Introduction: Cutting is an important skill in team-sports, but unfortunately is also related to non-contact ACL injuries. The purpose was to examine knee kinetics and kinematics at different cutting angles. Material and methods: 13 males and 16 females performed cuts at different angles (45 , 90 , 135 and 180 ) at maximum speed. 3D kinematics and kinetics were collected. To determine differences across cutting angles (45 , 90 , 135 and 180 ) and sex (female, male), a 4 2 repeated measures ANOVA was conducted followed by post hoc comparisons (Bonferroni) with alpha level set at a 0.05 a priori. Results: At all cutting angles, males showed greater knee flexion angles than females (p < 0.01). Also, where males performed all cutting angles with no differences in the amount of knee flexion 42.53 ± 8.95 , females decreased their knee flexion angle from 40.6 ± 7.2 when cutting at 45 to 36.81 ± 9.10 when cutting at 90 , 135 and 180 (p < 0.01). Knee flexion moment decreased for both sexes when cutting towards sharper angles (p < 0.05). At 90 , 135 and 180 , males showed greater knee valgus moments than females. For both sexes, knee valgus moment increased towards the sharper cut- ting angles and then stabilized compared to the 45 cutting angle (p < 0.01). Both females and males showed smaller vGRF when cutting to sharper angles (p < 0.01). Conclusion: It can be concluded that different cutting angles demand different knee kinematics and kinet- ics. Sharper cutting angles place the knee more at risk. However, females and males handle this differ- ently, which has implications for injury prevention.
Background & aims: Low muscle mass and -quality on ICU admission, as assessed by muscle area and -density on CT-scanning at lumbar level 3 (L3), are associated with increased mortality. However, CT-scan analysis is not feasible for standard care. Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) assesses body composition by incorporating the raw measurements resistance, reactance, and phase angle in equations. Our purpose was to compare BIA- and CT-derived muscle mass, to determine whether BIA identified the patients with low skeletal muscle area on CT-scan, and to determine the relation between raw BIA and raw CT measurements. Methods: This prospective observational study included adult intensive care patients with an abdominal CT-scan. CT-scans were analysed at L3 level for skeletal muscle area (cm2) and skeletal muscle density (Hounsfield Units). Muscle area was converted to muscle mass (kg) using the Shen equation (MMCT). BIA was performed within 72 h of the CT-scan. BIA-derived muscle mass was calculated by three equations: Talluri (MMTalluri), Janssen (MMJanssen), and Kyle (MMKyle). To compare BIA- and CT-derived muscle mass correlations, bias, and limits of agreement were calculated. To test whether BIA identifies low skeletal muscle area on CT-scan, ROC-curves were constructed. Furthermore, raw BIA and CT measurements, were correlated and raw CT-measurements were compared between groups with normal and low phase angle. Results: 110 patients were included. Mean age 59 ± 17 years, mean APACHE II score 17 (11–25); 68% male. MMTalluri and MMJanssen were significantly higher (36.0 ± 9.9 kg and 31.5 ± 7.8 kg, respectively) and MMKyle significantly lower (25.2 ± 5.6 kg) than MMCT (29.2 ± 6.7 kg). For all BIA-derived muscle mass equations, a proportional bias was apparent with increasing disagreement at higher muscle mass. MMTalluri correlated strongest with CT-derived muscle mass (r = 0.834, p < 0.001) and had good discriminative capacity to identify patients with low skeletal muscle area on CT-scan (AUC: 0.919 for males; 0.912 for females). Of the raw measurements, phase angle and skeletal muscle density correlated best (r = 0.701, p < 0.001). CT-derived skeletal muscle area and -density were significantly lower in patients with low compared to normal phase angle. Conclusions: Although correlated, absolute values of BIA- and CT-derived muscle mass disagree, especially in the high muscle mass range. However, BIA and CT identified the same critically ill population with low skeletal muscle area on CT-scan. Furthermore, low phase angle corresponded to low skeletal muscle area and -density. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02555670).
