Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
404
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
404 results for “consultation”
Contribution submitted by Antonella Garzelli for the Public consultation on the draft risk assessment of glycoalkaloids in feed and food, in particular in potatoes and potato-derived products
<p>The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) carried out a public consultation, from 27 February 2020 until 15 April 2020, to receive input from interested parties – organizations or private citizens - on a draft scientific opinion on the risks for animal and human health related to the presence of glycoalkaloids in feed and food, in particular in potatoes and potato-derived products. The draft scientific opinion was prepared by the EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM Panel), supported by the Working Group on Glycoalkaloids in feed and food. EFSA used the EU survey tool to receive comments on the draft scientific opinion, and the way these comments were considered for the finalisation of the opinion is described in the Technical Report available at: <a href="https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fefsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2F10.2903%2Fsp.efsa.2020.EN-1905&data=02%7C01%7C%7C242adcee21744b01890408d82cba24b4%7C406a174be31548bdaa0acdaddc44250b%7C1%7C0%7C637308525272584775&sdata=97Tc3%2FrT1SXtzIN14PCCvUv0OYyaiSO1H76iezwqvnQ%3D&reserved=0">https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2020.EN-1905</a>. Some contributors also attached files to the comments submitted via the EU survey tool. For transparency reasons these files are made available in the public domain as Zenodo uploads.</p>
Contribution submitted by STARCH EU for the Public consultation on the draft risk assessment of glycoalkaloids in feed and food, in particular in potatoes and potato-derived products
<p>The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) carried out a public consultation, from 27 February 2020 until 15 April 2020, to receive input from interested parties – organizations or private citizens - on a draft scientific opinion on the risks for animal and human health related to the presence of glycoalkaloids in feed and food, in particular in potatoes and potato-derived products. The draft scientific opinion was prepared by the EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM Panel), supported by the Working Group on Glycoalkaloids in feed and food. EFSA used the EU survey tool to receive comments on the draft scientific opinion, and the way these comments were considered for the finalisation of the opinion is described in the Technical Report available at: <a href="https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fefsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2F10.2903%2Fsp.efsa.2020.EN-1905&data=02%7C01%7C%7C242adcee21744b01890408d82cba24b4%7C406a174be31548bdaa0acdaddc44250b%7C1%7C0%7C637308525272584775&sdata=97Tc3%2FrT1SXtzIN14PCCvUv0OYyaiSO1H76iezwqvnQ%3D&reserved=0">https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2020.EN-1905</a>. Some contributors also attached files to the comments submitted via the EU survey tool. For transparency reasons these files are made available in the public domain as Zenodo uploads.</p>
Contribution submitted by Matthew Walker for the Public consultation on the draft risk assessment of glycoalkaloids in feed and food, in particular in potatoes and potato-derived products
<p>The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) carried out a public consultation, from 27 February 2020 until 15 April 2020, to receive input from interested parties – organizations or private citizens - on a draft scientific opinion on the risks for animal and human health related to the presence of glycoalkaloids in feed and food, in particular in potatoes and potato-derived products. The draft scientific opinion was prepared by the EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM Panel), supported by the Working Group on Glycoalkaloids in feed and food. EFSA used the EU survey tool to receive comments on the draft scientific opinion, and the way these comments were considered for the finalisation of the opinion is described in the Technical Report available at: <a href="https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fefsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2F10.2903%2Fsp.efsa.2020.EN-1905&data=02%7C01%7C%7C242adcee21744b01890408d82cba24b4%7C406a174be31548bdaa0acdaddc44250b%7C1%7C0%7C637308525272584775&sdata=97Tc3%2FrT1SXtzIN14PCCvUv0OYyaiSO1H76iezwqvnQ%3D&reserved=0">https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2020.EN-1905</a>. Some contributors also attached files to the comments submitted via the EU survey tool. For transparency reasons these files are made available in the public domain as Zenodo uploads.</p>
Underlying dataset to the Report on the Open Consultation of the NPOS2030 Ambition Document
