The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds training programs to increase the numbers and skills of scientists who obtain NIH research grants, but few programs have been rigorously evaluated. The sizeable recent NIH investment in developing programs to increase the diversity of the NIH-funded workforce, implemented through the Diversity Program Consortium (DPC), is unusual in that it also funds a Consortium-wide evaluation plan, which spans the activities of the 10 BUilding Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) awardees and the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN). The purpose of this article is to describe the evaluation design and innovations of the BUILD Program on students, faculty, and institutions of the 10 primarily undergraduate BUILD sites.Our approach to this multi-methods quasi-experimental longitudinal evaluation emphasizes stakeholder participation and collaboration. The evaluation plan specifies the major evaluation questions and key short- to long-term outcome measures . The Coordination and Evaluation Center (CEC) embarked on a comprehensive evaluation strategy by developing a set of logic models that incorporate the Hallmarks of Success and other outcomes that were collaboratively identified by the DPC. Data were collected from each BUILD site through national surveys from the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA (HERI), annual followup surveys that align with the HERI instruments, site visits and case studies, program encounter data (“tracker” data), and institutional data. The analytic approach involves comparing changes in Hallmarks (key outcomes) within institutions for biomedical students who participated versus those who did not participate in the BUILD program at each institution, as well as between institution patterns of biomedical students at the BUILD sites, and matched institutions that were not BUILD grantees. Case studies provide insights into the institutionalization of these new programs and help to explain the processes that lead to the observed outcomes.Ultimately, the results of the consortium-wide evaluation will be used to inform national policy in higher education and will provide relevant examples of institutional and educational programmatic changes required to diversify the biomedical workforce in the USA. In 2012, the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Working Group on Diversity within the Advisory Committee to the Director provided recommendations about how to develop and support individuals from diverse backgrounds across the lifespan of a research career, from undergraduate study to acquisition of tenure in an academic position or the equivalent in a non-academic setting  and a riFigure The goal of the BUILD initiative goes beyond establishing effective programs that promote biomedical workforce diversity to include research and evaluation about why different programs are effective, to experiment with novel interventions, and to enable other colleges and universities to learn from the effort. The emphasis on evaluation responds, in part, to the National Research Council’s assessment of NIH minority research training programs in 2005 that concluded that most of the information on the effectiveness of similar training programs was anecdotal, relying primarily on personal success stories .BUILD programs are experimental in several ways. First, a combination of novel and existing approaches to training are being implemented at the 10 BUILD institutions. BUILD institutions have pursued a range of strategies to encourage persistence in biomedical majors. In addition to adding undergraduate research experiences, efforts include introducing new curricula, offering diversity topic workshops, providing additional academic support and counseling, connecting students with enhanced mentoring, and creating enhanced career advancement and development programs. All sites also offer a variety of faculty development activities that can make them better biomedical research teachers, including diversity training, mentor training, support for their own research, and support for course redesign. Finally, each program has an institutional change component that can involve facility renovation, new academic support programs, and new intra and inter-institutional collaborations. Since each site includes a different mix of these activities, and implements them in different ways and at different points in a student’s course of studies, there is a wide variation of program implementation that both poses a challenge for a national evaluation, but also provides rich variation to inform analyses of what works.Lessons learned from the BUILD programs are ultimately intended to be adapted on a large scale, allowing for effective training and mentoring models to be institutionalized across various contexts for the benefit of existing and future generations of scientific talent. This comprehensive consortium wide evaluation can provide the evidence-base and report on new infrastructures, effective implementation processes and improved outcomes that may inform institutions on what works best, for whom, and in what context for training biomedical scientists from diverse groups. Successful BUILD programs may yield tangible advances and transferrable lessons in three key areas: institutional development, faculty development, and student development. The DPC BUILD initiative and requisite evaluation constitutes a landmark opportunity to study and evaluate an NIH-funded training program from planning through implementation. In addition to the Consortium wide evaluation plan, the 10 BUILD grantees are conducting site-specific evaluation plans to assess outcomes related to their distinct and novel program components.The CEC approach to the BUILD evaluation is based on years of successfully evaluating multi-site educational programs in diverse settings –13. OverA defining feature of the BUILD evaluation is its Participatory Evaluation approach, whereby program stakeholders are intricately involved in the design, implementation, and reporting/interpretation of evaluation findings, thereby increasing the appropriateness of design, the meaningfulness of the process, and the use of subsequent findings –18. An eAdditionally, the evaluation was grounded in Theory-Driven Evaluation whereby detailed BUILD logic models were generated based on literature reviews and the selection of Hallmarks of Success associated with successful career transitions in biomedical research . FiguresSeveral key design features make the evaluation unique. These include the coordination with 10 independent site evaluations, building on a national student survey that has been in operation for 50 years  collaborThe BUILD Program specified goals at each level of the intervention. For example, student-level development goals, especially for undergraduates from underrepresented backgrounds, include increasing: (i) Science identity and self-efficacy, (ii) Social integration and perceived fit with the university setting, (iii) Intent to pursue a biomedical research career, (iv) Biomedical research experience and participation, (v) Satisfaction with faculty mentorship, (vi) Persistence/retention in biomedical science discipline, (vii) Completion of undergraduate degree in biomedical science discipline, and (viii) Application & matriculation to graduate school. McCreath, et al. , in thisWhat is the nature of BUILD activities for student development at each site and collectively across the Consortium, and how do those activities contribute to meeting the DPC student outcomes? Which activities for BUILD students have the greatest influence on DPC student outcomes?To what extent are BUILD students, compared to non-BUILD students, meeting the DPC student outcomes ?What is the student experience of BUILD activities and how does that impact program outcomes?The 10 BUILD institutions each separately designed activities for their BUILD program. BUILD activities targeted at developing student capacity for biomedical research include: financial support, enrollment in redesigned curricula, diversity training, academic advising and support, mentoring, research training and support, and career advancement and development. The CEC is charged with evaluating 10 different BUILD programs, individually and collectively. In the participatory evaluation the CEC posed three broad student-level consortium wide evaluation questions that were vetted and approved by all the Consortium PIs, as follows:What is the nature of activities for BUILD faculty, and how do those activities contribute to meeting the DPC faculty outcomes? Which activities for BUILD faculty have the greatest influence on DPC faculty outcomes?To what extent are BUILD faculty, compared to non-BUILD faculty, meeting the DPC faculty outcomes ?What is the faculty experience of BUILD activities and how does that impact program outcomes?Similarly, consortium-wide evaluation questions were developed for the BUILD faculty and institutional levels of intervention. The primary questions posed to evaluate the BUILD faculty-level programs and activities