Comparison of electron scattering by acoustic-phonons in two types of quantum wells with GaAs and GaN materials.

In this work, we report a detailed comparison of electron-acoustic-phonon (EAP) interaction strength in symmetric (parabolic) and asymmetric (semi-parabolic) quantum-wells (QWs) for both GaAs and GaN materials. The operator projection method will be utilized to calculate the acoustic-phonon-assisted cyclotron resonance (CR) absorption power. The EAP interaction strength is determined by measuring the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the acoustic-phonon-assisted CR absorption peak based on the profile of the curve describing the dependence of the acoustic-phonon-assisted CR absorption power on the photon energy. The studied result reveals that the EAP interaction strengths in the symmetric and asymmetric QWs are functions of the electron temperature (ET), external magnetic field (EMF), and confined potential frequency (CPF). Namely, the larger the ET, the EMF, and the CPF, the stronger the EAP interaction strengths in the symmetric and asymmetric QWs are for both GaN and GaAs materials. More importantly, the obtained result demonstrates that under the influence of the structural (CPF) and external (ET and EMF) parameters, the EAP interaction strength in the symmetric QW is always much stronger than that in the asymmetric QW for both GaN and GaAs materials. Simultaneously, the EAP interaction strength in the GaN material is much stronger than that in the GaAs material for both the symmetric and asymmetric QWs.

Pharmacist-Led Interventions to Reduce Drug-Related Problems in Prescribing for Pediatric Outpatients in a Developing Country: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a pharmacist-led intervention's effectiveness in reducing drug-related problems (DRPs ( related to prescriptions for pediatric outpatients. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial. We recruited and randomly assigned 31 physicians to control or intervention groups. We collected 775 prescriptions (375 from the control group and 400 from the intervention group) at the start. For 3 weeks, intervention physicians received additional information and meetings with pharmacists in addition to the usual practices of the hospital. We then collected prescriptions at the end of the study. We classified DRPs, based on reliable references (Supplemental Table S1) at baseline and endpoint (a week after the intervention). The primary outcome was the proportion of prescriptions with DRPs, and secondary outcomes were the proportions of prescriptions with specific DRP types. RESULTS: The influence of the intervention on general DRPs and specific DRPs was the study's main finding. The pharmacist-led intervention helped reduce the prescriptions with DRPs proportion in the intervention group to 41.0%, compared with 49.3% in the control group (p < 0.05). The DRPs proportion related to the timing of administration relative to meals, unlike the other DRP types, increased in the control group (from 31.7% to 34.9%) and decreased in the intervention group (from 31.3% to 25.3%), with a significant difference between the 2 groups at endpoint (p < 0.01). Patients aged >2 to ≤6 years (OR, 1.871; 95% CI, 1.340-2.613) and receiving ≥5 drugs (OR, 5.037; 95% CI, 2.472-10.261) were at greater risk of experiencing DRPs related to prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: A pharmacist-led intervention improved DRP occurrence related to physicians' prescribing. Pharmacists could be involved in in-depth research with physicians in the prescribing process to provide tailored interventions.