Vibrational and structural properties of lead-free piezoelectric (1-x)Na0.5Bi0.5TiO3–xCaTiO3 (0 < x < 1.00) solid solutions have been investigated using Raman spectroscopy and X-ray diffraction. Different anomalies were detected and analyzed taking into consideration the phase transition from rhombohedral to orthorhombic phase at room temperature. All Raman bands were interpreted through the variation in the peak positions (frequency) and the corresponding half-widths at half maximum (HWHM) as a function of x. XRD used as a complementary technique to Raman spectroscopy, showed that the rhombohedral – orthorhombic phase transition went gradually through an intermediate phase consisting of a mixture of rhombohedral (R3c) and orthorhombic (Pnma) structures and that the fraction of orthorhombic phase increased with CT composition. The results show that the morphotropic phase boundary (MPB) is located between 0.09 and 0.15.
De afgelopen twee decennia is er veel meer aandacht ontstaan bij onderzoekers en beleidsmakers voor het begrip co-creatie. Bijna altijd wordt de rol van co-creatie als positief en essentieel gezien in een proces waarin maatschappelijke of publieke uitdagingen worden onderzocht en opgelost (zogenaamde sociale innovatie). Het meeste onderzoek naar deze twee begrippen is kwalitatief van aard en gebaseerd op ‘case studies’.In zijn promotieonderzoek kijkt Peter Broekema naar de rol van co-creatie binnen sociale innovatie in Europese samenwerkingsprojecten. In zijn eerste artikel heeft hij de begrippen co-creatie en sociale innovatie tussen 1995 en 2018 binnen de EU geanalyseerd en geconcludeerd dat beide begrippen steeds breder gebruikt worden en samen met het begrip impact zijn getransformeerd tot een beleidsparadigma.In het tweede artikel keek Peter Broekema hoe beide begrippen doorwerken in specifieke subsidieoproepen en hoe consortia deze begrippen toepassen en samenwerken. Hierbij bleek dat er weliswaar verschillende typen consortia bestaan, maar dat zij geen specifieke co-creatiestrategie hadden.In zijn laatste twee artikelen zal hij gedetailleerd kijken naar een aantal EU projecten en vaststellen hoe de samenwerking is verlopen en hoe tevreden de verschillende partners zijn met het resultaat. Peter Broekema maakt hiervoor gebruik van projecten waarin hij zelf participeert (ACCOMPLISSH, INEDIT en SHIINE).EU beleidsparadigma van sociale innovatie in combinatie met co-creatie en impact. Co-creatie vindt vaak binnen eigen type stakehodlers plaatsAbstractSocial innovation and co-creation are both relatively new concepts, that have been studied by scholars for roughly twenty years and are still heavily contested. The former emerged as a response to the more technologically focused concept of innovation and the latter originally solely described the collaboration of end-users in the development of new products, processes or services. Between 2010-2015, both concepts have been adapted and started to be used more widely by for example EU policymakers in their effort to tackle so called ‘grand societal challenges’. Within this narrative – which could be called co-creation for social innovation, it is almost a prerequisite that partners – especially citizens - from different backgrounds and sectors actively work together towards specific societal challenges. Relevance and aimHowever, the exact contribution of co-creation to social innovation projects is still unclear. Most research on co-creation has been focussing on the involvement of end-users in the development of products, processes and services. In general, scholars conclude that the involvement of end-users is effective and leads to a higher level of customer satisfaction. Only recently, research into the involvement of citizens in social innovation projects has started to emerge. However, the majority of research on co-creation for social innovation has been focusing on collaborations between two types of partners in the quadruple helix (citizens, governments, enterprises and universities). Because of this, it is still unclear what co-creation in social innovation projects with more different type of partners entails exactly. More importantly however, is that most research has been based on national case studies in which partners from different sectors collaborate in a familiar ‘national’ setting. Normally institutional and/or cultural contexts influence co-creation (for example the ‘poldermodel’in the Netherlands or the more confrontational model in France), so by looking at projects in a central EU and different local contexts it becomes clear how context effects co-creation for social innovation.Therefore this project will analyse a number of international co-creation projects that aim for social innovation with different types of stakeholders in a European and multi-stakeholder setting.With this research we will find out what people in different contexts believe is co-creation and social innovation, how this process works in different contexts and how co-creation contributes to social innovation.Research question and - sub questionsThe project will answer the following question: “What is the added value of co-creation in European funded collaboration projects that aim for social innovation?” To answer the main question, the research has been subdivided into four sub questions:1) What is the assumed added value of co-creation for social innovation?2) How is the added value of co-creation for social innovation being expressed ex ante and ex post in EU projects that aim specifically for social innovation by co-creation?3) How do partners and stakeholders envision the co-creation process beforehand and continuously shape this process in EU projects to maximise social innovation?4) How do partners and stakeholders regard the added value of co-creation for social innovation in