were, as follows:The 10 BUILD institutions developed new activities, targeted at developing faculty capacity for biomedical research, including: financial support, development and/or teaching of novel curricula, diversity training, mentor training and mentoring, and opportunities for research experience, training and support.Do the number and/or diversity of students graduating in biomedical sciences in BUILD institutions increase over time?How have BUILD and partner institutions developed the capacity for biomedical science research training and mentoring and in what ways is this sustainable?How have BUILD institutions embraced organizational changes that promote institutional commitment to diversity?The primary questions posed to evaluate the BUILD institution-level programs and activities were, as follows:Build institutions designed activities aimed at strengthening institutional capacity for biomedical research, including: new strategies for recruitment and retention of diverse students and faculty, improved strategies for collaboration and communication with internal and external partners, and building and development of facilities, as well as structures and procedures to implement activities geared specifically towards students and faculty.Individual sites were primarily responsible for conducting their own formative and process evaluations, which provided them with the most tailored and timely information about how their programs were deployed early on and the implications for early modifications. Most sites have innovative components that are unique to one or a few sites, such as student and faculty trainings on stereotype threat, or interinstitutionally aligned coursework and seamless transfer policies. The evaluation of the effectiveness of those particular intervention components are the primary responsibility of individual BUILD Programs. The national evaluation focuses on the Consortium-wide Hallmarks which are the core outcome measures that all sites have oriented some programming to address. Since there are a number of Hallmarks , that may be improved by those unique program components, the evaluation design enables the merging of site-specfic and national evaluation data to improve our understanding of the implementation processes involved.As a mechanism for aligning the 10 BUILD site level evaluations and the consortium level evaluation, we convened annual consortium wide meetings and periodic meetings of all the Consortium evaluators. The evaluators convened two-day in person meetings to review progress towards both site specific and DPC evaluation goals, share strategies for evaluation data collection and analysis, and to foster cross-site collaborations in the evaluation of outcomes that were intervention targets at a subset of sites, e.g., reducing stereotype threat. Finally, monthly meetings were held regarding Consortium-wide data collection with each BUILD site and monthly webinars were convened to showcase best practices in implementation of interventions and evaluation strategies.Local methods for evaluating the student experiences at each campus vary according to the characteristics of the BUILD students, faculty, and institutions, and the actual program activities deployed. For example, evaluating student experiences at the smaller, rural feeder campuses that are part of the Biomedical Learning and Student Training (BLaST) Program at University of Alaska-Fairbanks (UAF) is different from those at the two larger campuses in Fairbanks and Juneau. UAF is using participatory action research projects to engage both communities and students in biomedical research in rural/remote Alaska to better reflect subsistence community values , 25. ThuA strength of the Consortium-wide evaluation is the use of existing national surveys administered by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at the UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies and the aligned supplemental CEC annual follow-up surveys.The national evaluation draws on three HERI surveys: The Freshman Survey (baseline survey), the College Senior Survey, and a Faculty Survey . The CECTo be able to match changes in Hallmark outcomes with BUILD program activities, the CEC also developed a “tracker” to identify student and faculty participation in the program activities. Sites upload rosters of relevant activities , which are then merged with individual student and faculty IDs to create a comprehensive administrative record of level of exposure to BUILD interventions. This avoids reporting errors that can occur if participants self-report program activities but do not realize what is actually part of the BUILD program (e.g. redesigned classes), or when they may have forgotten an encounter since it occurred months before the annual survey (e.g. a workshop); it also significantly reduces respondent burden for those involved in many BUILD activities. This allows the national evaluation to create measures of intensity of BUILD exposure, and also to better isolate different types of BUILD exposure  for analysis. Tracker data is also available to each BUILD site for their local evaluations. The campuses are experimenting with a tracker app that allows easy tracking of participation in BUILD activities, and geofencing capabilities for student participation in program events.Additionally, the tracker reflects an extensive document review of programmatic materials , yielding a rich repository of the range and novel features of activities offered on each campus. The various interventions across BUILD programs were mapped into a single summary document (“at-a-glance”), giving an overview of unique program activity features within and across BUILD programs. This permitted a comprehensive overview of campus-based activities and their evolution, as well as a way to target evaluation to similar components and determine areas suitable for coordinated evaluation efforts. Campuses upload and refine their intervention activities in order to keep track of student participation and later determine impact.This collaborative longitudinal evaluation requires rigorous and replicable collection and use of data. The 10 BUILD sites collaborate with the CEC to collect the consortium wide longitudinal data, both quantitative and qualitative, but as indicated above, also conduct a local site level evaluation that is complementary to the consortium wide study. Figures The multi-levels of sampling and longitudinal evaluation enable comparisons: (1) within sites of BUILD students and faculty to non-BUILD students and faculty; (2) across 10 BUILD institutions to examine the varying effects of program activities on improving the Hallmarks of Success; and (3) of BUILD institutions with a matched sample of non-BUILD institutions to determine the effectiveness of the BUILD program overall. Additionally, as indicated above, linking the CEC tracker data to individual student and faculty data within BUILD sites allows us to compare level of exposure that is required  to achieve the Hallmarks of Success.Among the major challenges in conducting the evaluation is the non-response from students who are at the core of BUILD – students from groups underrepresented in biomedical fields . We usedThe team structure worked well to align the site level data collection with the Consortium-wide evaluation and facilitated an effective bi-directional communication between the BUILD sites and the CEC. Since the BUILD sites were also conducting site level evaluations in addition to participating in the Consortium-level evaluation, having sufficient personnel and resources for completing the scope of work at both these levels was challenging. The CEC addressed the challenge by working collaboratively with BUILD evaluators to streamline data collection. This reduced redundancies in data collection, giving preference to standardized Consortium measures that were valid, reliable, and comparable across sites, and addressed the Hallmarks of Success.The most important aspect of the longitudinal data collection and analysis was to address the gaps in the evaluation literature on interventions. NIH wanted to improve the evidence base by better understanding what drives workforce changes 10–15 years in the future in terms of diversifying the nations biomedical research thinkforce. By following the students over 5–10 years it will be able to identify which of the Hallmarks , are correlated with increasing persistence in biomedical undergraduate majors, graduation, and enrollment in graduate school. Following these students on their career trajectory through their doctorate and post-doctoral fellowships will inform us if the interventions in the undergraduate years alone persist for students from underrepresented groups, and the extent to which additional support through graduate school and their early career acts as a booster, or supplement, to the undergraduate experience. This longitudinal design is crucial for being able to identify the key changes needed to support the evolution of the NIH scientific “thinkforce” to better represent the demographics of the US population.We have implemented a multi-method