Cleopa (Germany)

Abstract This survey-based study investigates the attitudes of both users and experts towards the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) and next-generation batteries, aiming to achieve low-carbon mobility. Two separate surveys were conducted, inviting 50 users and 50 experts to provide insights into the adoption, development, and use of next-generation batteries. To enhance the validity of the survey findings, the results are compared with a comprehensive literature review on survey-based studies concerning the adoption of next-generation battery technologies. The surveys were conducted during the initial stage of a living lab (LL) process for circular design, as part of the 2BoSS project (www.2boss.eu). The primary objective of this first LL stage was to assess the current market landscape and establish benchmarks through collaboration with stakeholders, users, and experts. The focus was on understanding existing preferences and challenges related to the commercialization of lithium-sulfur (Li-S) batteries, as well as other emerging battery chemistries, while identifying the barriers hindering the widespread adoption of EVs. The results provide insights into consumer attitudes and expectations, shedding light on their knowledge of batteries and their perceptions of future energy scenarios. Additionally, the study explores market trends for emerging battery technologies, evaluating their potential applications, and highlighting their advantages and disadvantages, as informed by expert input. The expert survey responses underscored the limitations of current dominant lithium-ion batteries (LiBs) and provided a critical analysis of the potential benefits, challenges, and future prospects of lithium-sulfur (Li-S) batteries in comparison to other emerging technologies, sparking a broader discussion on the topic. In conclusion, the findings highlight common themes across diverse viewpoints, identifying key factors that could influence the adoption of next-generation battery technologies. These insights are crucial for shaping future strategies aimed at overcoming barriers and accelerating the transition to sustainable electric mobility.

Arrhythmia recurrence after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is common. We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial to determine the impact of increased physical activity on atrial fibrillation recurrence after PVI. From 2018 to 2020, we randomly assigned 200 patients with atrial fibrillation to the ACTION or NO-ACTION group in 4 different centers in the local country of Brandenburg, Germany. Patients were eligible if they were scheduled to undergo PVI, aged ≥50 to ≤77 years, body mass index ≥23 to ≤35 kg/m2, and accepted wearing an activity tracker allowing 24-hour activity monitoring via mobile app. Patients in the ACTION group were actively remote-controlled via transmitted activity data by a physiotherapist, and individual motivational interviewing call sessions were scheduled with each ACTION patient every 2 weeks. The primary end point was the composite of recurrence of any atrial arrhythmia >30 seconds, additional ablation procedure, cardioversion, and new onset of antiarrhythmic drugs earliest after 90 days after index PVI over 12 months. Overall, the median age of patients was 66 (interquartile range, 61-71) years, 33.5% were women, and 52% had persistent atrial fibrillation. The number of steps per day increased in both groups of patients from baseline to 12 months (P<0.001). The absolute increase in steps per day did not differ between patients in the ACTION group with +3205 steps (597-4944) compared with those in the NO-ACTION group +2423 steps (17-4284), P=0.325. Unadjusted intention-to-treat analysis showed no difference in the primary composite end point in the ACTION group (27.3%) versus the NO-ACTION group (32.7%), P=0.405. Physical activity improved in patients after PVI. The present randomized controlled trial shows that activity tracker and motivational calls to increase physical activity versus activity tracker alone did not reduce the occurrence of the primary composite end point of atrial fibrillation recurrence or the absolute increase in steps per day. URL: https://www.cochranelibrary.com; Unique identifier: DRKS00012914.

Humoral immunity to the Severe Adult Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) Coronavirus (CoV)‐2 is not fully understood yet but is a crucial factor of immune protection. The possibility of antibody cross‐reactivity between SARS‐CoV‐2 and other human coronaviruses (HCoVs) would have important implications for immune protection but also for the development of specific diagnostic ELISA tests. Using peptide microarrays, n = 24 patient samples and n = 12 control samples were screened for antibodies against the entire SARS‐CoV‐2 proteome as well as the Spike (S), Nucleocapsid (N), VME1 (V), R1ab, and Protein 3a (AP3A) of the HCoV strains SARS, MERS, OC43, and 229E. While widespread cross‐reactivity was revealed across several immunodominant regions of S and N, IgG binding to several SARS‐CoV‐2‐derived peptides provided statistically significant discrimination between COVID‐19 patients and controls. Selected target peptides may serve as capture antigens for future, highly COVID‐19‐specific diagnostic antibody tests.

Disaster response demands a large workforce covering diverse professional sectors. Throughout this article, we illustrate the results of a systematic review of peer-reviewed studies to identify existing competency sets for disaster management and humanitarian assistance that would serve as guidance for the development of a common disaster curriculum. A systematic review of English-language articles was performed on PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, ERIC, and Cochrane Library. Studies were included if reporting competency domains, abilities, knowledge, skills, or attitudes for professionals involved disaster relief or humanitarian assistance. Exclusion criteria included abstracts, citations, case studies, and studies not dealing with disasters or humanitarian assistance. Thirty-eight papers were analyzed. Target audience was defined in all articles. Five references (13%) reported cross-sectorial competencies. Most of the articles (81.6%) were specific to health care. Eighteen (47%) papers included competencies for at least 2 different disciplines and 18 (47%) for different professional groups. Nursing was the most widely represented cadre. Eighteen papers (47%) defined competency domains and 36 (94%) reported list of competencies. Nineteen articles (50%) adopted consensus-building to define competencies, and 12 (31%) included competencies adapted to different professional responsibility levels. This systematic review revealed that the largest number of papers were mainly focused on the health care sector and presented a lack of agreement on the terminology used for competency-based definition.