Background and aims Sample Clauses

Background and aims. ‌ The thesis uses the D6 study as a motivating dataset of a trial of a complex intervention in mental health. D6 was a cluster RCT set in primary care evaluating the effectiveness of an intervention combining motivational interviewing (MI) and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) skills delivered by practice nurses compared to an attention control which did not include any psychological components. One reason for using cluster randomisation at the level of the primary care nurse was to avoid treatment contamination that was anticipated if a given nurse were asked to provide both control and active treatments. Treatment in the control arm consisted of standard diabetes care, with primary care nurses scheduled to meet participants for the same number of times and same duration as those in the active intervention arm. There was a strong rationale for conducting a large fidelity assessment. Despite the trial having set out to avoid contamination, there was some anecdotal evidence of delivery of psychological treatment by standard care nurses. This was supported by the treatment fidelity evaluation in the primary assessment of the trial which showed some treatment receipt in the control arm (Xxxxxx et al., 2018). In addition, the lack of evidence of effectiveness warranted a detailed evaluation of treatment fidelity in both arms of the trial. Therefore I set out to construct a measure of treatment receipt for as many participants as possible in the study. The trial provided an opportunity to assess treatment fidelity due to the fact that many treatment sessions had been audio recorded. The goal was to use individual-level fidelity ratings to assess what level of psychological treatment participants received and then to evaluate whether the treatments delivered to the intervention and control arms represented what was expected given the results of random treatment allocation. From a clinical perspective this treatment fidelity assessment, which was larger in terms of sample size than that reported in the primary assessment of the trial, enabled an examination of whether primary care nurses in the trial could be trained to deliver psychological therapy competently to participants within the active intervention arm. It also allowed an assessment of whether competencies improved over time. This chapter describes the fidelity assessment of the treatments delivered to participants in the two trial arms. The main aims of this chapter were to measure treatment fidelity ...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Background and aims. This chapter addresses the first part of the secondary research objective, which was to summarise and develop estimators of efficacy in a randomised trial with non-adherence. This work focuses on trials that contrast an active intervention with a control condition, where departures from randomised treatment lead to receipt of some or all of the comparator condition. The work relates to trials with continuous outcomes. The perfect randomised trial comparing a new treatment (intervention arm) with a control treatment (control arm) should use random treatment allocation, be double blind, feature full adherence with randomly allocated treatment, and collect outcome data from every trial participant. These features are important because they guard against bias and therefore enable a study to provide a valid answer to the research question. Judged by such a standard, trials in mental health are often far from ideal. It may be impossible to blind clinicians or participants to treatment (especially for psychotherapies), patients may not attend all or any treatment sessions, and participants may be lost to follow-up before the end of data collection. This has led to recent development in methods that account for the challenges of non-adherence with allocated treatments and missing data in particular. Non-adherence is used here as an umbrella term covering contamination (receipt of intervention) in the control arm and non-compliance (non- receipt of intervention) in the active intervention arm of a trial. When compliance is described as partial, this implies that some active intervention participants did not receive treatment. The results of the scoping review of methods for addressing contamination (Chapter 2) suggested a scarcity of applications of analytical approaches in this context. It appears that methods from the causal inference literature are not being utilised by researchers to address the problem of contamination in trials of complex interventions in mental health. Thus, this chapter will explore whether such methods can be employed when adherence with randomly allocated treatment has been measured for each trial participant. The adherence measure could be either a binary treatment receipt measure or a continuous treatment dose measure. This chapter aims to:
Sample 1
Background and aims. Approved by the 34th General Conference of UNESCO in October 2007, an International Research Center on Karst (IRCK) under the auspices of UNESCO (Category II) was established in Guilin China, the Agreement between the Chinese government and UNESCO concerning the Establishment and Operation of the IRCK was signed in Paris on February 11, 2008 and the Center was officially inaugurated in December 2008. IRCK is based at the Institute of Karst Geology, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences (CAGS), located at Xx. 00 Xxxxxx Xxxx, Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxx 000000, P. R. China. It is committed, among other objections and functions, to providing advisory activities, technical information and training as a basis to develop and implement new integrated methods of desertification rehabilitation and ecological restoration and undertaking international technical consultation and organizing international workshops and symposia on special subjects, scientific field investigations and lecture tours. It organized an international training course on karst hydrogeology and karst ecosystem in Guilin, China on November 8 – December 5, 2009, which was attended by 17 trainees from Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya, India, Indonesia, Viet Nam, Romania and Peru. To keep on the implementation of its mandates and tasks, with the sponsorship of the Institute of Karst Geology, CAGS, IRCK will organize an International Training Course on Karst Hydrogeology and Karst Carbon Cycle Monitoring in Guilin, China to be scheduled on November 29 – December 10, with the aim of enhancing research cooperation and academic exchange between China and other countries, and sharing Chinese successful experience in karst scientific research with colleagues overseas. The Chinese karst scientists warmly welcome fellow geologists, hydrological engineers and related administrators from developing countries across the world, who are interested, to participate in this training course.
Sample 1
Background and aims. NHS Boards have a statutory duty to involve patients and the public in the planning and development of Health services. Scottish Government guidance sets out how this should be done CEL 4(2010) Informing, Engaging, and Consulting People in developing Health and Community Care. These two wards as an element of the Mental Health Clinical Services Review do not represent a major service change, however furtherengagement has continued to take place and will continue to build on the extensive consultation with the community that was undertaken as part of the Clinical Services Review. Aims of further engagement:- We will involve service user and carer representation as well as community interests as appropriate in the planning process throughout all stages of the development. We will also engage with third sector partners as appropriate in the planning and construction stages. Our engagement is supported by the Mental Health Network. This is local a service-user led charity which acts as a collective advocacy voice for people with a lived experience of mental-ill health and their carers in the Greater Glasgow area. In addition, local meetings with service users and carers have been delivered relating to the proposals. We will aim to ensure that all service users and carer are informed and consulted about the development particularly those who are seldom heard. We will aim to find different ways to support engagement that everyone who has or could have an interest in the development. We shall make use of social media to ensure that the wider community is kept informed. We shall ensure that local service users and carers feel engaged throughout the process and are supported, in a way that suits them. We shall also aim to ensure that local service users and carers feel listened to and valued throughout the whole process and be flexible in our approach to engagement.
Sample 1