evaluation design that emphasizes multiple case studies, cross-site analysis, a robust quasi-experimental design using multilevel statistical analysis to compare BUILD and non BUILD-exposed students and faculty, as well as BUILD and non-BUILD sites, and trend analysis of key indicators, e.g., Hallmarks of Success. Table site level BUILD program logic model as a guiding framework, qualitative interviews were conducted to provide a narrative description of the relationships among each BUILD site’s inputs, activities and outputs and some, but not all, short-term program outcomes. Qualitative data collection was focused on the approaches for forming institutional partnerships, as well as to capture the participant experience within the BUILD program . Site visits were an occasion for sites to showcase the defining features of their programs, their model for organizational transformation and sustainability, as well as to discuss any challenges related to program implementation and evaluation. Additionally, a series of case studies were conducted to capture institutional transformation and sustainability of BUILD program features and structural changes.A multi-method evaluation design was essential for understanding contextual and institutional factors that shape biomedical training and outcomes. All 10 BUILD institutions participate in site visits during the grant period. Site visits focus on describing the activities BUILD sites implement to promote and support underrepresented groups biomedical research training at each site. Using the There are two sets of comparisons that will be used to determine if the BUILD programs are effective, one internal to BUILD institutions and one comparing BUILD to non-BUILD institutions. The first set of analyses compares those involved with the BUILD program at each site with similar biomedical students and faculty who are not involved with the BUILD programs at the same institution. In tracking changes over time for both groups, we will be able to determine if (after adjusting for selection biases between the two populations) students and faculty in the BUILD programs perform better than those who are not in the program (otherwise known as a difference in difference approach). Because we will have detailed information about which BUILD activities each participant was exposed to, we can also determine if there is a minimum extent or type of participation needed for improved outcomes. The variation between sites also will allow us to examine variation in program design, such as the timing of student research experiences, the creation of student learning communities, or the extent of faculty research support provided. Since the ultimate goal of the program is to increase the diversity of the biomedical workforce, we will also look at the interaction of underrepresented group membership with the intervention to determine the relative effectiveness for underrepresented students and faculty.Since one of the goals of BUILD is institutional-level change, it is possible that even students and faculty who were not direct participants in BUILD activities may benefit from campus-wide changes that the BUILD programs stimulate. To better isolate institutional-level changes we have also selected a national matched sample of non-BUILD institutions that also collected HERI student surveys at the same time as each of the 10 BUILD grantees. Matching of BUILD/non-BUILD institutions was based on 2015 data for the following six indicators: Public vs. private college or university; Percent undergraduates receiving a Pell grant; Percent of applications deemed admissible to the institution; Average SAT scores; Percent under-represented students ; and institution size measured by total number of undergraduates. Therefore, each BUILD site has a comparable institution whose students and faculty can be tracked in terms of key Hallmarks over time.Secondary data from HERI surveys at those non-BUILD institutions will be used for comparison with outcomes at BUILD institutions for students at baseline (The Freshman Survey) and near graduation (College Senior Survey), and for faculty surveyed every three-years (Faculty Survey). In this analysis we will examine key outcomes at the individual level to determine if being at a BUILD versus non-BUILD institution has significantly more impact on biomedical career outcomes.Generalized mixed (fixed and random effects) linear models (multilevel models) are used to test the main hypothesis that the BUILD interventions result in better outcomes. In analyses, we adjust for individual (students and faculty) and contextual  characteristics. We also account for the clustering effect, namely that data from students and faculty in the same institution may be more similar to each other than those in other institutions.Testing institutional hypotheses will employ both quantitative and qualitative methods.In order to answer the first BUILD institutional evaluation question, institutional data from 2013  to 2019 (end of funding), for all 10 BUILD grantee institutions will be used. Aggregate data for all students in biomedical disciplines will be examined for changes in entry, persistence, and graduation rates across the life of the grant. Increases in total numbers and/or diversity  for students in biomedical majors/disciplines will be determined. Individual student data will be analyzed using a generalized logistic mixed effects model that calculates the relative probability that students at BUILD institutions will choose and graduate in a biomedical major. Covariates will include whether the student is from an underrepresented group, predispositions, and experiences of each student at the institution.A qualitative approach was implemented to answer most of the BUILD institutional evaluation questions and some evaluation questions for students and faculty. The qualitative data were collected during site visits  in the form of institutional case studies. BUILD sites were debriefed regarding key observations relevant to improving program implementation. Analysis of qualitative data moves through the phases of organizing, coding, sorting, synthesizing, and theorizing . StrategTable We have addressed five major challenges and limitations in conducting a multi-campus program evaluation. First, expertise varies widely at the BUILD teaching intensive institutions to collect systematic data for the evaluation. This has implications for valid and reliable measurement. We addressed this by forming the 10 CEC-BUILD Teams that supported the needed expertise across all the sites. Second, the critical importance of providing adequate incentives to stimulate response rates both among students and faculty longitudinally in both intervention and comparison groups; prior evaluations have been hampered by low response rates that yield biased evaluation findings. We optimized response rates through a 3-pronged approach that used incentives, timing of survey administration, and more effective communication strategies.Third, selection bias is always inherent in the quasi-experimental design due to baseline differences in institutional level and individual level faculty and student samples. We addressed this by using statistical controls for baseline differences in intervention and comparison groups, to the extent possible. Fourth, collecting longitudinal data for assessing career success in biomedical research many years into the future from the undergraduate program through the key transition points of tenured faculty or comparable scientific position  is threaThis article describes the conceptual and methodological foundation of the BUILD evaluation design to determine the national impact of this institutionally-targeted initiative. The results of the Consortium-wide evaluation will be used to inform national policy and institutional and educational programmatic changes required to diversify the biomedical workforce in the USA.The early evaluation of the 10 BUILD programs describe the characteristics of students, faculty, and institutions attracted to the programs, and documents the extent to which the NIH DPC investment is working to change early predictors of success among underrepresented students in remaining and succeeding in biomedical majors in college. Since the BUILD educational interventions and innovations did not start until year two of the five-year grants, and successful student graduation is typically measured over a four to six-year period, the first round of evaluation will focus largely on early predictors such as science identity development and satisfaction with mentoring. It will also position the longer-term evaluation that will allow us to follow students through graduation and into graduate school,or the labor force, so that we can both track successful outcomes  and determine if the literature on predictors of success apply to the students in these teaching-intensive institutions with high numbers of students who are underrepresented in the biomedical workforce. The results will provide rich information on how to best fine-tune future programs to address the most important predictors of biomedical