Search results

Outlines how Parker Hannifin used Sandvik duplex stainless steel to provide higher corrosion resistance for its tube fittings for the paper industry. Describes how ferrules were the weak link in the chain and how Parker Hannifin developed new materials.

People in prison face a disproportionate risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), but there is a paucity of evidence on trends in STIs in prisons in England. This study aims to describe trends in chlamydia test-positivity and syphilis prevalence by using two different methodologies in prison settings.

This study used routinely collected chlamydia surveillance data reported by all primary diagnostic laboratories in England from 2018 to 2022 to identify tests undertaken in prisons. Separately, this study used data from a pilot syphilis serology pilot study of four prisons in England. A descriptive analysis was undertaken to describe chlamydia test-positivity and syphilis seroprevalence by demographic characteristics.

Between 2018 and 2022, the number of chlamydia tests carried out in prisons increased by 2.0% (17,177–17,514) whilst the number of positive diagnoses decreased by 12.0% (957–840). The overall test-positivity in 2022 was 4.8% (840/17,514) which was marginally lower than that of the community; test-positivity was highest in 15–19 year-olds. Overall, syphilis prevalence was 3.9% (43/1064). Prevalence was highest in the women’s prison site at 6.4% 27/398). The range in male prison sites was between 0.5% and 3.5%.

Use of two methods enabled us to better understand the burden of STIs in a vulnerable population. Chlamydia test positivity was marginally lower than community levels but still indicated a high burden of infection, in particular for the 15–24 age group. Syphilis prevalence was high across all age groups in prisons, highlighting the need for more systematic assessment of STIs in prisons to allow for earlier identification and treatment of infections.

Sherwood Forest is a mosaic of heritage, habitats and stakeholder relations. Scheme Manager, Steve Little, and Senior Lecturer in Museum Studies, Charlie Gregson, share their story of developing a working methodology in this complex landscape. By evaluating their relationship through the lenses of knowledge brokering and collaborative mentoring, they identify six themes relating to how their working environment evolved and functioned. Discussion finds significant overlap between collaborative mentoring, KE and the attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals in their ability to enable more nuanced and holistic changemaking that is contextualized in a deep understanding of need.

Knowledge brokering, a process by which an individual (or an organization) supports the transfer of research evidence into policy and practice, can improve evidence-based decision-making through knowledge exchange (KE) but is, on the whole, poorly defined in academia (Cvitanovic et al., 2017). This chapter seeks to contribute to the ‘necessary and urgent’ need for evaluation of KE in practice (Rycroft-Smith, 2022) by providing edited snippets of dialogue, analysis and key learning points. It is intended as inspiration and encouragement for academics, professionals, students and volunteers developing human-centric projects or design-thinking methodologies between universities and external partners.

Group cohesion is among the most researched constructs linked to team effectiveness, and performance (Rosh, Offermann, & Van Diest, 2012). While meta-analytic evidence has established strong linkages between cohesion and performance (e.g., Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon, 2003), the functions and structure of cohesion have received limited attention within this literature. In this chapter, we begin to address this gap in the literature by reviewing extant knowledge regarding the structural and functional properties of cohesion to introduce an integrative framework of the function and structure of cohesion. Our framework is designed to address two key questions: (1) Why are groups cohesive – that is, what function(s) does cohesion serve for an individual and/or groups? and (2) What are the elemental forms of cohesion within groups – that is, what is the structure of cohesion within teams? Our integrative framework posits that cohesion serves two main functions within groups: an affective and an instrumental function. These functions serve to characterize the structure of cohesion into four conceptually related but distinct facets that include interpersonal and group belongingness; and social and task elements of cohesion. Furthermore, we specify that these elemental facets occur both horizontally (among individuals with similar standing within groups) and vertically (among individuals with different standing within the groups). We discuss advantages and disadvantages of our framework and conclude with implications for research and practice.

Reviews the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoints practical implications from cutting‐edge research and case studies.

This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context.

One glance at the home and fashion magazines of 2011 and you would be prone to start thinking you had entered some kind of two‐dimensional time warp with the clock set on 1981. Clothes fashions from both the seventies and eighties hold sway; furniture from the 1970s is very du jour amongst the cognoscenti; even patterns in lime, yellow and the dreaded brown can be seen among the palates of major designers. Oh, and IBM are back among the elite of world corporations.

Provides strategic insights and practical thinking that have influenced some of the world's leading organizations.

The briefing saves busy executives and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy‐to‐digest format.