Full Board Research Articles

Influence of Military Training and Standardized Nutrition in Military Unit on Soldiers' Nutritional Status and Physical Fitness.

Tomczak, A, Bertrandt, J, Kłos, A, and Kłos, K. Influence of military training and standardized nutrition in military unit on soldiers' nutritional status and physical fitness. J Strength Cond Res 30(10): 2774-2780, 2016-Despite suspension of conscription in Polish Army, trainings of soldiers are still carried out. It is expected that they will be effective and will contribute to obtaining optimum level of psychophysical efficiency that enables fulfillment of military tasks. Total of 60 soldiers took part in the study. During the 9-month military service, soldiers had 200 hours of physical training and basic military training (shooting, drill, anti-chemical training, topography, general tactics, and military equipment operation). The training lasted 8 hours everyday. To assess fitness level, 4 trials were done: long jump, pull-ups, sit-ups, and 1,000 m run. Evaluation of food was based on the analysis of full board menus using the "Tables of composition and nutritional value of food products." Energy value was assessed, and content of basic nutrients was calculated. Assessment of nutritional status was based on anthropometric measurements, such as body height, body mass, and thickness of 4 selected skinfolds. Body height and body mass were the basis for the body mass index calculation. Soldiers serving in the mechanized infantry unit, after completing the training, got better results only in 1,000 m run (from 250.3 to 233.61 seconds). During the research, an average energy value of a daily food ration planned for consumption was 4,504 kcal. This value consisted of 13.2% of energy from protein, 31.9% of energy from fat, and 54.9% from carbohydrates. In the course of military service, percentage of subjects indicating overweight increased from 10.2 to 25.4%.

Time required to review research protocols at 10 Veterans Affairs Institutional Review Boards

BackgroundDespite perceptions that institutional review boards (IRBs) delay research, little is known about how long it takes to secure IRB approval. We retrospectively quantified IRB review times at 10 large Veterans Affairs (VA) IRBs. MethodsWe collected IRB records pertaining to a stratified random sample of research protocols drawn from 10 of the 26 largest VA IRBs. Two independent analysts abstracted dates from the IRB records, from which we calculated overall and incremental review times. We used multivariable linear regression to assess variation in total and incremental review times by IRB and review level (i.e., exempt, expedited, or full board) and to identify potential targets for efforts to improve the efficiency and uniformity of the IRB review process. ResultsIn a sample of 277 protocols, the mean review time was 112 d (95% confidence interval [CI]: 105-120). Compared with full-board reviews at IRB 1, average review times at IRBs 3, 8, 9, and 10 were 27 (95% CI: 6-48), 37 (95% CI: 11-63), 45 (95% CI: 20-69), and 24 (95% CI: 2-45) d shorter, and at IRB 6, times were 56 (95% CI: 28-84) d longer. Across all IRBs, expedited reviews were 44 (95% CI: 30-58) d shorter on average than were full-board reviews, with no significant difference between exempt and full-board reviews. However, after subtracting the time required for Research and Development Committee review, exempt reviews were 21 (95% CI: 1-41) d shorter on average than were full-board reviews. ConclusionsIRB review times differ significantly by IRB and review level. Few VA IRBs approach a consensus panel goal of 60 d for IRB review. The unexpectedly longer review times for exempt protocols in the VA can be attributed to time required for Research and Development Committee review. Prospective, routine collection of key time points in the IRB review process could inform IRB-specific initiatives for reducing VA IRB review times.