success in these types of institutions. Because we have information from 10 different programs, the results will also provide insights into the types of programs that have the greatest impact on the recruitment, retention, and matriculation to graduate programs in the biomedical sciences of underrepresented students.The evaluation is unique in that it not only focuses on student outcomes but also focuses on the program effects among faculty and institutions. Impacting the faculty and institutions are essential for sustaining the program effects beyond the fixed years of BUILD’s NIH funding. The BUILD evaluation data will show the types of programs that have the greatest effect on improving faculty mentoring of biomedical students, as well as how they work to change the culture, infrastructure, and/or standard operating processes of the institutions in ways that better support URG success in biomedical majors in sustainable ways.st century requires the broad implementation of evidence-based approaches. The Consortium-wide evaluation is a key component for building the evidence base to identify best in class career development interventions to address gaps in biomedical workforce diversity.Ultimately, the success of the evaluation is dependent on the level of cooperation and coordination across various stakeholder groups that are geographically dispersed and the effective use of communication technology to convene virtual meetings and webinars to form and sustain high performing multi-campus working groups at all levels of the consortium. Educating a biomedical workforce that represents the diversity of the U.S in the 21


Depression is associated with a loss of productivity and noticeable personal, social, and economic decline; it affects more than 350 million people worldwide. Behavioral activation (BA), derived from cognitive behavioral therapy, has drawn increasingly more interest as a means of treatment for major depressive disorder due to its relative cost-effectiveness and efficacy. In this study, we disseminate findings from a feasibility study evaluating barriers to implementing a group BA program for major depressive disorder. The purpose of this feasibility study is to assess both patient and clinician perceptions on components of a group-based behavioral activation (BA) program. In particular, this feasibility study provides in-depth evaluation of the acceptability of BA prior to the design and implementation of a randomized trial to investigate BA effectiveness. Findings from this study directly informed decisions regarding the design and implementation of BA during the pilot trial. Specific components of BA were assessed and modified based on the results of this study.This qualitative study was completed through the Mood Disorders Program at St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton. The authors of this study used data from two focus group sessions, one consisting of an interdisciplinary group of clinicians working in the Mood Disorders Program, and the other of registered outpatients of the Mood Disorders Program with a confirmed clinical diagnosis of depression. The benefits of offering this program in a group format, mainly social skill development opportunities and the use of technology such as activity tracking device, smart phones, and tablets during the therapy sessions, are a major focus of both the clinician and patient groups. Both groups emphasized the importance of offering sustainable activation.Differences in opinions existed between staff and patient groups regarding the use of technology in the program, though ultimately it was agreed upon that technology could be useful as a therapeutic aid. All participants agreed that behavioral activation was essential to the development of positive habits and routines necessary for recovery from depression. Patients agreed the program looked sustainable and stressed the potential benefit for improving depressive symptoms.Discussions from clinician and patient-centered focus groups directly informed decisions regarding the design and implementation of BA during the pilot trial. Specific components of BA were assessed and modified based on the results of this study. These findings provide insight for clinicians providing behavioral activation programming, and will serve as a framework for the development of the Out of the Blues program, a group-based BA program to be piloted in the Mood Disorders Program at St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton.NCT02045771Clinical Trials registration number  Clinical depression, also called major depressive disorder (MDD), is characterized by persistent low mood and loss of interest in pleasurable activities, accompanied by the presence of symptoms ranging from social withdrawal, changes in appetite, fatigue, insomnia, and morbid thoughts of death , 2. ReceOriginally, a component of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), behavioral activation (BA) has drawn increasingly more interest as a means of treatment for MDD due to its relative cost-effectiveness and efficacy . It is sBA encourages activation by connecting individuals with MDD with positive reinforcers in their environment . BA targ®. Adventure-based therapy consists of cooperative group games usually outdoors employing an experiential approach to apply real and imagined scenarios and learn how to handle the situations to induce behavioral changes. It promotes group cohesiveness through the use of various group activities, as well as providing individuals with a sense of accomplishment and meaning Part of the add-on to the behavioral activation program will be a skill development component . What would be some of the skills you think would need to be included in this treatment/training?There will be an element to this program that will include community outings  Do you think there would be benefits in providing these opportunities? Do you think there would be any potential disadvantages?There will also be an adventure-based component, which would include participation in certain activities such as: canoeing, hiking and cooperative games (i.e. low ropes), and other forms of physical activity. Are there any advantages or disadvantages that you would see in participating/if your patients were to participate in such activities?How would you find such a program to be successful or useful? What would you consider as measures of success We will first test the usefulness of this treatment by conducting a study to assess the effect of this new treatment on mood and quality of life. How would you feel if you were randomly allocated to receive the new treatment in addition to your usual care or continue using usual care?What about the program appeals to you? What does not appeal to you?The focus group sessions were recorded via three separate devices to ensure that all data were completely captured and to avoid poor quality recording or malfunction of recording. Conversation was transcribed in real time by co-facilitators , and audio recordings were used to verify the transcription. Facilitators took field notes, tracked participant responses, and ensured that data were collected from each participant for each question.Analytical techniques stemming from grounded theory approaches were employed, which included thematic coding, line-by-line translations, and comparative analysis –33. ThreThe study was approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (HIREB) (HIREB identification number: 14-042).In total, 12 clinicians and nine patients participated in respective focus groups. Across both focus groups, four major themes were identified: (1) the importance of a group-based BA approach, (2) the importance of an effective program structure, (3) the importance of sustainability of the program even after treatment completion, and (4) the potential successes and shortcomings of technology integration. The data analysis showed both similarities and differences of opinion between the clinician and patient groups. Each theme is summarized and discussed below.“For me a group is essential for getting on with this” “As depression worsens, your social skills, or at least mine personally, sort of drop you know…my social skills, like, social, like skill building would probably be a necessity, at least, personally I find it would be a great benefit.” (Patient)Both the patient and clinician groups endorsed the development of social skills, team-building, and accountability, and shared experiences as benefits of a group-based BA approach. Social skill building was a major challenge identified in the patient focus group, and one that patients felt would be effectively addressed through the Out of the Blues program. This patient went so far to liken the social skills aspect of the program to a necessity.“Communication skills is paramount because I feel like a lot of what’s keeping me in depression is not being able to communicate my feelings or opinions effectively to other people” (Patient)“Communication and assertiveness training because I find you tend to let it die a bit with depression and this would help, I think, to bring us back” (Patient)Specifically, the patient group emphasized communication and assertiveness skills as important aspects to be addressed in a BA program.“I think the team building aspect is really important for various activities, possibly if people don’t want to participate directly… just being there to support the other group members” (Clinician)Clinicians spoke about using the adventure-based activities to build skills like communication, but did not feel as strongly about the necessity of social skill development. Instead, the clinician group used the language of team building and community integration (discussed in theme 2). One clinician spoke on the importance of encouraging team building as a component of the adventure-based add-on therapy.“Important for me to get a sense of myself in relation to others” (Patient)“I could get a sense of my skills in relation to other people, I guess that would be kind of self- esteem or awareness of how I interact” (Patient)Multiple patients made reference to team building as well, but their main focus was working to discover where they fit within a team dynamic. In other words, patients also emphasized the importance of team building, but more in terms of discovering their own sense of self.“I need someone there to keep me in the program until it becomes automatic” (Patient)Both patients and clinicians believed that a group-based BA program will increase participants’ sense of accountability to all aspects of recovery. Clinicians spoke of the development of “camaraderie” amongt group members, and the encouraging effect participants can have on each other in terms of completing the program. The patient group also spoke of the importance of accountability to facilitators and co-participants, and the impact of that on their individual success in program. For the most part, the need to be accountable to others was addressed in short-term language. Patients felt they needed the group dynamic to push them until they are able to develop effective habits and routines.“I would like to learn and build relationships with people who know what I am going through” (Patient)Also emphasized, primarily by patients, was the inherent benefit of a shared experience—naturally occurring in any group therapy. Patients spoke about practicing their skills and building up confidence in an environment of individuals with a true appreciation of their experience with depression.“After a while, it was like family; you felt really good coming to class.” (Patient discussing previous experience in group-based therapy)Further, based on past treatment experiences, patients felt that spending time in group therapy helps to combat individual feelings of isolation, and leads to an improved mood while in the program.One aspect that was endorsed by patient and staff groups alike was the program structure. Described by participants as a “comprehensive program”, patients and staff found the general description of OOTB to cover a wide range of skills. They particularly appreciated the opportunities for exposure to different environments as well as the incorporation of technology into the program. In discussing the program, patients mentioned how they “…like that [the program] doesn’t include just things like wellness and diet and nutrition and it includes some interesting things…”. Furthermore, when discussing technology, a patient said that they “…think it would be really cool.”“I honestly feel this is a huge piece that is actually missing. We really do teach this on the inpatient unit and then they are left to their own devices once they are in an outpatient setting…I think [BA] is a huge piece of people’s recovery.” (Clinician)Clinicians also cited behavioral activation as an integral, but not yet fully explored portion of the current CBT treatment.“I just wanted to make a comment about how important it is because, even when we do CBT, we only spend two sessions on behavioural activation and it doesn’t even [mumbles]…even as an individual clinician if I am seeing someone individually for BA, I’m really limited in my ability to be able to leave the office and go out into the community because of my other commitments…” (Clinician)The limitations placed on clinicians were also addressed with regard to BA-based programs.The length of the program was believed to offer a better chance of habit formation and sustainability of activation. One patient mentioned “…if you have a longer program; it, it’ll become more automatic until you do it before even thinking about it.” (Patient) Regarding the program’s length, it is brought up that “…though it will be challenging in terms of scheduling it will be well worth the challenge.” One patient even remarked that the structure “…helps [them] to be more accountable and accountability is really what [they] need.”“It may be difficult for all the group to make it to each session but I think that part of having depression, the twice a week would really encourage people to get out and put more effort into the program.” (Patient)The proposed twice weekly frequency of the sessions was said to be a possible barrier by some participants but was also thought to lead to a more engaging program by others.It was also said of the twice a week sessions that there would be a “…a shorter gap between sessions, which [they] think would help.”Regarding the structure, clinicians mentioned that the program is “…not a one size fits all solution” and “…it will have to be very personalized.”Both groups also identified certain structural barriers. Those most commonly brought up were “…transportation, time of day, and commitment”. When asked about other barriers, one clinician remarked, “…potentially any equipment they might need for this program as well” in reference to the technology.“…People who have needs in the here and now and sometimes I think you know that is up to the people in the study to balance to needs, there are still very good ways statistically that they will be able to get relevant information without having to use the gold standard of random.” (Clinician)Although not explicitly stated as a barrier to the program, patients and staff expressed concern over the idea of a control group in the trial design who would not receive the proposed intervention.Patients were also quite displeased with the idea of a control group. When discussing the idea of continuing normal care without the BA program, one patient said they “…would be distressed if [they] had to continue.” Another described how they “…would feel cheated not to have the opportunity because the treatment [they’re] getting right now is not really doing much for [them].” (Clinician)Another concern was that of clear expectations and providing a detailed rationale for both measures and procedures that would take place in the program. One clinician mentioned how “…you have to discuss what the expectations are so that the patient is aware of what is expected actually, so there are no surprises moving forward.” In reference to the idea of using body measures such as BMI, a patient asked “…how would this be helpful, I don’t understand the process, how would this be helpful?”One particular aspect that was characterized as quite beneficial to patients was that of homework as well as the other assignments included in the BA program. Although it was mentioned as possibly “cumbersome” by clinicians, patients found that “…homework reinforce[s] what was talked about in class.” Assignments were described by patients as “…the backbone of the CBT that” and require a much desired increase in commitment and dedication to their recovery.“[S]ustainability I think is kind of key” (Clinician)The primary desire by both clinicians and patients alike was having a sustainable program, one that develops a routine that patients can follow and continue into their daily lives past the completion of the program.The concept of sustainability was emphasized in discussing the idea of community integration. Exposure to new activities was believed to be quite beneficial, as long as those activities could be carried out past the completion of the group. When discussing the idea of community integration, one staff member mentioned that it would have to be “…set up so that they’re gonna continue on with whatever they have done.” (Clinician)Clinicians cited finances as a barrier to certain forms of activation, mentioning the need for “mak[ing] sure that [activities are] portable into their life beyond this group.” (Clinician) In order to do so, it was mentioned that an emphasis should be on “…problem solving and really helping people look outside the box.” (Clinician)The idea of sustainability also related to that of setting goals and being realistic in the patients’ expectations. In order to help manage expectations, it was mentioned “…one of the things that’s helpful with [patients’ expectations] is having realistic goals around behavioral activation… how you see that to be realistic might help with, you know, maintaining that.”“I find something most successful when, as they said, it becomes more, like you don’t have to think about it you just kind of automatically do these things…If it becomes habit, it becomes more successful, you feel you have successfully integrated everything you need in order to kind of recover, and to feel better, so something that kind of becomes more or less habit its successful, at least in my personal view.” (Patient)When discussing measures of success, both groups agreed that sustainability was the main goal. As mentioned by one clinician, if “…[patients] are doing it after the course has ended, I think then you would consider it a success.” In order to develop that habit and routine, it was thought that it would be necessary to have a “…longer program; it, it’ll become more automatic until you do it before even thinking about it.” (Patient) This point was reiterated multiple times throughout the patient focus group.“One of the things I wanted to mention and maybe I am being idealistic again; I wondered about to have like a booster session or a drop in so people might progress through the program and be discharged from Out of the Blues but there might be one activity a week or a month that people could drop in and attend should they wish.” (Clinician)One interesting point brought up by the clinician focus group was the idea of a continuation of the program for patients upon its completion. One clinician during the group even posed the question: “…would clients be able to come back as volunteers?” Recommendations were made to turn what clinicians term “graduates” of the program into “peer support in the community.” It was mentioned that this would take a lot of “…the community burden off of the clinicians.” Ideas were also put forth regarding the possibility of sessions following the completion of the OOTB program itself.“More than likely they are not going to have the equipment or possibly not know how to use the equipment…[they] may have some difficulties with that and may need to have a session of showing them to use the equipment…” (Clinician)Although both patients and staff agreed that on some level, technology could be successfully implemented into a BA program, varying opinions were presented between the two groups. One staff member commented on the lack of expertise or knowledge patients would have with technology.Despite a varied range of opinions, many clinicians agreed that the use of technology should be limited. One staff member mentioned that “[i]t might be better just to start off with the basics like a pedometer or something.” (Clinician) They also cited the use of technology as both a “…positive or a negative.”“…I’m a bit concerned, not necessarily like a personal concern but I would raise would be the accessibility if it was a take-home device or not, it’s always good to be careful because there is theft.” (Patient)Both groups also brought up issues of theft with clinicians mentioning inexpensive technology as best to commence the program with, and patients raising the concern of easy access to mobile devices leading to potential theft.Based on feedback from both the patient and clinician groups, facilitators may develop BA programs with technology that is accessible and affordable to all patients. Clinicians and patients were concerned about the sustainability of technology use for patients without financial access to certain computerized devices. For instance, clinicians became focused on the possible use of iPads during the use of technology discussion.“…[E]specially if you travel a lot and like you need something like to know your progress on the go, because like bringing red binders everywhere you go, everyone gets all snoopy what are you on, what are you on? But like with the iPad really nobody cares.” (Patient)Many patients, however, were very receptive of the idea of technology use, citing it as something that “would be beneficial.” One patient even mentioned the idea of portability that technology would offer.The primary concern that staff raised with regard to technology was that of sustainability. Although discussed later in terms of the program as a whole, sustainability was found to be a significant issue with this aspect of the program as well. Many clinicians mentioned how they “…would want people to continue to use the strategies that they learn in the group” with an emphasis on the portability past the program. As part of sustainability, clinicians emphasized a focus on learning strategies and not a reliance on various technological devices.Multiple conclusions can be drawn from this focus group study on behavioral activation and complementary therapies, which will be used to refine the design of the Out of the Blues program. Both the patient and clinician groups advocated that designing the program around fostering social development of participants was important. This finding was not surprising as impaired social functioning is a common experience of women with a diagnosis of depression . The addTo some extent, both patients and staff believed that technology had merit as an activation tool –28. The Sustainability was the most consistent concern across both groups. Behavioral activation is designed to increase positive activity gradually, in order to achieve values-based long-term goals . TherapeBoth clinicians and patients appreciated a diverse range of activities in the program structure, especially those that provide increased stimulation and exposure. This was found to be consistent with other research investigating the efficacy of behavioral activation . When diA number of limitations should be addressed by future research on this topic. First, the small sample size used in this study may limit the depth of data collected. As participants were self-selected for participation in this study and not randomized, a fairly homogenous group was created and used for research purposes. This homogeneity may have limited the breadth of themes expressed. Given the clinician and patient groups were comprised of exclusively women participants, the collected data may not be generalizable to all patient groups with MDD. Further qualitative studies for this therapy may benefit from a larger, heterogeneous sample to expand the breadth of data and improve generalizability of findings, and to aid in identifying solutions to potential barriers. Some clinician participants were aware of the potential OOTB program prior to the focus group session, which may have introduced bias in their responses to questions asked.Findings from this study provide insight for clinicians providing behavioral activation programming, and will serve as a framework for the development of the Out of the Blues program, a group-based BA program. This study suggests that the BA intervention proposed for the Out of the Blues program is acceptable among patients with depression as well as the clinicians specializing in depression treatment.


Prevention and avoidance of deadlocks in sensor networks that use the wormhole routing algorithm is an active research domain. There are diverse control policies that will address this problem being our approach a new method. In this paper we present a virtual control policy for the new specialized Petri net subclass called Binary Ordered Resources Petri Net (BORPN). Essentially, it is an ordinary class constructed from various state machines that share unitary resources in a complex form, which allows branching and joining of processes. The reduced structure of this new class gives advantages that allow analysis of the entire system’s behavior, which is a prohibitive task for large systems because of the complexity and routing algorithms. A deadlock occurs if one state of a system becomes infinitely unattainable by an unanswered resource request. The vivacity property establishes that the system should reach all states for which it was designed, which is why this property helps characterize the absence of deadlocks. For this reason, liveness is a desirable property in concurrent systems that share resources simultaneously, because it allows all the states of the system to be reached. From the point of view of resource allocation systems (RAS), the goal is to guarantee that all desired states will be reached using the resources requested by the system during a given time. The perspective of resource allocation systems will be used to model the systems through a Petri net model, therefore, resources are used conservatively; that is, they are not created or destroyed. As it is known, a Petri net is a formal and graphical tool that can be used for abstraction and analysis of concurrent discrete events in dynamic systems such as sensors networks. In this paper, we will guarantee the absence of deadlocks in the system through the search of the liveness property that is obtained by the analysis of the Petri net model under study. It is well known that deadlocks occur more often in systems with concurrency, which are best described by Petri nets. Furthermore, the possibilities of modeling Petri nets are not limited by the technology because it is a mathematical model with a graphical representation using a bipartite graph. Normally, the way to synthesize and analyze concurrent systems using Petri nets is through subclasses with strengths to address specific problems. Therefore, we will explain the new control policy for the Petri nets called Binary Ordered Resources Petri Net abbreviated as BORPN. This is a subclass of previously existing classes such as the S4PR ,2 and ES classes  where Bo domains ,7. Therees as in ,9,10.As shown in the well-known property of Commoner, some structural objects such as siphons are closely related to properties of the basic behavior of Petri nets, like liveness and the absence of deadlocks, where a part of the system works but another remains locked. The structural analysis of the Petri net model allows us to demonstrate some properties through the siphons to ensure the liveliness of the model, however, it is a process that uses too much memory; in some cases, it is even impossible due to the problem of state explosion. Several methods allow the reduction of the exponential number of calculations as linear equations or inequalities, symmetries, modular design, etc.A new approach is presented in  that worIn this section we will to explain the operties ,16. Thises [S4PR  and ES3PDefinition 1. The Petri Net Class for Ordered Binary Resources). Let’s say thatis a finite set of indices. A Petri Net Class for Ordered Binary Resources is a strongly connected Petri net, self-loops-freewhere:(1) is a partition such that:(a),y, for all.