The ever increasing numbers of immunosuppressed individuals has led to a significant increase in the incidence of opportunistic infections, particularly those caused by fungi. The epidemiology of infections caused by the common fungal pathogens such as Candida albicans, Cryptococcus neoformans and Aspergillus fumigatus has been well documented. However, in addition to these, a number of species which have previously been unrecognized (e.g., C. dubliniensis) or have previously been assumed to be non-pathogenic (e.g., Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Scedosporium spp. and Fusarium spp.) have emerged as agents of human disease. Since these species have only been identified recently as human pathogens, their role in disease is poorly understood. In most cases, identification of these species is problematic and therefore their epidemiology has yet to be elucidated adequately. In addition, several of these species fail to respond to conventional antifungal therapies. In this article, we describe the emergence of two separate yeast species (C. dubliniensis and S. cerevisiae) and two separate groups of moulds (Scedosporium prolificans and Fusarium spp.), as human pathogens. It is apparent from what we already know, that much work has yet to be performed before we have a clear understanding of how these species cause disease and most importantly how they can be controlled.

Purpose -This paper offers an effective model for increasing professionals' competence, enthusiasm and success in writing and publishing. Design/methodology/approach -Recent articles on writing groups in the field of library and information science are reviewed and a case study of a group at RMIT University Library is presented. The authors were the facilitator and group members who were librarians, most with relative inexperience in research, writing, presenting, and getting published. A self-rating confidence survey was created to establish developmental priorities which were then addressed through input from experts, practical application and reflection, and constructive advice and support from group members. Group effectiveness and outcomes were evaluated at mid-and end-point review meetings, through a post-intervention confidence survey and by tracking publication output. Findings -The group became a cohesive, task-focused and productive team. A post-intervention confidence survey evidenced improvements on all survey items at a team level. Each member affirmed that they had gained substantial knowledge of writing, presentation and research techniques and understanding of the publication process. Publication output increased over the benchmark year of 2010, and in 2011 and 2012 exceeded initial targets. Practical implications -The model presented offers a practical and effective approach to increasing competence and output in writing, presenting, research, and getting published and can be easily adopted by others. Originality/value -Most literature reviews on library professional writing groups relate to professionals required to publish. The Get Published Group comprised Australian librarians writing voluntarily.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract