Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago. / "Books and articles cited": p. 5-6.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Rostock.

When considering what packaging material is optimal for a piece of biological evidence there are two vital things to consider: degradation and contamination (1). Biological evidence collected from a crime scene is brought to the laboratory, however, immediate testing upon arrival is highly unlikely (2). Therefore, the packaging must be suitable for transportation as well as storage. During the storage phase, if improper packaging is utilized, degradation and/or contamination could occur. General forensic practice is to dry biological samples before packaging, then package the evidence in a paper (breathable) container. This study investigated the use of kraft stock envelopes, plastic bags, glassine envelopes, Tyvek envelopes, evidence/syringe tubes, knife pouches, and Cap-Shure® plastic swab caps to package wet blood and semen samples. The packaging materials were evaluated in a humidity study, degradation study, and transfer study to determine if the biological specimen would remain intact and contained within the packaging. In the humidity study, it was determined that the kraft paper, glassine paper, and Tyvek® allowed for the passage of moisture, enabling the enclosed sample to readily dry. The plastic bag, evidence tube, and knife pouch created a difference in relative humidity above 20%, thus increasing the ambient moisture concentration the samples were exposed to. In the degradation study, all samples were positive for their respective biological substance when tested with screening, presumptive, and confirmatory methods, however, bacteria were observed on samples that were packaged in plastic bags evidence tubes, and plastic caps. Additionally, only one sample, packaged in an evidence tube, yielded a DNA degradation index that implied degradation had occurred. The packaging materials were also tested to determine if the biological fluid would transfer through them, permitting cross-contamination. The kraft paper and one glassine paper did not provide a true barrier, as blood transferred through the envelopes onto a surrounding surface. The Tyvek®, knife pouch, and plastic bag all kept the wet blood contained within the package and no transfer to the surrounding surfaces occurred, although bloodstains on the interior of the Tyvek® and knife pouch could be visualized from the exterior. Overall, Tyvek® envelopes were determined to be an optimal packaging material for wet biological samples when compared to the other packaging materials used in this limited study due to their relative strength, ability to allow fluids to air dry and the lack of penetration of wet blood to the exterior surface.

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / Introduction The aim of this study was to examine how the term “evidence” was conceived and used among academics and practitioners who teach medicine and public health. The rationale for the study was the widespread debate in the 1990s about evidence in health care. Methods Qualitative data were collected between 1996 to 1999. The core data came from unstructured interviews with researchers and practitioners linked to the Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney. Other sources of data were: participant observation of group interactions in the Faculty of Medicine and at national and international conferences about evidence in health care; discourse in health care literature; and Internet posting to an international “evidence-based health” Email discussion list. The Grounded Theory method was adopted to analyse and interpret these data. The process involved systematic coding of the data to develop conceptual categories. These categories were employed to formulate propositions about the topic of evidence and how it was conceived and used by the study participants. Results Researchers and practitioners often discussed evidence from a “realist” view: that is they valued scientifically derived and rigorously substantiated knowledge about the natural world. Yet despite their widely shared epistemological perspectives, study participants presented several diverse concepts of evidence. Their ideas were also dynamic and evolving, and often influenced by the developing (local and international) debates and controversies about evidence-based medicine (EBM). Grounded Theory analysis leads to the selection of a core “social process”. This is a core conceptual category that draws together the ideas observed in the data, and that is adopted to present the study findings. In this study, “judgement” was identified as the core social process to underpin all examined reflections and discussions about evidence. Study participants defined the concept of evidence through a combination of description and appraisal. Evidence was described in three ways, i.e.: as a “measure of reality”, by its “functional role”, or as a “constructed product”. Evidence was also appraised on three “dimensions”, i.e.: “benchmarked”, “applied” and “social” dimensions of evidence. Participants invoked these concepts of evidence differently when forming their own judgements about medical or public health knowledge; when making decisions about clinical practice; and when using argument and persuasion to influence the judgements of others. Many researchers and practitioners also modified their judgements on evidence in the light of EBM. This was based on perceptions that EBM had become a dominant rhetoric within health care, which had the potential to channel the flow of resources. This led to an increasing consideration of the “social dimension” of evidence, and of the social construction and possible “misuse” of the term evidence. Conclusions The concept of evidence is presented in this study as a multi-dimensional construct. I have proposed that the three descriptions and three dimensions of evidence presented in this study, and recognition of the way these may be invoked when forming and influencing judgments, can be used as a basis for communicating about evidence in medicine and public health among colleagues and with students. There are significant gaps in knowledge (based on empirical research) about the social dimension of evidence. Particularly, in situations where researchers and practitioners wish to employ the concept of evidence to influence others’ medical and public health practice and wider social policy.

Inaugurele rede Universiteit van Amsterdam. / Uitg. onder auspiciën van de Universiteit van Amsterdam. - Op omslag: AMC. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (p. 21-22). Met lit. opg.