(b)(c),(2) is a partition such that:(a),, for each, for all.(b),, for each, for all.(3) For all, the subnetgenerated byis a strongly connected state machine, such that each cycle containsand induces a minimal T-Semiflow.(4) For eachthere is a minimal P–Semiflow,, such thaty.(5) . via networks or warehouse distribution centers. Definition 1, Paragraph 2 is related to transitions that are partitioned into two disjoint sets. Transitions bifurcations, one useful characteristic to represent complex systems where deadlock problems arise. In [idle place closes a circuit that induces a T-Semiflow on that path. Finally, in the Definition 1, Paragraphs 4 and 5 are related to the invariant structural properties of the resources and idle places respectively. Thus, for any P-Semiflow where Transitions in a rise. In  where itDefinition 2. Consider thatis a BORPN andthe set of resource locations. The set of carrier placesofis the support of the minimal P-Semiflowresource whereA Definition 3. Consider thatis a BORPN, withthe set of resources places andthe set of process places. A transactionis enabled on the marking or (disabled on the marking) summarizedor  iffin the M marking of por  summarizedor  iffthe M marking of p asor . A directed path is a sequence of places and transitionssuch thatfromtowhereand, forand.(When this directed path is related to a Definition 7. Zone of a resource).Consider that,is a BORPN andthe set of resources. The zone of a resource is the set of places holders ofthat intercepts the netas, whereand.. Consider thatis a BORPN with only lineal processes, where is the set of resources places. Consider that, such thatthe zone of a resource r in the netfor. The placewhere. So thatsuch thatand.. Consider thatis a BORPN with non-lineal processes, whereis the set of resources places and. Consider, whereIn this way,such thatSo that,andand(2); (3)P-Semiflow of the other resource involved. If the previous conditions are met, there will be an overlapping among all involved resources, and this would be called a team of resources. A Petri net where all resources belong to a team of resources is a P-Semiflow of the team resources. Finally, for each transition where the resource of the team is acquired, there is only one way, in the strongly connected state machine, to reach each transition where the resource is released.The set Definition 9. Properties of a resource ofclass). A Petri net is a BORPN class if all the resources belong to a team andsuch that,. (2) (3) initial marking for the Petri net model. In our avoidance control policy of deadlock, the Petri net model does not get modified, so the initial marking remains unchanged. In order to apply our policy of deadlock prevention it is necessary to add virtual resources to make the Petri net model free of deadlocks, which will keep the same initial marking as in previous resources.Usually, in order to implement the policy of deadlock prevention it is necessary to consider the All the same, if new places of processes are added, they remain empty in the initial marking. Our control policy deadlock does not add new processes to Petri net model, so no idle place will be added.structurally safe net could be introduced, due to the binary marking of the processes places and resources places. The structure of the In this section, the liveliness property is characterized by siphons. A siphon is a set of places that, when they become empty, remain forever alike. For that, all output transitions of the places of a vacuum siphon will be disabled forever because at least one point of entry (belonging to siphon) will be empty forever. Empty siphons can be represented as circular waits, due to the fact that in a siphon exists complex overlapping loops, where each cycle represents a set of empty resources. In  siphons Definition 11. A Petri net systemis called a Structurally Safe Net class iff for each place, exists a P-Semiflowsuch thatandordinary binary decision diagrams (OBDDs). One strategy is to reduce the number of elements that have to be treated simultaneously, which produces a well-defined network, however this discussion is beyond the scope of this article.The following results affirm that all vectors of marking Lemma 1. Consider that, is a BORPN Petri net. Consider thatis a dead mark, such thatandin the set of dead transitions that belongs to. The setaccomplishesProof. We tested this result by contradiction. Let us suppose that T-Semiflow containing From process) eventually reaches a desirable state. This property and its structural characterization in the Liveness property states that the implementation of the program  If ⇐) If 1 and 3) each want to send objects simultaneously, a deadlock may occur in the central node. It should be mentioned that we assume that the node, or station 2, is unable to send or receive messages, but able to forward messages to nodes/remaining stations.This subsection provides an example modeled through Petri nets of the transport of a message that uses a wormhole routing algorithm. SM1 models the flow object from the node or station 1 to the node or station 3. The machine SM2 models the flow in the reverse direction, which means, objects from the node or station 3 to the node or station 1. From our RAS perspective, resources are the channels of the system and they are represented by places of resources we call BORPN class, which is suitable for modeling a wide range of resource allocation systems that acquire and release resources in the same order. As mentioned in Theorem 1, the liveness of these types of networks is related to the existence of siphons that are not marked sufficiently in m. The network in D unmarked. Obviously, there is a deadlock and the system does not guarantee the liveness property, as the Petri net shows in the deadlock.The diverse existing methods for handling deadlocks through the literature can be classified based in the form in which they work in two big strategies: those strategies that modify the structure of the processes and those that do not modify the structure of the model. The capacity to add or not new virtual resources is a characteristic used in this policy that makes a clear distinction of which strategy is being used. The selection of the strategy depends of the kind of problem to be solved; this is because in some applications or areas it could be impossible to use both strategies. To explain a deadlock prevention policy, we will use a BORPN Petri net model, its respective structural analysis, and the pruning graph that is used for to obtaining the minimal siphons in this net .R ⊆ PR, as set up in Definition 1.4. Therefore, in order to compute all minimal siphons, we consider 2|PR| − 1 subsets, each one containing a different non-empty subset of resources. An easy way to construct each one of these 2|PR| − 1 candidate siphons is by the union of the minimal siphons of D1 corresponding to the included resources in the siphon to be constructed.A specialized algorithm to compute the minimal siphons beginning from the set of unique minimal siphons of one resource Dp, that become non-essential, i.e., there are another input places to the transitions p● that allow the remove of p. The only possibility, in this case, is that these new places be resource places, different to those that make p essential. These resource places appear in the union operation. The other source of non-minimality arise when none of the places of a siphon Dr1 become non-essential. In this case, the full minimal siphon Dr is contained in the siphon resulting from the union operation, and therefore it will be not minimal. Moreover, in this case, there is not a minimal siphon containing the intended set of resources because, at least, one of them, r, cannot belong because Dr is contained. From the previous discussion about non-minimality of the result of the union of