Charting the Future of SPN: The SPN Strategic Plan

Charting the Future of SPN: The SPN Strategic Plan

Editorial introductions

Current Opinion in Anesthesiology was launched in 1988. It is one of a successful series of review journals whose unique format is designed to provide a systematic and critical assessment of the literature as presented in the many primary journals. The field of anesthesiology is divided into 15 sections that are reviewed once a year. Each section is assigned a Section Editor, a leading authority in the area, who identifies the most important topics at that time. Here we are pleased to introduce the Section Editors for this issue. SECTION EDITORS Gernot MarxFigureDr Gernot Marx, MD, FRCA is full Professor of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine and Chair at the University RWTH Aachen, Germany. He is Head of the Department of Intensive Care Medicine and Intermediate Care at the University Hospital RWTH Aachen. He is full board member of the German Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care and full board member of the interdisciplinary German Society of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine. He graduated and took his residency at the Medizinische Hochschule Hannover in Germany. He was Senior Lecturer in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine at the University of Liverpool, UK and full Professor for Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine at the Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Germany. He received the Fellowship by election of the Royal College of Anaesthetists. His research interest is focused on sepsis, fluid therapy and telemedicine. He is Editor of two books, Checklist Intensive Care Medicine and The Intensive Care Medicine. He is Editor of AINS (Anaesthesiologie Intensivmedizin Notfallmedizin Schmerztherapie) and Associate Editor of British Journal of Anaesthesia. Hartmut BürkleFigureHartmut Bürkle, MD, PhD is full Professor of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, and Chair of the Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine at the University Medical Center Freiburg, Germany. After his residency in Anesthesiology in Hamburg and a postdoctoral fellowship at the UCSD, San Diego (Prof T. L. Yaksh) he joined Prof Hugo Van Aken[Combining Acute Accent]s anesthesia and intensive care medicine group in Muenster, Germany. His research interests are centered on regional anesthesia techniques, perioperative pain therapy and perioperative rehabilitation, highlighting patient's outcome. During the last decade, he has also focused on the development of safe anesthesia strategies, the economical and ethical issues of modern health systems related to anesthesia and intensive care medicine, as well as on implementing peer reviewed quality care in anesthesiology and intensive care medicine. He has published more than 120 studies and acted as reviewer for most of the national and international journals of anesthesiology and intensive care medicine. Kai ZacharowskiFigureProfessor Kai Zacharowski holds the position of the Ordinarius and is the Director of the Department of Anesthesia, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy at the University Hospital Frankfurt. His research, teaching, and consulting interests are in both clinical and basic aspects of patient safety, transfusion and clotting, innate immunity, cardiovascular and critical care medicine. Professor Zacharowski received his MD from the German University of Mainz and his PhD from Queen Mary, University of London (where he was working with the Nobel laureate Prof Sir John Vane → discovered how aspirin works). His scientific contributions are published in peer-reviewed journals such as Nature Medicine, Lancet, NEJM and Proceedings of the National Academy of Science and were awarded with numerous awards for Innovative Clinical Research. He is serving as Editor-in-Chief for the Journal of Anesthesia & Intensive Care Medicine as well as an Editorial Board member of numerous journals in Critical Care Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Anesthesia. He obtained 2 clinical specializations (Anesthesia/Intensive Care Medicine and Clinical Pharmacology) and is practicing Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine in Frankfurt.

Experimental Test and Non-Linear Finite Element Modeling Prediction on Profiled Steel Sheeting Dry Board (PSSDB) with Geopolymer Concrete Infill

Profiled steel sheeting dry board (PSSDB) system is made of profiled steel sheeting that is connected to the dry board using a self-drilling, self-tapping screw. This study aims to predicts the load-deflection behavior of PSSDB panel system under the influence of geopolymer concrete infill with finite element modeling. To achieve the target objective, the laboratory testing approach and a theoretical system behavior prediction are considered. Through a bending test, the stiffness of PSSDB full board with geopolymer concrete infill (FBGPC) panel is 27.42 kNm2 and the ultimate load is 13.13 kN/m2. The developed finite-element modeling (FEM) successfully predicts the behavior of PSSDB with geopolymer concrete infill panel with >85% accuracy.

The full board and only the full board acts for the nonprofit

Board & Administrator for Administrators OnlyVolume 32, Issue S3 p. 2-2 Articles The full board and only the full board acts for the nonprofit First published: 23 October 2015 https://doi.org/10.1002/ban.30172Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume32, IssueS3November 2015Pages 2-2 RelatedInformation

Using a community-based participatory approach to develop a question prompt list for older adults facing high risk surgery

METHODS: From each of 10 VHA IRBs, we randomly sampled up to 15 research protocols of each review type (ie, exempt, expedited, full board). Two independent analysts used OHRP algorithms to ascertain the expected level of review for each protocol. We quantified agreement between the expected and observed level of review in terms of percent agreement and kappa statistics. We used Poisson regression to model patterns of disagreement across sites.

