Explore the vast range of titles available.

This paper is an extended version of a paper that appeared in the proceedings of the IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium 2009. This paper has been updated with respect to advances made in schedulability analysis, and contains a number of significant additional results. The paper addresses the problem of priority assignment in multiprocessor real-time systems using global fixed task-priority pre-emptive scheduling. We prove that Audsley’s Optimal Priority Assignment (OPA) algorithm, originally devised for uniprocessor scheduling, is applicable to the multiprocessor case, provided that three conditions hold with respect to the schedulability tests used. Our empirical investigations show that the combination of optimal priority assignment policy and a simple compatible schedulability test is highly effective in terms of the number of tasksets deemed to be schedulable. We also examine the performance of heuristic priority assignment policies such as Deadline Monotonic, and an extension of the TkC priority assignment policy called DkC that can be used with any schedulability test. Here we find that Deadline Monotonic priority assignment has relatively poor performance in the multiprocessor case, while DkC priority assignment is highly effective.

Bacterial resistance has intensified in recent years due to the uncontrolled use of conventional drugs, and new bacterial strains with multiple resistance have been reported. This problem may be solved by using antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), which fulfill their bactericidal activity without developing much bacterial resistance. The rapid interaction between AMPs and the bacterial cell membrane means that the bacteria cannot easily develop resistance mechanisms. In addition, various drugs for clinical use have lost their effect as a conventional treatment; however, the synergistic effect of AMPs with these drugs would help to reactivate and enhance antimicrobial activity. Their efficiency against multi-resistant and extensively resistant bacteria has positioned them as promising molecules to replace or improve conventional drugs. In this review, we examined the importance of antimicrobial peptides and their successful activity against critical and high-priority bacteria published in the WHO list.

We are interested in queues in which customers of different classes arrive to a service facility, and where performance targets are specified for each class. The manager of such a queue has the task of implementing a queueing discipline that results in the performance targets for all classes being met simultaneously. For the case where the performance targets are specified in terms of ratios of mean waiting times, as long ago as the 1960s, Kleinrock suggested a queueing discipline to ensure that the targets are achieved. He proposed that customers accumulate priority as a linear function of their time in the queue: the higher the urgency of the customer’s class, the greater the rate at which that customer accumulates priority. When the server becomes free, the customer (if any) with the highest accumulated priority at that time point is the one that is selected for service. Kleinrock called such a queue a time-dependent priority queue , but we shall refer to it as the accumulating priority queue . Recognising that the performance of many queues, particularly in the healthcare and human services sectors, is specified in terms of tails of waiting time distributions for customers of different classes, we revisit the accumulating priority queue to derive its waiting time distributions, rather than just the mean waiting times. We believe that some elements of our analysis, particularly the process that we call the maximum priority process , are of mathematical interest in their own right.

Background Research priority setting aims to identify research gaps within particular health fields. Given the global burden of mental illness and underfunding of mental health research compared to other health topics, knowledge of methodological procedures may raise the quality of priority setting to identify research with value and impact. However, to date there has been no comprehensive review on the approaches adopted with priority setting projects that identify mental health research, despite viewed as essential knowledge to address research gaps. Hence, the paper presents a summary of the methods, designs, and existing frameworks that can be adopted for prioritising mental health research to inform future prioritising projects. Method A systematic review of electronic databases located prioritisation literature, while a critical interpretive synthesis was adopted whereby the appraisal of methodological procedures was integrated into the synthesis of the findings. The synthesis was shaped using the good practice checklist for priority setting by Viergever and colleagues drawing on their following categories to identify and appraise methodological procedures: (1) Comprehensive Approach—frameworks/designs guiding the entire priority setting; (2) Inclusiveness –participation methods to aid the equal contribution of stakeholders; (3) Information Gathering—data collecting methods to identify research gaps, and (4) Deciding Priorities—methods to finalise priorities. Results In total 903 papers were located with 889 papers removed as either duplicates or not meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. 14 papers were identified, describing 13 separate priority setting projects. Participatory approaches were the dominant method adopted but existing prioritisation frameworks were modified with little explanation regarding the rationale, processes for adaptation and theoretical foundation. Processes were predominately researcher led, although with some patient involvement. Surveys and consensus building methods gathered information while ranking systems and thematic analysis tend to generate finalised priorities. However, limited evidence found about transforming priorities into actual research projects and few described plans for implementation to promote translation into user-informed research. Conclusion Prioritisation projects may benefit from justifying the methodological approaches taken to identify mental health research, stating reasons for adapting frameworks alongside reasons for adopting particular methods, while finalised priorities should be worded in such a way as to facilitate their easy translation into research projects.

The absence of a rigorous mechanism for prioritizing investment in endangered species management is a major implementation hurdle affecting recovery. Here, we present a method for prioritizing strategies for endangered species management based on the likelihood of achieving species’ recovery goals per dollar invested. We demonstrate our approach for 15 species listed under Canada's Species at Risk Act that co‐occur in Southwestern Saskatchewan. Without management, only two species have >50% probability of meeting recovery objectives; whereas, with management, 13 species exceed the >50% threshold with the implementation of just five complementary strategies at a cost of $126m over 20 years. The likelihood of meeting recovery objectives rarely exceeded 70% and two species failed to reach the >50% threshold. Our findings underscore the need to consider the cost, benefit, and feasibility of management strategies when developing recovery plans in order to prioritize implementation in a timely and cost‐effective manner.

