Connecting the Dots in a Research Program to Develop,Implement, and Evaluate Strategic Literacy Interventions for Struggling Readers and Writers

This article follows the development of three literacy programs that were designed by researchers at Michigan State University to support struggling readers and writers. The literacy interventions focus on strategy instruction in both writing and reading, and they culminate in the development of an integrated reading‐writing program to support the acquisition of read‐to‐learn and write‐to‐learn strategies in the content areas. The common thread that unifies the programs is an emphasis on text structure instruction with the provision of instructional scaffolds to support students' participation in a literacy discourse and strategies in advance of independent performance.     

Untangling the jungle of e-journal access issues using CRM software

Librarians have been struggling for years with the variety of issues arising while troubleshooting access to electronic journals. This article outlines the advantages and disadvantages of using a Customer Relations Management (CRM) software, originally designed for a call center, to communicate with patrons and track access issues. Utilizing the e-mail software used by the Reference Department at the University of South Florida, we assign incidents, correspond with patrons and staff, write internal notes, maintain transactions, and pull statistics. Hopefully, library vendors will develop software oriented to the needs of libraries to assist in managing access problems for e-journals.     

A model to explain information seeking behaviour by individuals in the response phase of a disaster

This Australian study establishes a model that provides a foundation for communication channels and tools selection by agencies in the post-warning response phase of a disaster. The model, developed from disaster and information seeking literature, attempts to predict information source and channel selection by people after their community has received a warning for a disaster. It provides the coding framework for analysis of 51 semi-structured interviews with disaster-affected Australians. The interviews tested the model for accommodation of channels and sources that people chose, found most useful, and used most in bushfire, slow flood, flash flood, and cyclone situations. The order of initial sources was investigated and preliminary information seeking pathways established across disaster types. The disaster information seeking model supports this investigation of information seeking behaviour, though improvements are suggested. The resulting model could guide agency response communication for different disaster types.     

Investigating married adults’ communal coping with genetic health risk and perceived discrimination

Increased genetic testing in personalized medicine presents unique challenges for couples, including managing disease risk and potential discrimination as a couple. This study investigated couples’ conflicts and support gaps as they coped with perceived genetic discrimination. We also explored the degree to which communal coping was beneficial in reducing support gaps and ultimately stress. Dyadic analysis of married adults (N?=?266, 133 couples), in which one person had the genetic risk for serious illness, showed that perceived discrimination predicted more frequent conflicts about alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency-related treatment, privacy boundaries, and finances, which, in turn, predicted wider gaps in emotion and esteem support, and greater stress for both spouses. Communal coping predicted lower support gaps for both partners and marginally lower stress.     

Access to human,animal, and environmental journals is still limited for the One Health community

Objective

“One Health” is an interdisciplinary approach to evaluating and managing the health and well-being of humans, animals, and the environments they share that relies on knowledge from the domains of human health, animal health, and the environmental sciences. The authors'' objective was to evaluate the extent of open access (OA) to journal articles in a sample of literature from these domains. We hypothesized that OA to articles in human health or environmental journals was greater than access to animal health literature.

Methods

A One Health seminar series provided fifteen topics. One librarian translated each topic into a search strategy and searched four databases for articles from 2011 to 2012. Two independent investigators assigned each article to human health, the environment, animal health, all, other, or combined categories. Article and journal-level OA were determined. Each journal was also assigned a subject category and its indexing evaluated.

Results

Searches retrieved 2,651 unique articles from 1,138 journals; 1,919 (72%) articles came from 406 journals that contributed more than 1 article. Seventy-seven (7%) journals dealt with all 3 One Health domains; the remaining journals represented human health 487 (43%), environment 172 (15%), animal health 141 (12%), and other/combined categories 261 (23%). The proportion of OA journals in animal health (40%) differed significantly from journals categorized as human (28%), environment (28%), and more than 1 category (29%). The proportion of OA for articles by subject categories ranged from 25%–34%; only the difference between human (34%) and environment (25%) was significant.

Conclusions

OA to human health literature is more comparable to animal health than hypothesized. Environmental journals had less OA than anticipated.Keywords (Medical Subject Headings) Publishing, Periodicals as Topic, Access to Information, Veterinary Medicine, Environment, Environmental Health, Medicine“One Health” is an integrated, transdisciplinary approach to solve complex problems at the diverse interfaces shared by humans, animals, and the environment [1]. The One Health approach to evaluating and managing the health and well-being of humans, animals, and the environments that they share relies on knowledge from the domains of human health, animal health, and the environmental sciences. Although there is a growing body of literature about the development of the One Health concept as documented by Pepper, Carrigan, Shurtz, and Foster [2], this literature is not the same as the combination of literature from the three domains that is applied in service of One Health. Every discipline related to One Health has its unique mindset and language, with corresponding lists of acronyms that are frequently an impediment to effective communication across the participating professions. Relevant papers guiding a One Health approach may never specifically use “One Health” as a term or concept.To promote better communication and collaboration among health professionals and environmental scientists, a public monthly One Health Intellectual Exchange Group (IEG) hosted by the North Carolina Biotechnology Center was launched in 2009. In 2011, faculty from the North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine, University of North Carolina''s Gillings School for Global Public Health, Duke Global Health Institute, and Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University expanded the IEG series into a weekly seminar course with eight One Health focus areas [3]. The eight focus area modules were the following: an introduction to One Health; environmental health and ecology; the human and animal bond; zoonoses and emerging infectious diseases; food and water safety; disease surveillance, informatics, and disaster preparedness; benefits of comparative medicine; and policy and education (Appendix A, online only). Each seminar speaker recommended papers to read prior to the session to provide a foundation for the topic because student backgrounds and majors were quite diverse. Represented student majors included master''s of public health, master''s of animal science, doctor of veterinary medicine, graduate-level environmental sciences, and undergraduate-level biochemistry, engineering, and biology.Open access (OA) to relevant literature is very important to scholars and practitioners working on interdisciplinary problems. The One Health Proof of Concept Workgroup found that few studies assess outcomes in human, animal, and environmental spheres simultaneously [4], making it important to be able to access articles from each of the three domains to get a more complete picture.The objective of this study was to evaluate the extent of OA to journal articles in a sample of literature relevant to One Health from the human, animal, and environmental domains. Working in a college of veterinary medicine and supporting faculty, staff, and students addressing interdisciplinary problems under the One Health umbrella [5], the authors were familiar with the extent of OA in human biomedical and public health literature and the literature of veterinary medicine but were less familiar with environmental journals. In light of general availability of environmental information and OA to publications such as Environmental Health Perspectives, we thought it likely that environmental literature would be relatively open compared to the other subject areas. Therefore, we hypothesized OA to articles from human health or environmental journals was greater than access to animal health literature. We chose to look at article-level subject categorization and access, as well as journal-level categorization and access, because they might differ. Article-level access relates more to authors'' decisions about OA for a content domain, while journal-level access and subject categorization are driven by publishers and associations. Understanding the distinction and having data would inform our efforts to promote increased OA to this literature.     

The Performance of the Mantel-Haenszel Procedure Across Samples and Matching Criteria

This study examined the reliability of the Mantel-Haenszel indexes across different samples of test takers as well as across sample sizes and investigated whether these indexes are robust to item context effects. Mathematics data from the Second International Mathematics Study (SIMS; 1985) for U.S. eighth-grade students were analyzed. The results suggest that the MH D-DIF is robust to item context effects. However, larger sample sizes than those used in this investigation (N = 141-167 for the focal group) may be necessary to obtain stable estimates from the Mantel-Haenszel procedure.