The New Readout System of the NA62 LKr Calorimeter

The NA62 experiment at CERN SPS (Super Proton Synchrotron) accelerator aims at studying Kaon decays with high precision. The high resolution Liquid Krypton (LKr) calorimeter, built for the NA48 experiment, is a crucial part of the photon-veto system; to cope with the demanding NA62 requirements, its back-end electronics had to be completely renewed. The new readout system is based on the Calorimeter REAdout Module (CREAM) , a 6U VME board whose design and production was sub-contracted to CAEN , with CERN NA62 group continuously supervising the development and production phase. The first version of the board was delivered by the manufacturer in March 2013 and, as of June 2014, the full board production is ongoing. In addition to describing the CREAM board, all aspects of the new LKr readout system, including its integration within the NA62 TDAQ scheme, will be treated.

Accreditation of ethics committees in India: experience of an ethics committee

Many ethics committees (ECs) approving clinical trials in India have got themselves registered with the Drugs Controller General of India as per regulatory requirements. However, there is still scope to improve their functioning. Accreditation, which entails adherence to national and international standards, helps an EC to protect the rights, safety and well-being of research participants. The National Institute for Research in Reproductive Health (NIRRH) ethics committee for clinical studies has received recognition, or accreditation, from the Strategic Initiative for Developing Capacity in Ethical Review (SIDCER). An EC receives recognition from SIDCER if it meets five standards related to its structure and composition; adherence to specific policies; completeness of the review process; after-review process; and documentation and archiving. The extent to which these standards have been met is assessed in various ways, such as review of the EC's records, interviews of selected EC members and observation of a full board meeting of the EC. This paper describes the experiences of the NIRRH EC during and after the process of receiving recognition.

Industry Expertise of Independent Directors and Board Monitoring

AbstractWe examine whether the industry expertise of independent directors affects board monitoring effectiveness. We find that the presence of independent directors with industry experience on a firm’s audit committee significantly curtails firms’ earnings management. In addition, a greater representation of independent directors with industry expertise on a firm’s compensation committee reduces chief executive officer (CEO) excess compensation, and a greater presence of such directors on the full board increases the CEO turnover-performance sensitivity and improves acquirer returns from diversifying acquisitions. Overall, the evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that having relevant industry expertise enhances independent directors’ ability to perform their monitoring function.

Industry Expertise of Independent Directors and Board Monitoring

Does industry experience affect the monitoring effectiveness of independent directors? On the one hand, prior industry experience provides independent directors industry-specific knowledge and expertise critical for understanding and evaluating managerial decision making, thereby enhancing their monitoring capability. On the other hand, independent directors with prior experience in the firm’s industry may be socially connected with or sympathetic to the firm’s management, thus impairing their monitoring incentives. We test these competing hypotheses in a variety of firm polices and decision making. Specifically, we find that the presence of independent directors with industry experience on a firm’s audit committee significantly curtails firms’ earnings management via abnormal accruals and reduces both ex ante and ex post probabilities of firms committing financial fraud. In addition, a greater representation of independent directors with industry expertise on a firm’s compensation committee reduces CEO excess compensation and a greater presence of such directors on the full board increases the CEO turnover-performance sensitivity and improves acquirer returns from diversifying acquisitions. Overall, the evidence is the consistent with the hypothesis that having relevant industry expertise enhances independent directors’ ability to perform their monitoring function. As such, our study sheds new light on the determinants of board effectiveness and provides important policy implications for the design of corporate boards.

When governance fails: Naming directors in class action lawsuits

This paper examines one type of failure in the governance system, the case where directors do not protect shareholders from securities fraud. We find that shareholders can influence large changes in governance and compensation by targeting the full board of directors, but it is more costly in terms of legal fees. Naming directors in a class action lawsuit based on securities fraud, on average, leads to increases in CEO incentive pay, but decreases in director incentive pay. Additionally, naming directors results in a greater change in board composition. These changes in compensation and corporate governance appear to lead to enhanced performance in the years following the lawsuit.

Commentary: "Why open-access publication should be nonprofit-a view from the field of theoretical language science".

