BackgroundA number of single case reports have suggested that the context within which intervention studies take place may challenge the assumptions that underpin randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, the diverse ways in which context may challenge the central tenets of the RCT, and the degree to which this information is known to researchers or subsequently reported, has received much less attention. In this paper, we explore these issues by focusing on seven RCTs of interventions varying in type and degree of complexity, and across diverse contexts.MethodsThis in-depth multiple case study using interviews, focus groups and documentary analysis was conducted in two phases. In phase one, a RCT of a nurse-led intervention provided a single exploratory case and informed the design, sampling and data collection within the main study. Phase two consisted of a multiple explanatory case study covering a spectrum of trials of different types of complex intervention. A total of eighty-four data sources across the seven trials were accessed.ResultsWe present consistent empirical evidence across all trials to indicate that four key elements of context (personal, organisational, trial and problem context) are crucial to understanding how a complex intervention works and to enable both assessments of internal validity and likely generalisability to other settings. The ways in which context challenged trial operation was often complex, idiosyncratic, and subtle; often falling outside of current trial reporting formats. However, information on such issues appeared to be available via first hand ‘insider accounts’ of each trial suggesting that improved reporting on the role of context is possible.ConclusionsSufficient detail about context needs to be understood and reported in RCTs of complex interventions, in order for the transferability of complex interventions to be assessed. Improved reporting formats that require and encourage the clarification of both general and project-specific threats to the likely internal and external validity need to be developed. In addition, a cultural change is required in which the open and honest reporting of such issues is seen as an indicator of study strength and researcher integrity, rather than a symbol of a poor quality study or investigator ability.

The role of surfactant-associated protein (SP) A in the mediation of pulmonary responses to bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) was assessed in vivo with SP-A gene-targeted [SP-deficient; SP-A(-/-)] and wild-type [SP-A(+/+)] mice. Concentrations of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha, macrophage inflammatory protein-2, and nitric oxide were determined in recovered bronchoalveolar lavage fluid after intratracheal administration of LPS. SP-A(-/-) mice produced significantly more TNF-alpha and nitric oxide than SP-A(+/+) mice after LPS treatment. Intratracheal administration of human SP-A (1 mg/kg) to SP-A(-/-) mice restored regulation of TNF-alpha, macrophage inflammatory protein-2, and nitric oxide production to that of SP-A(+/+) mice. Other markers of lung injury including bronchoalveolar fluid protein, phospholipid content, and neutrophil numbers were not influenced by SP-A. Data from experiments designed to test possible mechanisms of SP-A-mediated suppression suggest that neither binding of LPS by SP-A nor enhanced LPS clearance are the primary means of inhibition. Our data and others suggest that SP-A acts directly on immune cells to suppress LPS-induced inflammation. These results demonstrate that endogenous or exogenous SP-A inhibits pulmonary LPS-induced cytokine and nitric oxide production in vivo.

Do w nlo a d e d fro m: h t t p://i n si g h t. c u m b ri a. a c. u k/i d/ e p ri n t/ 4 5 2 7/ U s a g e o f a n y i t e m s f r o m t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C u m b r i a' s i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p o s i t o r y 'I n s i g h t' m u s t c o n f o r m t o t h e f o l l o w i n g f a i r u s a g e g u i d e l i n e s .

Research examining the determinants of fear of crime has arguably raised more questions than it has answered. This exploratory study addresses one of the compelling questions that remains unanswered: what is the role of ethnicity, both at the community and individual levels, in understanding variation in fear of crime? Guided by racial or minority group threat theory, we examine the relative sizes of both the Black and Latino populations as indicators of minority group threat to determine their role in understanding individual fear of crime in a city where Latinos represent a much larger proportion of the population than Blacks (Miami-Dade County, Florida). Furthermore, the race and ethnic backgrounds of the respondents are also considered to evaluate their role in understanding variation in the fear of crime. Using both Census tract-level data and data collected from a NIDA sponsored grant that was part of a larger study about physically disabled residents, our findings reveal that in Miami-Dade County where Blacks are highly segregated from whites, the relative size of the Latino population is a predictor of fear of crime among white residents. Implications of this finding are considered, including a call for more nuanced research focusing on the predictors of fear of crime within multiethnic communities.