Although systematic reviews are considered as central components in evidence-based practice, they currently face an important challenge to keep up with the exponential publication rate of clinical trials. After initial publication, only a minority of the systematic reviews are updated, and it often takes multiple years before these results become accessible. Consequently, many systematic reviews are not up to date, thereby increasing the time-gap between research findings and clinical practice. A potential solution is offered by a living systematic reviews approach. These types of studies are characterized by a workflow of continuous updates which decreases the time it takes to disseminate new findings. Although living systematic reviews are specifically designed to continuously synthesize new evidence in rapidly emerging topics, they have also considerable potential in slower developing domains, such as rehabilitation science. In this commentary, we outline the rationale and required steps to transition a regular systematic review into a living systematic review. We also propose a workflow that is designed for rehabilitation science.
LINK
Each of us has a story that comes alive as we wake up in the morning, develops throughout the day, and holds layers of meaning as we lay our heads down at night – it might be called a narrative of our identity. When loss occurs, our story fragments into unfamiliar pieces, and who we identify as becomes scattered – sometimes even shattered. We must work to reconstruct meaning in our lives and to rebuild our identity. As leading author on this editorial, with an article of my own in this issue, I confronted this when my father died. I felt his story slipping away, becoming blurred, forgotten, and for some, erased – and the same held true for me. The chaos of my shattered identity exacerbated the deep pain of losing him and I experienced complicated grief. I had to reshape my narrative to remember the authentic parts of me and rebuild a new self in a fatherless world. This journey is in part what motivated me to become a symposium co-editor for the journal. All four of us editors of this special issue have experienced “living with loss” following the premature loss of either our father or spouse, and I wanted to see what lived experience and knowledge we could bring to the readers about loss in the fields of both guidance and counselling.
MULTIFILE
In this paper we investigate the precise focus required of a telemonitoring system for the domain of independently living elderly. Particularly, we investigate (1) the needs of telemonitoring for this particular domain, and (2) the requirements for such a telemonitoring system. For our investigation, we performed an extensive study of the literature, as well as performed interviews with 36 individuals active in the field. As a result, we established numerous needs to be considered, being foremost information need on safety, with regard to care response on emergencies (e.g., falling incidents, wandering), as well information need on dependence on care, with regard to inactivity, self-neglect and loneliness. Subsequently, we established numerous requirements to be addressed, being foremost the use of non-wearable sensors, unobtrusiveness, durability, reliability, privacy, and ubiquitousness. In our discussion of the requirements, we detailed specifically the topics of focus, functionality, and form of a telemonitoring system for this domain.
In my PD research, I want to focus on how collectivity is practiced in the arts, by learning from the Indonesian multidisciplinary art collective ruangrupa’s use of [the international art exhibition] ‘documenta’ as a tool, and the potential of continuing the experiences outside this group and context. The art practices programmed by ruangrupa can be understood as complex and ambiguous where art is not at the center of attention but part of a larger communal productivity. And where it is not sufficient to be merely critical, and merely voice opposition, but to engage, and create alternatives in everyday life [without being problem-solving or social design]. My research concerns the potential of continuing these practices and experiences outside this particular artist group and exhibition context. Ruangrupa’s work reveals problems of the current Western art system, how it is (hierarchically) organized, the implicit rules, norms and values it is based on. Ruangrupa's practice thus serves as an exercise and point of departure to answer questions about forms of self-organization within the art field. Its collective and multidisciplinary art practice implies the question whether it also can serve as a model for living together on a larger scale (also outside the arts), beyond hierarchies of social and professional structures. There is currently a lack of research on these particular art practices, so that they are not easily accessible for non-participants. For the art field in particular, this concerns the question whether contemporary art can and needs to take place outside established Western gallery/museum, art/curatorial paradigms and what can be learned from ruangrupa's and documenta fifteen's blending of art practice with daily life practice. This is also an urgent practical issue for art schools (including my school Willem de Kooning Academy) that increasingly develop art study programs outside the studio and gallery art paradigm.