In this paper, we analyze a queueing–inventory system with two classes of customers, high priority (HP) and low priority (LP), under the discretionary priority discipline. The LP customers are served in two stages: preliminary service in stage-I and main service in stage-II. In contrast, HP customers require only the main service. Whenever the inventory level is less than the threshold level during the stage-I service of an LP customer, an arriving HP customer is allowed to interrupt the service of an LP customer by adopting the mixed-priority discipline. Otherwise, non-preemptive priority discipline is used in both stages. The interrupted LP customer moves to orbit and retries for the service whenever the server is free. The waiting hall of finite capacity is afforded for the HP customer only. The orbital search is provided for LP customers in orbit. The inventory is replenished following the (s,Q) ordering policy, with the lifetimes of the items being exponentially distributed. An expression for the stability condition is determined explicitly, and system performance measures are evaluated. Numerical examples are formulated for different sets of input values of the parameters.

In the development of practice guidelines, priority setting of topics, questions, and outcomes ensures relevance and resource efficiency. The objective of this study was to describe priority setting processes as described in guidance documents by guideline-producing organizations. We conducted a descriptive summary of guideline-producing organizations' publicly available guidance documents on practice guideline development (eg, guideline handbooks). We screened guideline-producing organizations' documents and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We abstracted data on the elements of the priority setting process, including generation of initial list, method or tool used in the priority setting process, use of priority setting criteria, and refinement. Of the 133 identified organizations with publicly available guidance documents, 94 (71%) reported on a priority setting process for guideline development, with 16 also reporting on a priority setting process for guideline updating (12%). Most of the organizations addressed, in their guidance documents, topic priority setting (94%), whereas a minority addressed priority setting of questions (36%), outcomes (29%), implementation (12%), quality measures (15%), and future research (5%). In the guidance documents, generation of the initial list was the most addressed element for topics (88%), questions (65%) and outcomes (59%), followed by the use of criteria for topics (89%) and questions (59%), and refinement for outcomes (52%). A minority of organizations provided guidance to a published priority setting method or tool, which was only for topics (24%). The top used criteria for priority setting of topics were the impact of intervention on health outcomes (74%), variation/gaps in practice (69%), availability of evidence (69%), and disease health burden (68%); whereas for questions, top criteria were availability of evidence (60%), followed by interest at health professional/organization level (50%), uncertainty or controversy about best practice (40%), and variation/gaps in practice (40%). This analysis of guideline-producing organizations revealed that a majority reported a priority-setting process, which primarily focused on topic selection and less on aspects like questions and outcomes. Although generating an initial list and using priority-setting criteria are common, few organizations report in their guidance documents using formal priority-setting tools, addressing refinement, or providing guidance for guideline updating or adaptation. A standardized priority setting process for all aspects of guideline development is needed. [Display omitted] Key findings•Priority setting of guideline development was more common than that of updating.•Most organizations’ guidance documents addressed topic priority setting (94%).•Priority setting of other aspects was addressed less often and in less detail.What this adds to what is known?•A standardized priority setting process for guideline development aspects is needed.What is the implication, what should change now?•Optimal priority setting methods may better guide processes in guideline organizations.

Background Research priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research. Methods We searched electronic databases and relevant websites for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved. Results From 21,556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples. Conclusions The REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders. Trial registration Not applicable.

BackgroundWell-defined, systematic, and transparent processes to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities are vital to ensuring that available funds target areas with the greatest potential for impact.ObjectiveThe purpose of this review is to characterize methods conducted or supported by research funding organizations to identify health research gaps, needs, or priorities.MethodWe searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science up to September 2019. Eligible studies reported on methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities that had been conducted or supported by research funding organizations. Using a published protocol, we extracted data on the method, criteria, involvement of stakeholders, evaluations, and whether the method had been replicated (i.e., used in other studies).ResultsAmong 10,832 citations, 167 studies were eligible for full data extraction. More than half of the studies employed methods to identify both needs and priorities, whereas about a quarter of studies focused singularly on identifying gaps (7%), needs (6%), or priorities (14%) only. The most frequently used methods were the convening of workshops or meetings (37%), quantitative methods (32%), and the James Lind Alliance approach, a multi-stakeholder research needs and priority setting process (28%). The most widely applied criteria were importance to stakeholders (72%), potential value (29%), and feasibility (18%). Stakeholder involvement was most prominent among clinicians (69%), researchers (66%), and patients and the public (59%). Stakeholders were identified through stakeholder organizations (51%) and purposive (26%) and convenience sampling (11%). Only 4% of studies evaluated the effectiveness of the methods and 37% employed methods that were reproducible and used in other studies.DiscussionTo ensure optimal targeting of funds to meet the greatest areas of need and maximize outcomes, a much more robust evidence base is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of methods used to identify research gaps, needs, and priorities.

Now more than ever, biology has the potential to contribute practical solutions to many of the major challenges confronting the United States and the world. A New Biology for the 21st Century recommends that a \"New Biology\" approach-one that depends on greater integration within biology, and closer collaboration with physical, computational, and earth scientists, mathematicians and engineers-be used to find solutions to four key societal needs: sustainable food production, ecosystem restoration, optimized biofuel production, and improvement in human health. The approach calls for a coordinated effort to leverage resources across the federal, private, and academic sectors to help meet challenges and improve the return on life science research in general.