Abstract. Although now over 100 years old, the classification of climate originally formulated by Wladimir Köppen and modified by his collaborators and successors, is still in widespread use. It is widely used in teaching school and undergraduate courses on climate. It is also still in regular use by researchers across a range of disciplines as a basis for climatic regionalisation of variables and for assessing the output of global climate models. Here we have produced a new global map of climate using the Köppen-Geiger system based on a large global data set of long-term monthly precipitation and temperature station time series. Climatic variables used in the Köppen-Geiger system were calculated at each station and interpolated between stations using a two-dimensional (latitude and longitude) thin-plate spline with tension onto a 0.10.1 grid for each continent. We discuss some problems in dealing with sites that are not uniquely classified into one climate type by the Köppen-Geiger system and assess the outcomes on a continent by continent basis. Globally the most common climate type by land area is BWh (14.2%, Hot desert) followed by Aw (11.5%, Tropical savannah). The updated world Köppen-Geiger climate map is freely available electronically in the Supplementary Material Section.
The objective of this paper is to describe the updated methodological guidance for conducting a JBI scoping review, with a focus on new updates to the approach and development of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (the PRISMA-ScR).
2008-vw-passat-owners-manual-pdf-downloads-torrent | updated
Scoping reviews are an increasingly common approach to informing decision-making and research based on the identification and examination of the literature on a given topic or issue. Scoping reviews draw on evidence from any research methodology and may also include evidence from non-research sources, such as policy. In this manner, scoping reviews provide a comprehensive overview to address broader review questions than traditionally more specific systematic reviews of effectiveness or qualitative evidence. The increasing popularity of scoping reviews has been accompanied by the development of a reporting guideline: the PRISMA-ScR. In 2014, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group developed guidance for scoping reviews that received minor updates in 2017 and was most recently updated in 2020. The updates reflect ongoing and substantial developments in approaches to scoping review conduct and reporting. As such, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group recognized the need to revise the guidance to align with the current state of knowledge and reporting standards in evidence synthesis.
Between 2015 and 2020, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group expanded its membership; extensively reviewed the literature; engaged via annual face-to-face meetings, regular teleconferences, and email correspondence; sought advice from methodological experts; facilitated workshops; and presented at scientific conferences. This process led to updated guidance for scoping reviews published in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. The updated chapter was endorsed by JBI's International Scientific Committee in 2020.
The updated JBI guidance for scoping reviews includes additional guidance on several methodological issues, such as when a scoping review is (or is not) appropriate, and how to extract, analyze, and present results, and provides clarification for implications for practice and research. Furthermore, it is aligned with the PRISMA-ScR to ensure consistent reporting.
To inform the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) fourth Biennial Assessment and Overview of Climate Finance Flows, we reviewed estimates using updated data on climate finance flows for the years 2017 and 2018, as previously reported in the Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2019.
CDC has also updated its guidance for COVID-19 prevention in K-12 schools to recommend universal indoor masking for all teachers, staff, students, and visitors to K-12 schools, regardless of vaccination status.3 CDC's Face Mask Order requiring masks on public transportation conveyances and inside transportation hubs has not changed, but CDC has announced that it will be amending its Face Masks Order to not require people to wear a mask in outdoor areas of conveyances (if such outdoor areas exist on the conveyance) or while outdoors at transportation hubs, and that it will exercise its enforcement discretion in the meantime.
CDC's Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People explains that under some circumstances, fully vaccinated people need not take all the precautions that unvaccinated people should take, except where required by federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance. However, in light of evidence related to the Delta variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the CDC updated its guidance to recommend that even people who are fully vaccinated wear a mask in public indoor settings in areas of substantial or high transmission, or if they have had a known exposure to someone with COVID-19 and have not had a subsequent negative test 3-5 days after the last date of that exposure. Schools should continue to follow applicable CDC guidance, which recommends universal indoor masking for all teachers, staff, students, and visitors to K-12 schools, regardless of vaccination status.