Related to Background and aims

  • Background and Context 1.1 Objectives of this Agreement The purpose of this Agreement is to define, in the context of the resource inputs provided, the targets by which the performance of Forensic Science Ireland (FSI) will be measured in 2021. The ongoing supports that the Department of Justice will provide to FSI in this regard, and the mechanisms for monitoring and appraising performance, form part of the overall governance arrangements between the two parties and as such are set out in the separate but complementary Oversight Agreement 2020-22.

  • BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION The Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP) is a federally-assisted program of State-selected projects. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the State Departments of Transportation have long worked as partners to deliver the FAHP in accordance with Federal requirements. In enacting 23 U.S.C. 106(c), as amended, Congress recognized the need to give the States more authority to carry out project responsibilities traditionally handled by FHWA. Congress also recognized the importance of a risk-based approach to FHWA oversight of the FAHP, establishing requirements in 23 U.S.C. 106(g). This Stewardship and Oversight (S&O) Agreement sets forth the agreement between the FHWA and the State of Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) on the roles and responsibilities of the FHWA and the State DOT with respect to Title 23 project approvals and related responsibilities, and FAHP oversight activities. The scope of FHWA responsibilities, and the legal authority for State DOT assumption of FHWA responsibilities, developed over time. The U.S. Secretary of Transportation delegated responsibility to the Administrator of the FHWA for the FAHP under Title 23 of the United States Code, and associated laws. (49 CFR 1.84 and 1.85) The following legislation further outlines FHWA’s responsibilities: • Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991; • Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) of 1998; • Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) of 2005; and • Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) of 2012 (P.L. 112-141). The FHWA may not assign or delegate its decision-making authority to a State Department of Transportation unless authorized by law. Xxxxxxx 000 xx Xxxxx 00, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Code (Section 106), authorizes the State to assume specific project approvals. For projects that receive funding under Title 23, U.S.C., and are on the National Highway System (NHS) including projects on the Interstate System, the State may assume the responsibilities of the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation under Title 23 for design, plans, specifications, estimates, contract awards, and inspections with respect to the projects unless the Secretary determines that the assumption is not appropriate. (23 U.S.C. 106(c)(1)) For projects under Title 23, U.S.C. that are not on the NHS, the State shall assume the responsibilities for design, plans, specifications, estimates, contract awards, and inspections unless the State determines that such assumption is not appropriate. (23 U.S.C. 106(c)(2)) For all other project activities which do not fall within the specific project approvals listed in Section 106 or are not otherwise authorized by law, the FHWA may authorize a State DOT to perform work needed to reach the FHWA decision point, or to implement FHWA’s decision. However such decisions themselves are reserved to FHWA. The authority given to the State DOT under Section 106(c)(1) and (2) is limited to specific project approvals listed herein. Nothing listed herein is intended to include assumption of FHWA’s decision-making authority regarding Title 23, U.S.C. eligibility or Federal-aid participation determinations. The FHWA always must make the final eligibility and participation decisions for the Federal-aid Highway Program. Section 106(c)(3) requires FHWA and the State DOT to enter into an agreement relating to the extent to which the State DOT assumes project responsibilities. This Stewardship and Oversight Agreement (S&O Agreement), includes information on specific project approvals and related responsibilities, and provides the requirements for FHWA oversight of the FAHP (Oversight Program), as required by 23 U.S.C. 106(g).