<p>This is the underlying dataset to the <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/6106850">Report on the Open Consultation</a> on the NPOS2030 Ambition Document.</p> <p>This dataset contains the original responses to the online Open Consultation that was open between November 22<sup>nd</sup> and December 22<sup>nd</sup> 2021, aiming to give all Netherlands stakeholders the opportunity to reflect on the NPOS2030 Ambition Document of the Netherlands National Programme Open Science (<a href="http://openscience.nl/">NPOS</a>).</p> <p>Out of a total of 78 respondents, 54 institutions, networks, initiatives and persons gave their consent to publish their response including their name. They are listed below. 11 Responses are included on a basis of anonymity: this was sometimes caused by having to ask too many people in a network to give their consent. 13 participants decided to not disclose their responses.</p> <p>NB: Some respondents did say that their responses to the questions about the level of support for each of the four sections of the Ambition Document paint a too negative picture: due to the nature of scoring on a scale of 1-5, they did not see a better way than to give a low score to bring across that they always see ways to improve.</p> <p>The institutions, networks, initiatives and persons gave their consent to publish their response:</p> <ol> <li>4TU.ResearchData</li> <li>Adviescollege Open Science van de hogescholen</li> <li>Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences</li> <li>Avans Hogeschool</li> <li>brief consultation of five senior researchers</li> <li>Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University</li> <li>Dutch Research Council NWO</li> <li>Eindhoven University of Technology</li> <li>Erasmus University Rotterdam </li> <li>Hogeschool Leiden</li> <li>KB, National Library of the Netherlands</li> <li>Maastricht University Recognition & Rewards Programme Team</li> <li>Media voor Vak en Wetenschap (MVW)</li> <li>Medical libraries of the STZ Samenwerkende Topklinische ziekenhuizen</li> <li>Netherlands eScience Center</li> <li>Network of Dutch Open Science Communities: the OSC-NL Board and 60 individual researchers who signed this response</li> <li>NL-RSE (Netherlands Research Software Engineers network)</li> <li>NRO (Nationaal Regieorgaan Onderwijsonderzoek)</li> <li>NWO Institute Organisation</li> <li>ODISSEI (social sciences)</li> <li>Open Science programme of the University of Groningen</li> <li>Open Science Public Engagement Fellow Network, Utrecht University</li> <li>Pedagogische en Onderwijswetenschappen, Faculteit der Maatschappij en Gedragswetenschappen, UvA</li> <li>Promovendi Netwerk Nederland (PNN)</li> <li>PULSAQUA</li> <li>Radboud University</li> <li>Radboudumc Nijmegen</li> <li>Rathenau Instituut</li> <li>Regieorgaan SIA</li> <li>Samenwerkingsverband Universiteitsbibliotheken en Koninklijke Bibliotheek (UKB)</li> <li>SciComNL (Science Communication Association Netherlands)</li> <li>Springer Nature</li> <li>Stuurgroep DCC-PO</li> <li>SURF</li> <li>The Dutch Parkinson's Association</li> <li>The Open Science Community Amsterdam (OSCA). OSCA consists of members from the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (HvA), the University of Amsterdam (UvA), the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU) and the Student Initiative for Open Science (SIOS).</li> <li>Three open science specialists at Utrecht University Library: Bianca Kramer, Jeroen Sondervan and Jeroen Bosman</li> <li>Tilburg University Open Science Focus Group</li> <li>TU Delft</li> <li>Universiteit Leiden</li> <li>University of Amsterdam</li> <li>University of Twente</li> <li>Utrecht University Freudenthal Institute Science Communication and Public Engagement group</li> <li>Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam</li> <li>Zone "Towards digital (open) educational resources" from the Dutch Acceleration Plan</li> <li>Prof.dr. Karin Pfeffer</li> <li>Drs Marina Noordegraaf</li> <li>Mr. Niels van Tol</li> <li>Dr. Egon Willighagen</li> <li>Drs (Msc) Gaby Lutgens</li> <li>Jeroen Jansen</li> <li>Dr. Miaomiao Zhou</li> <li>Prof.dr. René Bekkers</li> <li>Dr.ir. Rolf Hut</li> </ol>
Nurses' experience of using video consultation in a digital care setting and its impact on their workflow and communication
<p>The dataset contains transcription of 15 interviews performed with nurses working in a digital care setting. It also includes the consent form which were sent to the participants in the study. The study aimed to explore nurses' experience of using video consultation in a digital care setting and its impact on their workflow and communication. All interviews were performed in Sweden. </p>
Does the white coat influence satisfaction, trust and empathy in the doctor-patient relationship in the general and family medicine consultation? - interventional study