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / Introduction The aim of this study was to examine how the term “evidence” was conceived and used among academics and practitioners who teach medicine and public health. The rationale for the study was the widespread debate in the 1990s about evidence in health care. Methods Qualitative data were collected between 1996 to 1999. The core data came from unstructured interviews with researchers and practitioners linked to the Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney. Other sources of data were: participant observation of group interactions in the Faculty of Medicine and at national and international conferences about evidence in health care; discourse in health care literature; and Internet posting to an international “evidence-based health” Email discussion list. The Grounded Theory method was adopted to analyse and interpret these data. The process involved systematic coding of the data to develop conceptual categories. These categories were employed to formulate propositions about the topic of evidence and how it was conceived and used by the study participants. Results Researchers and practitioners often discussed evidence from a “realist” view: that is they valued scientifically derived and rigorously substantiated knowledge about the natural world. Yet despite their widely shared epistemological perspectives, study participants presented several diverse concepts of evidence. Their ideas were also dynamic and evolving, and often influenced by the developing (local and international) debates and controversies about evidence-based medicine (EBM). Grounded Theory analysis leads to the selection of a core “social process”. This is a core conceptual category that draws together the ideas observed in the data, and that is adopted to present the study findings. In this study, “judgement” was identified as the core social process to underpin all examined reflections and discussions about evidence. Study participants defined the concept of evidence through a combination of description and appraisal. Evidence was described in three ways, i.e.: as a “measure of reality”, by its “functional role”, or as a “constructed product”. Evidence was also appraised on three “dimensions”, i.e.: “benchmarked”, “applied” and “social” dimensions of evidence. Participants invoked these concepts of evidence differently when forming their own judgements about medical or public health knowledge; when making decisions about clinical practice; and when using argument and persuasion to influence the judgements of others. Many researchers and practitioners also modified their judgements on evidence in the light of EBM. This was based on perceptions that EBM had become a dominant rhetoric within health care, which had the potential to channel the flow of resources. This led to an increasing consideration of the “social dimension” of evidence, and of the social construction and possible “misuse” of the term evidence. Conclusions The concept of evidence is presented in this study as a multi-dimensional construct. I have proposed that the three descriptions and three dimensions of evidence presented in this study, and recognition of the way these may be invoked when forming and influencing judgments, can be used as a basis for communicating about evidence in medicine and public health among colleagues and with students. There are significant gaps in knowledge (based on empirical research) about the social dimension of evidence. Particularly, in situations where researchers and practitioners wish to employ the concept of evidence to influence others’ medical and public health practice and wider social policy.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Sydney, 2001. / Title from title screen (viewed 9 January 2008). Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy to the Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine. Includes bibliographical references. Also issued in print.

Research in Practice is a column in the Evidence Based Library and Information Practice journal, published quarterly.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / Trace evidence is a major field within forensic science. Association of trace evidence samples can be problematic due to sample heterogeneity and a lack of quantitative criteria for comparing spectra or chromatograms. The aim of this study is to evaluate different types of instrumentation for their ability to discriminate among samples of various types of trace evidence. Chemometric analysis, including techniques such as Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering, Principal Components Analysis, and Discriminant Analysis, was employed to evaluate instrumental data. First, automotive clear coats were analyzed by using microspectrophotometry to collect UV absorption data. In total, 71 samples were analyzed with classification accuracy of 91.61%. An external validation was performed, resulting in a prediction accuracy of 81.11%. Next, fiber dyes were analyzed using UV-Visible microspectrophotometry. While several physical characteristics of cotton fiber can be identified and compared, fiber color is considered to be an excellent source of variation, and thus was examined in this study. Twelve dyes were employed, some being visually indistinguishable. Several different analyses and comparisons were done, including an inter-laboratory comparison and external validations. Lastly, common plastic samples and other polymers were analyzed using pyrolysis-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, and their pyrolysis products were then analyzed using multivariate statistics. The classification accuracy varied dependent upon the number of classes chosen, but the plastics were grouped based on composition. The polymers were used as an external validation and misclassifications occurred with chlorinated samples all being placed into the category containing PVC.

This thesis explores the transformations of evidence in health research synthesis studies – studies that bring together evidence from a number of research reports on the same/ similar topic. It argues that health research synthesis is a broad and intriguing field in a state of pre-formation, in spite of the fact that it may appear well established if equated with its exemplar method – the systematic review inclusive of meta-analysis. Transformations of evidence are processes by which pieces of evidence are modified from what they are in the primary study report into what is needed in the synthesis study while, supposedly, having their integrity fully preserved. Such processes have received no focused attention in the literature. Yet they are key to the validity and reliability of synthesis studies. This work begins to describe them and explore their frequency, scope and drivers. A ‘meta-scientific’ perspective is taken, where ‘meta-scientific’ is understood to include primarily ideas from the philosophy of science and methodological texts in health research, and, to a lesser extent, social studies of science and psychology of science thinking. A range of meta-scientific ideas on evidence and factors that shape it guide the analysis of processes of “data extraction” and “coding” during which much evidence is transformed. The core of the analysis involves the application of an extensive Analysis Framework to 17 highly heterogeneous research papers on cancer. Five non-standard ‘injunctions’ complement the Analysis Framework – for comprehensiveness, extensive multiple coding, extreme transparency, combination of critical appraisal and critique, and for first coding as close as possible to the original and then extending towards larger transformations. Findings suggest even lower credibility of the current overall model of health research synthesis than initially expected. Implications are discussed and a radical vision for the future proposed.