EU projects that that aim for social innovation?Key conceptsThe research will focus on the interplay between the two main concepts a) co-creation and b) social innovation. For now, we are using the following working definitions:a) co-creation is a non-linear process that involves multiple actors and stakeholders in the ideation, implementation and assessment of products, services, policies and systems with the aim of improving their efficiency and effectiveness, and the satisfaction of those who take part in the process.b) social innovation is the invention, development and implementation of new ideas with the purpose to (immediately) relieve and (eventually) solve social problems, which are in the long run directed at the social inclusion of individuals, groups or communities.It is clear that both definitions are quite opaque, but also distinguish roughly the same phases (ideation/invention, development, implementation and assessment) and also distinguish different levels (products/services, policies and systems). Both concepts will be studied within the policy framework of the EU, in which a specific value to both concepts has been attributed, mostly because policymakers regard co-creation with universities and end-users almost as a prerequisite for social innovation. Based on preliminary research, EU policies seem to define social innovation in close reation with ‘societal impact’, which could defined as: “the long lasting effect of an activity on society, because it is aimed at solving social problems”, and therefore in this specific context social innovation seems to encompasses societal impact. For now, I will use this working definition of social innovation and will closely look at the entanglement with impact in the first outlined paper.MethodologyIn general, I will use a qualitative mixed method approach and grounded theory to answer the main research question (mRQ). In order to better understand the added value of co-creation for social innovation in an EU policy setting, the research will:SubRQ1) start with an analysis of academic literature on co-creation and social impact. This analysis will be followed by and confronted with an analysis of EU policy documents. SubRQ2) use a qualitative data analysis at nineteen EU funded projects to understand how co-creation is envisoned within social innovation projects by using the quintuple helix approach (knowledge flows between partners and stakeholders in an EU setting) and the proposed social innovation journey model. By contrasting the findings from the QDA phase of the project with other research on social innovation we will be able to find arachetypes of social innovation in relation with the (perceived) added value of co-creation within social innovation. SubRQ3) These archetypes will be used to understand the process of co-creation for social innovation by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.SubRQ4) The archetypes will also be used to understand the perceived added value by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.ImpactThe project will contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between co-creation and social innovation on different levels:a) Theoretical: the research will analyse the concepts of co-creation and social innovation in relation to each other by looking at the origins of the concepts, the adaptation in different fields and the uptake within EU policies;b) Methodological: a model will be developed to study and understand the non-lineair process of co-creation within social innovation, by focusing on social innovation pathways and social innovation strategies within a quintuple helix setting (i) academia, ii) enterprises and iii) governments that work together to improve iv) society in an v) EU setting);c) Empirical: the project will (for the first time) collect data on behavioural interactions and the satisfaction levels of these interactions between stakeholders and partners in an EU project.d) Societal: the results of the research could be used to optimize the support for social innovation projects and also for the development of specific funding calls.
What if living organisms communicated signals from the environment to us and thereby offered a sustainable alternative to electronic sensors? Within the field of biodesign, designers and scientists are collaborating with living organisms to produce new materials with ecological benefits. The company Hoekmine, in collaboration with designers, has been researching the potential of flavobacteria for producing sustainable colorants to be applied on everyday products. These non-harmful bacteria can change their form, texture and iridescent color in response to diverse environmental factors, such as humidity and temperature. Here, billions of cells are sensing and integrating the results as color. Therefore, Hoekmine envisions biosensors, which would minimize the use of increasingly demanded electronic sensors, and thus, the implementation of scarce and toxic materials. Developing a living sensor by hosting flavobacteria in a biobased and biodegradable flexible material offers opportunities for sustainable alternatives to electronic sensors. Aiming to take this concept to the next level, we propose a research collaboration between Avans, Hoekmine and a company specialized in biobased and biodegradable labels, Bio4Life. Together with this interdisciplinary team, we aim to bridge microbiology and embodiment design, and contribute to the development of a circular economy where digital technology and organic systems merge in the design of Living Circular Labels (LCLs). Throughout the project we will use an iterative approach between designing and testing LCLs that host living flavobacteria and additionally, methods for the end user to activate the bacteria’s growth at a given time.