There was great interest in the databases of standardized citation metrics across all scientists and scientific disciplines [1], and many scientists urged us to provide updates of the databases. Accordingly, we have provided updated analyses that use citations from Scopus with data freeze as of May 6, 2020, assessing scientists for career-long citation impact up until the end of 2019 (Table-S6-career-2019) and for citation impact during the single calendar year 2019 (Table-S7-singleyr-2019). Updated databases and code are freely available in Mendeley ( ). The original database (version 1) can also be found in , the updated (version 2) can also be found in , and any subsequent updates that might appear in the future will be generally accessible in
The updated criteria take effect on Wednesday 15 June 2022. New applicants are required to adopt these strengthened criteria immediately to join the campaign. Existing Partners and members will need to meet the new criteria by 15th June 2023 at the latest.
Table 3 details the updated CFIR domain and construct names and definitions; it is also included in Additional file 6 for user convenience (see below). Word limits prohibit the ability to describe the updated CFIR in detail, but more detail is available in the Additional files:
Additional file 6 contains both the short and detailed descriptions of updated CFIR constructs, drawing on the descriptions from the original CFIR, feedback from our literature review, and support from other published literature.
Constructs and subconstructs were added to address missing themes and further develop domains; the number of constructs and subconstructs increased in all domains except the Innovation Domain; the updated CFIR contains 48 constructs and 19 subconstructs across 5 domains (with one domain including two subdomains). Domain-specific changes are summarized in the sections below and reflect our consensus decisions based on published feedback (noted by citations) and survey responses.
Users remarked that the Outer Setting domain was underdeveloped [40, 41]. The updated CFIR adds constructs to capture the potential influence of Local Attitudes, i.e., sociocultural values and beliefs, and Local Conditions, i.e., economic, environmental, political, and/or technological conditions, on the willingness and ability of entities within the Outer Setting to support implementation and delivery of the innovation [42,43,44,45,46,47], which may influence equity in implementation. These constructs are especially important for innovations that require support from community entities, such as Housing First models of care [48], and for capturing common resource constraints in LMICs [42].
The updated CFIR has expanded the number of constructs within the Implementation Process Domain in response to critiques that key processes and strategies were missing. Though it is outside the scope of the CFIR to include all 73 implementation strategies from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) [26, 27], a few best practices have been added: Teaming [42, 46, 73], Assessing Needs [46, 47], Assessing Context, Tailoring Strategies [14], and Adapting [45, 74, 75]. Published guidance highlights the importance of Adapting the innovation [76], and the updated CFIR notes the importance of adapting the setting as well [77]. The addition of Assessing Needs: Innovation Recipients and Engaging: Innovation Recipients serves to better center Innovation Recipients in the updated CFIR and orient users to these as important determinants to equity in implementation.
The addition of constructs better aligns the updated CFIR with other published frameworks. For example, Nilsen and Bernhardsson evaluated 17 determinant frameworks with clearly distinguishable dimensions. They concluded that the original CFIR only addressed 10 of 12 identified dimensions; the updated CFIR now addresses all 12 dimensions with the addition of the Characteristics: Opportunity construct in the Individuals Domain, to capture dedicated time, and the Structural Characteristics: Physical Infrastructure subconstruct in the Inner Setting Domain, to capture the physical environment [41]. Expansion of the Outer Setting also brings the updated CFIR into closer alignment with other implementation and policy frameworks [18, 78,79,80].
The updated CFIR significantly expands the number of constructs. It is often not feasible to assess every construct in the framework; nor will every construct apply within every project. In order to purposefully select a subset of constructs for assessment, users can rely on (1) consensus discussions and/or surveys with experts, (2) empirical studies or prior work, or [3] policy or change theories, including theories of organizational- [40] and individual-level [63, 83] change. For example, an implementation model developed by Klein et al. [84], comprising only seven constructs, was used to focus the evaluation in one study [85]. In all cases, it is important to elicit and analyze data from open-ended questions to explore the possibility of themes not captured by existing constructs. In addition, even if only a subset of constructs is used to guide data collection, data should be coded to additional CFIR constructs during the analysis, interpretation, or reporting phases as appropriate. 2ff7e9595c
Comments