We read with interest the Opinion Article from Haspelmath (2013) concerning open access publication. While we agree with him that Gold open access—immediate, free dissemination of research after publication—offers an excellent route to publication for academic authors, we believe that his analysis is flawed in some aspects. In particular, he is not accurate in his characterization of MDPI and its motives. MDPI is described by Halpelmath as a “Beijing-based.” This is factually incorrect: MDPI has been based in Basel, Switzerland since it started publishing in 1996, where the head office remains. Since 2008, MDPI has opened branch offices in China and now has three offices there—two in Beijing and one in Wuhan, but remains a registered Swiss company (see http://bs.powernet.ch/webservices/inet/HRG/HRG.asmx/getHRGHTML?chnr=2703014334&amt=270&toBeModified=0&validOnly=0&lang=4&sort=0). The same high editorial standards are applied across all our offices. Haspelmath also comments that, “The business model here is to start a large number of new journals and to hope that some of them will succeed and bring profit.” Again, this is incorrect when applied to MDPI. In nearly 20 years of operation, we have not closed down a single journal, and all maintain a regular publication output. This is down to the dedicated work of editors, both MDPI staff and the 6500 academic editors based at universities and research institutions across the world. We operate journals across all disciplines. Our aim is to be financially sustainable, while operating a comprehensive portfolio of open access journals. In reference to Languages (http://www.mdpi.com/journal/languages), Hapelmath states that “it does not even have an editor.” This statement is misleading, as it implies that the journal had already been launched without an editor in place. The facts are as follows: At the time the article was published (2013), Languages was not accepting submissions and was in the process of assembling the editorial board. Indeed, the journal website was available only via a link sent to potential editorial board members. Dr Haspelmath was one of the early invitees. We employ strict criteria when starting a journal, which include that it must have a qualified editorial board, including an Editor-in Chief. It has taken some time to arrive at this point, but there is now a full Editorial Board and an Editor-in-Chief in place, and we look forward to publishing interesting and high quality research in Languages. In his opinion piece, Haspelmath gives the impression that it is self-evident that an open access publisher that charges article processing charges (APCs) must be a vanity press. However, he must surely know that to achieve sustainable success in academic publishing, one must build a reputation and publish citable articles via robust peer-review. MDPI journals fulfill these criteria, and have been trusted by scholars from the very best universities for nearly 20 years. We believe that there are benefits for an open access publisher to be either a not-for-profit organization or a commercial enterprise, and that both are viable. In the latter case, the need for financial sustainability drives efficiencies in the publication process, and innovations that add value for authors and readers alike. The lower average income of open access publishers compared to subscription publishers bears this out. We accept that there are a small minority of publishers that engage in questionable, unethical, or even illegal practices, but we do not believe that these companies will be able to sustain themselves on a long-term basis. We also believe that the majority of scholars are able to differentiate reputable publishers from those with questionable practices. In conclusion, we invite Martin Haspelmath to revise his opinion of MDPI and accept that a commercial open access publisher can have motivations other than profit, and is well-capable of producing high quality research that is open and available for all.

The Structure of Board Committees

Utilizing a novel dataset containing full board committee membership for over 6000 firms, we document and analyze board committee structures. We find that committee use (i) is increasing with firm size, the proportion of independent directors, board size, board meetings and, to some extent, busyness, while it (ii) is lower for young firms and CEO Duality. These findings are consistent with the view that committees provide specialization, efficiency and accountability benefits, but may also lead to information segregation and overloaded directors. By examining an exogenous change to the number of committees, we offer direct evidence on how committees impact performance. We also find that boards allocate directors to multiple committees in ways to alleviate their costs. Specifically, over 50% of the board are multi-committee directors, and moreover, they tend to serve on related committees.

Things run smoothly if the board upholds the chain of command

In practice, the board has only one employee—the executive director—and she is the only nonprofit employee who reports to the full board.

Two ways to streamline committee reports

Since board committees exist to do work for and save the time of the full board, those who chair them should know how to make concise committee reports. If they can't do this, they risk having the board rehash their work and waste meeting time doing so. Here are two ways to avoid this.

Poverty, Race and Vulnerability

Rather than providing for the welfare needs of asylum-seekers in Ireland within the existing social welfare structure, the Irish State operates the Direct Provision System. This system provides full board in accommodation centres and a small weekly allowance. The problems with this “temporary” system are manifold, and though these issues are individually problematic in their own right, they are compounded by the fact that it has been known for an asylum application to take seven years or more to reach completion. The Irish State is thus arguably in breach of both international (uncrc) and regional (echr and eu) obligations, as well as their domestic best practice guidelines. This article argues that the intolerability of inadequate long-term living conditions and enforced poverty is undeniable. The effect of poverty and social exclusion, in particular on asylum-seeker children, is highly detrimental and cultivates vulnerability on many levels. Methodologies I use in this article are doctrinal analysis of the relevant instruments and case law as well as engaging in a socio-legal reading of reports and literature in the area, and using this to inform my understanding of the issues. I conclude that such treatment of already vulnerable individuals by the State is manifestly discriminatory and feeds into a discriminatory culture of xenophobia. Political and media discourse engaging in such terminology as “welfare tourism” further exacerbates the issue by creating a marginalised concept the “other” amongst us.

Bargaining with the Real Boss: How the Joint Employer Doctrine Can Expand Student-Athlete Unionization to the NCAA as an Employer

College sports at the Division I level are in disarray. At the forefront of the problem is the question of how to put a price tag on education. This is because student-athletes, particularly those who receive full tuition scholarships to play NCAA sports, are the wheels that turn a $12 billion per year industry despite the fact that they receive no paychecks for their commitments. Instead, they are given an opportunity to receive an education that for non-athletes, may cost as much as $40,000 per year. However, in comparison, the NFL is a $9 billion dollar industry, where multi-million dollar players contracts are the norm. As a result, the labor rights movement for student-athletes is at a boiling point. In 2014, the Director of Region Thirteen National Labor Relations Board, Peter Sung Ohr, gave way to a short-lived victory for CAPA, by finding it was a “labor organization” with collective-bargaining rights toward its university “employer,” Northwestern. Northwestern requested review immediately, and on August 17, 2015, the full National Labor Relations Board (the Board) dismissed CAPA’s petition, citing a lack of jurisdiction over the field of NCAA universities. In other words, a private union from Northwestern could fall under the NLRA, but the NLRB would not have jurisdiction over the majority of American universities, which are public institutions, Therefore, even had the full Board upheld CAPA as a viable bargaining unit, players at public universities would have been unable to seek the labor protections available to their private-university counterparts. College sports would have been in disarray with a fragmented unionization efforts, so the Board avoided the merits of the issue and ruled on procedural grounds.However, shortly after the Northwestern decision, the Board decided a labor dispute involving the joint-employer doctrine in Browning-Ferris Industries of California. The stakes in that case implicated the well-known corporation, McDonald’s, which is the example that this Note uses to illustrate several points. Using the McDonald’s example, the issue was whether employees at McDonald’s — who appear to be employed by both a McDonald’s franchisee and the parent corporation — could hold the parent company (McDonald’s Corp.) liable for labor violations committed at the franchisee-level. In Browning, the Board ruled that franchise-level employees can bring these claims against their true employer, like McDonald’s Corp. And interestingly, college sports are structured in a very similar way, with universities entering contracts with the NCAA to employ student-athletes via scholarships to work within their respective sports programs. This Note provides the first-ever application of the joint-employer doctrine to student-athlete labor, to provide the means to bargain with their real boss, the NCAA — their private-sector “employer.”

Impact of NCI-mandated scientific review on protocol development and content.

The NCI requirement that clinical trials at NCI-designated cancer centers undergo scientific review in addition to Institutional Review Board review is unique among medical specialties. We evaluated the impact of this process on protocol development and content. We analyzed cancer clinical trials that underwent full board review by the Harold C. Simmons Cancer Center Protocol Review and Monitoring Committee (PRMC) from January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2013. We analyzed associations between trial characteristics, PRMC decisions, and protocol modifications using Chi-square testing, Fishers exact testing, and logistic regression. A total of 226 trials were analyzed. Of these, 77% were industry-sponsored and 23% were investigator-initiated. Initial PRMC decisions were: approval (40%), provisional approval (52%), deferral (7%), and disapproval (1%). These decisions were associated with study sponsor (P<.001) and phase (P<.001). Ultimately, 97% of industry-sponsored and 90% of investigator-initiated trials were approved (P=.05). Changes were requested for 27% of industry-sponsored trials compared with 54% of investigator-initiated trials (P<.001). Total changes requested (mean, 5.6 vs 2.4; P<.001) and implemented (mean, 4.6 vs 2.1; P=.008) per protocol were significantly greater for investigator-initiated trials. Changes related to study design were more commonly requested (35% vs 13% of trials) and implemented (40% vs 5% of trials) for investigator-initiated trials compared with industry-sponsored trials (P=.03). NCI-mandated scientific protocol review seems to have a substantial impact on investigator-initiated trials but less effect on industry-sponsored trials. These findings may provide guidance on development and prioritization of institutional protocol review policies.

How to respond when the board turns on you

A board's executive committee starts meeting without the full board's knowledge and has some pointed criticisms of your performance. Board members send an evaluation form to your staff, asking them to offer their views on your performance: ominous signs of a board problem.