies [n=30], frontotemporal dementia [n=9], vascular dementia [n=1], and motor neuron disease [n=1]), and cognitively normal controls (n=6). All participants gave written consent, and the ethics committee of Hospital Sant Pau approved all procedures included in this study.
Study participants. We included 94 participants in the study. Table 1 summarizes demographic characteristics and biomarker results in the overall study population and according to the visual interpretation of amyloid PET scans as amyloid-positive (63%) or amyloid- negative (37%). There were no differences in age or sex between both groups. As expected, the amyloid-positive group had a higher proportion of APOEε4 carriers compared to the amyloid-negative group (52% and 20%, respectively; p=0.004).
Study participants. Conducting studies with stakeholders require more effort in recruiting participants than studying the public opinion. This is due to the fact that for surveying the public all relevant information for identifying a representative sample is available through public sources like official statistics. In contrast, the stakeholder population for a topic or an issue is not officially filed, thus, it is not known how many individuals belong to that population and how it is composed. Our sampling will be deliberate and systematic rather than representative in a statistical sense. First, interviewees and organisations were selected to reflect a range of positions in the relevant innovation systems, though with an emphasis on demonstration projects (on stationary and transport applications) and networks. This stratification and systematisation reflect project objectives and aim at understanding the variety of experiences and views of individuals working in a range of projects, differentiated by project objective, type, scale and country. Second, we also recruited stakeholders by snowball sampling. With the help of some interviewees additional interviewees not identified earlier will be added. Again, respondents will only be selected if they fit with the relevant criteria and add value to the sample. This means that it is not possible to make judgements about the representativeness of a sample as it is e.g. not know to which degree the FCH community consists of engineers or scientists, professionals in marketing or research & development. Furthermore the number of members of the public is much higher than the number of stakeholders. Thus, more time and effort is needed to identify and recruit possible study participants. Preparatory steps for this have been undertaken during WP2 by identifying stakeholders, policies and projects. From this work some conclusions about the situation and the market stage of FCH technologies in the different countries were developed. More generally, what became also obvious in this stage, to conduct a high quality stakeholder study a good knowledge about FCH technologies in each country, especially including some contacts to relevant people, would be necessary. Therefore, the stakeholder study will only be conducted in the five countries where one of our partners is located, i.e. ES, DE, FR, SL, UK. Stakeholder survey In WP2 extensive lists of stakeholders were collected for each country and served as a basis for potential survey respond...
Study participants. Purposeful sampling techniques were used to recruit for the focus groups (Hennink et al., 2010). The aim was to recruit gardeners from different garden contexts and locations who had varying soil testing experiences. Focus group participants were recruited via email solicitation utilizing listservs from community garden and environmental organizations. To be eligible to participate in the focus group, community garden administrators/leaders had to be at least 18 years of age and involved at their present community gardening site in five metropolitan Atlanta counties (Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Xxxxxx, and Gwinnett) for at least 3 months. Potential participants were emailed a survey to ensure their eligibility status. In the eligibility survey, gardeners were asked to share their garden context (e.g., neighborhood, park, school, faith-based, senior-center, healthcare facility), community garden county location, focus group availability times, and whether they had previously tested their garden soil. As an incentive for focus group participation, potential participants were offered a free heavy metal soil screening (valued at $35), interpretation of soil screening results, and resources for more information to reduce exposure. Participants were provided instructions and technical assistance on how to collect their soil samples, and they brought their soil samples to their respective focus group session. Focus group participants also received a gardening gift consisting of gloves, trowel, seeds, and best practices information on reducing exposure to soil contaminants in urban environments. Ethical Consideration The research protocol was reviewed and determined exempt by Emory University Institutional Review Board.
Study participants. SAWASDEE Pilot Cohort, Thailand The SAWASDEE study is a longitudinal birth cohort comprised of pregnant women working in agriculture and their neonates. The goal of the study is to understand the overall effects of prenatal environmental exposures on neurodevelopment in this population. The current study will focus on the pilot birth cohort of the SAWASDEE study, where all participants work in the Chiang Mai Province of northern Thailand. Pregnant women (n=59) who had their first prenatal clinic visit at Fang Hospital (Northern Thailand) were recruited into the pilot cohort. Recruitment for the longitudinal study was conducted from March 2011 to February 2012. In order to be eligible for the study, the pregnant women were required to fit the following inclusion criteria (55, 57):
Study participants. To be eligible for inclusion in this study, households needed to have a child under age five, household representative should have completed the survey portion on safe child feces disposal determinants, and households should have no data required for analysis missing. The baseline survey was administered to 3,979 households out of which 935 (23.5%) had a child under five. Of the remaining 935 households only 806 met all the inclusion criteria for the study. Figure 1 shows a diagram depicting how the sample size for analysis was obtained. Primary Outcome of Interest
Study participants. Women resident in the study area with a living child aged below two years (0–23 months) were invited to participate in the survey. Those who refused to participate were excluded.
Study participants. Ú častníci klinického hodnocení The Institution shall ensure that: Zdravotnické zařízení zajistí, že:
Study participants. Table 1 reports participant demographics, IDU behaviors, and police encounters among study participants in Ukraine. Participants were stratified by whether they were currently receiving OAT (n=192) or not receiving OAT (n=226) at the time of study enrollment. Study participants were predominantly male (82.30%) in their late 30s (mean=38.63, SD=7.22). In comparison to those not on OAT, individuals receiving OAT were significantly more likely to be in a relationship (46.88% vs. 30.09%, p<0.001), live in stable housing (100.00% vs. 96.46%, p<0.01) (not shown in table due to few individuals not in stable housing), be employed (67.71% vs. 52.21%, p=0.001), registered in the AIDS clinic if HIV+ (100.00% vs. 93.14%, p<0.05), and had people they live with supportive of OAT (93.55% vs. 83.78%, p=0.01). Individuals not on OAT had a higher frequency of Hepatitis C (HCV) (74.12% vs. 55.24%, p<0.05). Individuals receiving OAT were significantly less likely to have injected drugs in the past 30-days (6.77% vs. 92.00%, p<0.001). Though not statistically significant, participants not on OAT were more likely to engage in injection risk-behaviors (i.e. received/bought an injection from a pre-filled syringe, used a syringe refilled by someone from their used syringe, and used common instruments for sharing/preparing drugs) than those on OAT. A greater number of participants not on OAT reported to ever experiencing a drug overdose than those currently receiving OAT (54.02% vs. 35.94%, p<0.001). In addition, individuals not on OAT reported significantly greater frequencies of police encounters in their lifetime and in past-6 months. For instance, people not on OAT reported greater lifetime physical assault by police (69.91% vs. 51.04%, p<0.001), and demanded money in the form of a bribe (68.75% vs. 52.08%, p=0.001). In the past 6-months, a greater number of participants not on OAT reported to have been physically assaulted by police (11.06% vs. 4.69%, p<0.05), demanded money in the form of a bribe by police (11.50% vs. 3.13%, p=0.001), and threatened by the police with arrest or violence (10.18% vs. 4.17%, p<0.05).