<p>Objectives: To understand the influence of the white coat on patient satisfaction, opinions about medical clothing, perception about confidence, empathy and medical knowledge and the satisfaction and comfort level of physicians in consultation.</p> <p>Setting: An interventional study was conducted with a representative sample of the population attending primary care in central Portugal.</p> <p>Participants: The sample was composed by 286 patients divided into two groups exposed or not to a doctor wearing a white coat. The first and last patients in consultation every day for 10 consecutive days were included.</p> <p>Interventions: Every other day the volunteer physicians consulted with or without the use of a white coat. At the end of the consultation, a questionnaire was distributed to the patient with simple questions with a Likert scale response, the Portuguese version of the "Trust in physician" scale and the JSPPPE-VP scale. A questionnaire was also distributed to the physician.</p> <p>Outcomes: Planned and measured primary outcomes were patient satisfaction, trust and perception about empathy and secondary outcomes were opinion about medical clothing, satisfaction and comfort level of physicians in consultation.</p> <p>Results: The sample was homogeneous in terms of sociodemographic variables. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of satisfaction, trust, empathy and knowledge perceived by the patients. There were differences in the opinion of the patients about the white coat, and when the physician was wearing the white coat this group of patients tended to think that this was the only acceptable attire for the physician (p<0.001). But, when the family physician was in consultation without the white coat, this group of patients tended to agree that communication was easier (p=0.001).</p> <p>Conclusions: There was no significant impact of the white coat in patient satisfaction, empathy, and confidence in the family physician.</p> <p>Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov</p> <p>ID Number: NCT03965416</p>
RUI Method - Demo of the consultation modes
<p>The video proposes a graphical user interface that uses the RUI model to help designers gain knowledge about the social impacts of autonomous vehicles.</p>
Prepare for your next consultation with your health care provider - patient questions prompt list
<p>A list of questions patients with cancer and multimorbidity can use to be better prepared for their next consultation with their health care provider.</p>
Mental Health Specialist Video Consultations for Primary Care Patients
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT04316572. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 1. Publications: 4.
Psychiatric Consultation Through Videoconference in a Primary Care Setting
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT00298961. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 15.
Optimization of Drug Prescribing in an Elderly Population of Geriatric Consultations
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT02740764. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
Digital Online Consultations - Effects on Antibiotic Prescribing and Health Care Utilization in Primary Care
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT03474887. IPD Sharing: UNDECIDED. Countries: 1. Publications: 2.
The Effect of Proactive Clinical Ethics Consultations on End-of-life Care of the Critically Ill in the Intensive Care Settings
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT04926610. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
Effectiveness of Video Consultations in Type 1 Diabetes Patients Treated With Insulin Pumps in the Outpatient Clinic
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT04612933. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 19.
Telephone Consultation as a Substitute for Routine Out-patient Face-to-face Consultation for Children With Inflammatory Bowel Disease
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT02319798. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
Pretreatment Group Consultation for Patients With Colorectal Cancer
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT03888313. IPD Sharing: UNDECIDED. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
KOKON Consultation on Complementary Medicine in Oncology - a Pilot Study
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT02223091. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
Using Whatsapp for the Consultation
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT04645563. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
Anesthetic and Perioperative Risk Assessment Before Programmed Surgery: Anesthetic Teleconsultation Versus Face-to-face Anesthesia Consultation.
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT04920604. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
Can TElemedicine System Replace Doctor Consultations to Achieve Non-inferior Blood Pressure in Patients With Controlled Hypertension
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT06524180. IPD Sharing: UNDECIDED. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.