a subset of siphons in D1, in this section we define formal tools and results allowing to sieve the 2|PR| − 1 candidate siphons, in order to retain only those giving rise to the minimal ones.The result of the union is a siphon, which is because each one of the operands is a siphon, but, in general, it is not minimal. This non-minimality can arise from process places, pruning relation defined on the set D1. We will say that the siphon Dr1 prunes the siphon Dx1, r ≠ x, if and only if Trx = Dr● ∩ Dx● ≠ 0 (the two siphons share some transition) and Ur = r● ∩ Trx ∩ (●Trx ∩ Dx ∩ PS)● ≠ Ø .The first tool is the so called x by the siphon Dr are in each one of the pairs , where t r. The candidate place to be removed from one of these pairs is ●t ∩ PS. This place can be removed, because it becomes non-essential in Dr ∪ Dx, only if (●t ∩ PS)● ⊆ Ur, i.e., all its output transitions belong to the previously defined set Ur. In order to represent this pruning relation we will define a graph named Pruning Graph (PG).The candidate elements to be pruned from the siphon DDefinition 12. LetR the set of resource places. The Pruning Graph (PG) ofbe a BORPN net and PR; and (2) E ⊆ V x V and for all r, xis a graph G =  where, (1) V = PR, r ≠ x,  ⊆ E iff Ur = r● ∩ Trx ∩ (●Trx ∩ Dx ∩ PS) ● ≠ Ø with Trx = Dr● ∩ Dx●.P. LetN4PR, hence all existing theoretical results for the S4PR can be applied for this subclass. Given a pruning graph G = , we define the pruning subgraph G′ of G induced on the set of vertices V′ ⊆ V, as the graph G′ = ). Associated to a pruning graph or subgraph we define the following three labelling functions.Be aware that BORPN ⊆ SDefinition 13. LetR the set of resource places. The Pruning Graph (PG) of the netbe a BORPN net and P.1. R → S1, where for all rResource labelling function. S: PR, S(r) = DrP1.S2. TxPs, whereArc labelling function. L: E → 2E, L = { | t● ∩ Trx ∩ (●Trx ∩ S(x) ∩ PS)●; Trx = S(r)● ∩ S(x)●; {p} = ●t ∩ PS}.r3. G: VPruning labelling function. K→Ps, where for all r2G(r) ⊆ PS is computed by the algorithm [V, Klgorithm .. LetNPruning Graph of Petri net model of 9, p7}; L = {t9, p7}; L = {t8, p6}; L = {t3, p2}; L = {t3, p2}; L = {t2, p1}.Our methodology enforces the liveness property by adding places as virtual resources in terms of a Petri net model. These kind of resources are implemented over existing physical resources as routing restrictions to avoid fulfilling the four classical necessary conditions for the existence of deadlocks. The main idea is to systematically add the virtual resources until we obtain a model that fits with Theorem 1. The Pruning Graph (G) of trongly Connected Subgraphs called G1, G2 and G3. The subgraph contains the following vertexes: G1 = {R, S}, G2 = {R, T} and G3 = {S, T}. These subgraphs represent three minimal siphons called D1, D2, and D3, respectively. The siphons contain the followings places: D1 = {R, S, p2, p3, p4, p8, p9, p10}, D2 = {R, T, p3, p4, p5, p8, p9, p10} and D3 = {S, T, p3, p4, p5, p7, p8, p9}.Employing the algorithm presented in  over the(Pruning Graph (G) summarize the minimal siphons of the BORPN Petri net model. The relation among siphons implicated in a Pruning Graph (PG) contains resources that induces a subnet. The influence area of a resource r is given by its holders Implicated Resources (I). We can formalize the definition of Implicated Resources (I) are as follows:Since of the siphons belonging to the net, we are able to find the influence subnet which is characterized by the resources put into the pruning graph that becomes not-marking-resource-enabled Definition 14. Letbe a BORPN net and G =  the Pruning Graph of the net. Let D be the minimal siphon ofR ⊆ PR. For each arc E′r,x ⊆ G′ | r, xthat induce a strongly connected subgraph G′ with DR exists an implicated resources (I) such that I ⊆ Nr,x ∩ DR and I = ●●D((S∩ P) R.∩ DR with the set of pairs  representing the common transition and the candidate place p to be pruned by the minimal siphon Dr in the minimal siphon Dx when we construct Dr ∪ Dx, therefore, the label preserves the order of pruning that will be used to reference, in an unequivocal way, each one of the resources of the arc. With this information we are able to find the set of Implicated ProcessPlaces(IPP) and Influence Subnet (IS) R. The next definition characterizes, in a structural way, the Implicated Processes places.The influence subnet is obtained by the interrelation among the implicated resources in E′ ⊆ G′,  Definition 15. Letbe a BORPN net and G =  the Pruning Graph of. Let D be the minimal siphon ofR ⊆ PR are the implicated resources places (I) and DS ⊆ D the process places that belongs to the siphon D. For each arc E′r, x ⊆ G′ | r, xthat induce a strongly connected subgraph G′ ⊆ G. DR exists an implicated process places Π ⊆DS such that: Π = ∩ p∊{r, x}∩ DExploring the set of places Π we can obtain the IS subnet. The Π places are common places for several resources that are implicated in a subgraph G′ which share the resources from what was acquired in the net until they will be released. Since from this point of view the subgraph shows this overlap on the zones of the resources that characterize this class of net as was stated in previous definitions. Therefore, each Π places give us the information about the resources and transitions that were used in the net. The following definition 16 explains the IS subnet.Definition 16. Letbe a BORPN net and Πthe set of places that belong to the IS subnet which used an implicated resource I in a subgraph G'. Let ∆ and Г be a set of shared places and transitions in the IS= <∆, Г> with i, p ∊ ∆ iff p(∩) ∩∩ Π |r, x ∊ I and p(∩) ∩●∆ ∪ ∆ ●., Г = The places and transitions found in the IS subnet will be used by the control policy applied for this kind of net.To control the siphons we use the information coming from the pruning graph G and the influence subnet (IS). Each siphon is represented in the pruning graph by a strongly connected subgraph G' where the implicated resources state the set of candidate resources that will become virtual resources. The question is: which are the more appropriate implicated resources that are necessary to change in the net to virtual resources? To select the set of the most appropriate resources to be changed, we use the information computed in the influence subnet The main idea is to make an attempt against the pruning relation amongst resources implicated in a siphon. From a structural point of view that means: add virtual resources that will be acquired or released by the transitions that belong to the implicated process places in the IS. Due the structure of an BORPN it breaks some dependencies among resources with virtual resources.Algorithm 1 controls all the strongly connected subgraphs that were received from the pruning graph of the BORPN class. By iterations, the algorithm utilizes each subgraph to remove all the siphons from the net adding virtual resources. Of the information of the influence subnet, IS, the common transitions for the implicated places in the siphons are known. The following results concern the termination of Algorithm 1.Algorithm 1. Controlling the siphonsInput.Local.ISOutput.Begin1.  2.  Compute the strongly connected subgraphs G′∈G While exists a strongly connected subgraph Do3.  4.    Select a strongly connected subgraph 5.    Compute the set of I and Π from 6.    Compute the ISIf●p = r● ˄ p● = x●then7.    v and xv such that ●rv = p● ˄ rv● = ●p; ●xv = p● ˄ xv● = ●p8.     Add a virtual resources r●r = p● ˄ r● = ●p) = Ø ; (●x = p● ˄ x● = ●p) = Ø9.     Remove the connection of the resources r and x from the transitions, , which is oriented to address deadlock issues in large systems that allocate resources in a single manner and release these resources in the same order. This behavior is typical of wormhole routing algorithms used in sensor networks. The BORPN class is able to characterize the property of liveliness through of structural objects called a siphon. The reduced structure of this new class gives advantages that allow analysis of the entire system’s behavior, which is a prohibitive task for large systems due the complexity of a routing algorithm. These siphons were computed using the pruning graph . With th


This study aimed to understand the implementation quality of the Tier 1 Program (Secondary 2 Curriculum) delivered in the Experimental Implementation Phase of the Project P.A.T.H.S. . Observers carried out process evaluation in the form of systematic observations of curriculum units in four randomly selected schools. Results showed that the overall level of program adherence was generally high, ranging from 70 to 95%, with an average of 83.6%. The mean ratings of the program implementation quality were high, and the inter-rater reliability on these ratings across the observers was highly reliable. Despite limitations, the findings of this study suggest that the implementation quality of the Secondary 2 Program (Tier 1 Program) of the Experimental Implementation Phase was favorable, and provide supporting evidence to account for the successful and encouraging outcomes of a major positive youth development program in Hong Kong.