  • Background and Purpose Executive was employed by the Company. Executive's employment is ending effective ____________ under the conditions described in Section 3.1 of the Executive Severance Agreement ("Agreement") by and between Executive and the Company dated ____________, 2012. The purpose of this Release is to settle, and the parties hereby settle, fully and finally, any and all claims the Releasing Parties may have against the Released Parties, whether asserted or not, known or unknown, including, but not limited to, claims arising out of or related to Executive's employment, any claim for reemployment, or any other claims whether asserted or not, known or unknown, past or future, that relate to Executive's employment, reemployment, or application for reemployment.

  • Background 1.1. The “Work” is the research article, review article, letter, clinical trial study, report, article, or other copyright work, as identified in the Copyright Letter and further detailed in Schedule 1: Details of the Work (including such form of the copyright work submitted to Xxxxxxx Science for publication pursuant to clause 4, below), but excluding (except where context otherwise requires) any diagrams, figures or illustration specifically identified to Xxxxxxx Science pursuant to clause 3.2, below.

  • Background and Security Investigations 8.1 For the safety and welfare of the children to be served under this Contract, CONTRACTOR shall, as permitted by law, ensure that its staff, employees, independent contractors, volunteers or subcontractors who may come in contact with children in the course of their work, undergo and pass a background investigation to the satisfaction of COUNTY as a condition of beginning and continuing to work under this contract. Such background investigation may include, but shall not be limited to criminal conviction information obtained through fingerprints submitted to the California Department of Justice. The fees associated with the background investigation shall be at the expense of the CONTRACTOR, regardless if the member of CONTRACTOR’s staff passes or fails the backgrounds investigation.

  • Background Checks The State may require that the Contractor and Contractor Parties undergo criminal background checks as provided for in the State of Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection Administration and Operations Manual or such other State document as governs procedures for background checks. The Contractor and Contractor Parties shall cooperate fully as necessary or reasonably requested with the State and its agents in connection with such background checks.

  • Background Investigations OSC policy requires that background investigations be conducted on Contractor Staff who will have access to OSC’s IT systems, access to OSC confidential information/data, or routine access to any OSC facility. For purposes of this policy, “routine access” is defined as access to an OSC facility for five consecutive business days or 10 business days over the annual term of the engagement. Accordingly, with the signing of this Agreement, the Contractor certifies that it has or will conduct a background investigation on Staff to whom the policy applies within the 12 months prior to the Staff commencing Services under this Agreement. The Contractor agrees to undertake a background investigation of any new/replacement Staff during the term of the Agreement. At a minimum, background investigations shall include a review/evaluation of the following: • identity verification, including Social Security Number search; • employment eligibility, including verification of U.S. citizenship or legal immigration status where appropriate; • criminal history/court records (Federal, State and local for the past five years); • work experience/history for the past five years; • pertinent skills, qualifications, and education/professional credentials; and • references. The Contractor must obtain the consent of its Staff to allow OSC, upon request: (i) to review the background investigation records, including all supporting documentation, and (ii) to conduct its own background investigation. Only Staff who have passed the background investigation, and provided such consent shall be assigned to provide Services to OSC under this Agreement. During the term of the Agreement, and in accordance with Appendix A (Section 10, Records), the Contractor must maintain records related to the background investigations performed.

  • Background Data The Disclosing Party's Background Data, if any, will be identified in a separate technical document.

  • BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES The partnership proposed by the Cooperator was selected due to merit review evaluations from the 2017 Notice of Funding Opportunity P17AS00037. The Cooperator demonstrated expertise in disciplines and subject areas of relevance to cooperative research and training. The Cooperator met the program interests of NPS with expertise, facilities, experience, diversity of programs, and history of collaborative research projects. The Cooperator helps the NPS-CESU to meet its objectives to:  Provide research, technical assistance and education to NPS for land management, and research;  Develop a program of research, technical assistance and education that involves the biological, physical, social, and cultural sciences needed to address resources issues and interdisciplinary problem-solving at multiple scales and in an ecosystem context at the local, regional, and national level; and  Place special emphasis on the working collaboration among NPS, universities, and their related partner institutions. Title: Provide research, technical assistance and education for resource management and research The CESU network seeks to provide scientifically-based information on the nature and status of selected biological, physical, and cultural resources occurring within the parks in a form that increases its utility for making management decisions, conducting scientific research, educating the public, developing effective monitoring programs, and developing management strategies for resource protection. Studying the resources present in NPS parks benefits the Cooperator’s goal of advancing knowledge through scientific discovery, integration, application, and teaching, which lead toward a holistic understanding of our environmental and natural resources. The Cooperator is a public research university, sharing research, educational, and technological strengths with other institutions. Through inter-institutional collaboration, combined with the unique contributions of each constituent institution, the Cooperator strives to contribute substantially to the cultural, economic, environmental, scientific, social and technological advancement of the nation. The NPS expects there to be substantial involvement between itself and the Cooperator in carrying out the activities contemplated in this Agreement. The primary purpose of this study is not the acquisition of property or services for the direct benefit or use by the Federal Government, but rather to accomplish a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized the Legislative Authorities in ARTICLE II. This agreement fulfills the Public Purpose of support and economic stimulation for the following reasons:  Projects will engage recipients, partners, communities, and/or visitors in shared environmental stewardship.  Projects will promote greater public and private participation in historic preservation programs and activities. The project builds resource stewardship ethics in its participants.  The information, products and/or services identified or developed by projects will be shared through a variety of strategies to increase public awareness, knowledge and support for historic preservation and stewardship of the nation’s cultural and historical heritage.  Projects will support the Government’s objective to provide opportunities for youth to learn about the environment by spending time working on projects in National Parks. The NPS receives the indirect benefit of completing conservation projects.  Projects will motivate youth participants to become involved in the natural, cultural and /or historical resource protection of their communities and beyond.  Students gain “real world” or hands-on experience outside of the classroom of natural, cultural and/or historical resource projects.  The scientific community and/or researchers external to NPS gains by new knowledge provided through research and related results dissemination of natural, cultural and/or historical resource information.  Projects assist in the creation, promotion, facilitation, and/or improvement of the public’s understanding of natural, cultural, historic, recreational and other aspects of areas such as ecological conservation areas, and state and local parks. For performance under this cooperative agreement, the regulations set forth in 2 CFR, Part 200, supersedes OMB Circulars A–21 (2 CFR 220), A–87 (2 CFR 225), A–110, and A–122 (2 CFR 230); Circulars A–89, A–102, and A–133; and the guidance in Circular A–50 on Single Audit Act follow–up apply. The Cooperator shall adhere to 2 CFR, Part 200 in its entirety in addition to any terms and conditions of the master agreement not superseded by 2 CFR 200, as well as the terms and conditions set forth in this agreement. In the event of a conflict between the original terms of the master agreement and 2 CFR, Part 200, relating to this task agreement, 2 CFR, Part 200 shall take precedence.

  • Background Screening VENDOR shall comply with all requirements of Sections 1012.32 and 1012.465, Florida Statutes, and all of its personnel who (1) are to be permitted access to school grounds when students are present, (2) will have direct contact with students, or (3) have access or control of school funds, will successfully complete the background screening required by the referenced statutes and meet the standards established by the statutes. This background screening will be conducted by SBBC in advance of VENDOR or its personnel providing any services under the conditions described in the previous sentence. VENDOR shall bear the cost of acquiring the background screening required by Section 1012.32, Florida Statutes, and any fee imposed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to maintain the fingerprints provided with respect to VENDOR and its personnel. The parties agree that the failure of VENDOR to perform any of the duties described in this section shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement entitling SBBC to terminate immediately with no further responsibilities or duties to perform under this Agreement. VENDOR agrees to indemnify and hold harmless SBBC, its officers and employees from any liability in the form of physical or mental injury, death or property damage resulting from VENDOR’s failure to comply with the requirements of this section or with Sections 1012.32 and 1012.465, Florida Statutes.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.