Is there an association between depressive and urinary symptoms during and after pregnancy?

Depressive symptoms and urinary symptoms are both highly prevalent in pregnancy. In the general population, an association is reported between urinary symptoms and depressive symptoms. The association of depressive and urinary symptoms has not yet been assessed in pregnancy. In this study, we assessed (1) the prevalence of depressive symptoms, over-active bladder (OAB) syndrome, urge urinary incontinence (UUI) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) during and after pregnancy using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) and the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI) and (2) the association of depressive symptoms with urinary incontinence and over-active bladder syndrome during and after pregnancy, controlling for confounding socioeconomic, psychosocial, behavioural and biomedical factors in a cohort of healthy nulliparous women. Our data show a significant increase in prevalence of depressive symptoms, UUI, SUI and OAB during pregnancy and a significant reduction in prevalence of depressive symptoms, SUI and OAB after childbirth. UUI prevalence did not significantly decrease after childbirth. In univariate analysis, urinary incontinence and the OAB syndrome were significantly associated with a CES-D score indicative of a possible clinical depression at 36 weeks gestation. However, after adjusting for possible confounding factors, only the OAB syndrome remained significantly associated (OR 4.4 [1.8–10.5]). No association was found between depressive and urinary symptoms at 1 year post-partum. Only OAB was independently associated with depressive symptoms during pregnancy. Possible explanations for this association are discussed

Considerations about quality in model-driven engineering

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11219-016-9350-6The virtue of quality is not itself a subject; it depends on a subject. In the software engineering field, quality means good software products that meet customer expectations, constraints, and requirements. Despite the numerous approaches, methods, descriptive models, and tools, that have been developed, a level of consensus has been reached by software practitioners. However, in the model-driven engineering (MDE) field, which has emerged from software engineering paradigms, quality continues to be a great challenge since the subject is not fully defined. The use of models alone is not enough to manage all of the quality issues at the modeling language level. In this work, we present the current state and some relevant considerations regarding quality in MDE, by identifying current categories in quality conception and by highlighting quality issues in real applications of the model-driven initiatives. We identified 16 categories in the definition of quality in MDE. From this identification, by applying an adaptive sampling approach, we discovered the five most influential authors for the works that propose definitions of quality. These include (in order): the OMG standards (e.g., MDA, UML, MOF, OCL, SysML), the ISO standards for software quality models (e.g., 9126 and 25,000), Krogstie, Lindland, and Moody. We also discovered families of works about quality, i.e., works that belong to the same author or topic. Seventy-three works were found with evidence of the mismatch between the academic/research field of quality evaluation of modeling languages and actual MDE practice in industry. We demonstrate that this field does not currently solve quality issues reported in industrial scenarios. The evidence of the mismatch was grouped in eight categories, four for academic/research evidence and four for industrial reports. These categories were detected based on the scope proposed in each one of the academic/research works and from the questions and issues raised by real practitioners. We then proposed a scenario to illustrate quality issues in a real information system project in which multiple modeling languages were used. For the evaluation of the quality of this MDE scenario, we chose one of the most cited and influential quality frameworks; it was detected from the information obtained in the identification of the categories about quality definition for MDE. We demonstrated that the selected framework falls short in addressing the quality issues. Finally, based on the findings, we derive eight challenges for quality evaluation in MDE projects that current quality initiatives do not address sufficiently.F.G, would like to thank COLCIENCIAS (Colombia) for funding this work through the Colciencias Grant call 512-2010. This work has been supported by the Gene-ralitat Valenciana Project IDEO (PROMETEOII/2014/039), the European Commission FP7 Project CaaS (611351), and ERDF structural funds.Giraldo-Velásquez, FD.; España Cubillo, S.; Pastor López, O.; Giraldo, WJ. (2016). Considerations about quality in model-driven engineering. Software Quality Journal. 1-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-016-9350-6S166(1985). Iso information processing—documentation symbols and conventions for data, program and system flowcharts, program network charts and system resources charts. ISO 5807:1985(E) (pp. 1–25).(2011). Iso/iec/ieee systems and software engineering – architecture description. ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011(E) (Revision of ISO/IEC 42010:2007 and IEEE Std 1471-2000) (pp. 1–46).Abran, A., Moore, J.W., Bourque, P., Dupuis, R., & Tripp, L.L. (2013). Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) version 3 public review. IEEE. ISO Technical Report ISO/IEC TR 19759.Agner, L.T.W., Soares, I.W., Stadzisz, P.C., & Simão, J.M. (2013). A brazilian survey on {UML} and model-driven practices for embedded software development. Journal of Systems and Software, 86(4), 997–1005. {SI} : Software Engineering in Brazil: Retrospective and Prospective Views.Amstel, M.F.V. (2010). The right tool for the right job: assessing model transformation quality. pages 69–74. Affiliation: Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB, Eindhoven, Netherlands. Cited By (since 1996):1.Aranda, J., Damian, D., & Borici, A. (2012). Transition to model-driven engineering: what is revolutionary, what remains the same?. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on model driven engineering languages and systems, MODELS’12 (pp. 692–708). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Arendt, T., & Taentzer, G. (2013). A tool environment for quality assurance based on the eclipse modeling framework. Automated Software Engineering, 20(2), 141–184.Atkinson, C., Bunse, C., & Wüst, J. (2003). Driving component-based software development through quality modelling, volume 2693. Cited By (since 1996):3.Baker, P., Loh, S., & Weil, F. (2005). Model-driven engineering in a large industrial context—motorola case study. In Briand, L., & Williams, C. (Eds.) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, volume 3713 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 476–491). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Barišić, A., Amaral, V., Goulão, M., & Barroca, B. (2011). Quality in use of domain-specific languages: a case study. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGPLAN workshop on evaluation and usability of programming languages and tools, PLATEAU ’11 (pp. 65–72). New York: ACM.Becker, J., Bergener, P., Breuker, D., & Rackers, M. (2010). Evaluating the expressiveness of domain specific modeling languages using the bunge-wand-weber ontology. In 2010 43rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS) (pp. 1–10).Bertrand Portier, L.A. (2009). Model driven development misperceptions and challenges.Bézivin, J., & Kurtev, I. (2005). Model-based technology integration with the technical space concept. In Proceedings of the Metainformatics Symposium: Springer.Brambilla, M. (2016). How mature is of model-driven engineering as an engineering discipline @ONLINE.Brambilla, M., & Fraternali, P. (2014). Large-scale model-driven engineering of web user interaction: The webml and webratio experience. Science of Computer Programming, 89 Part B(0), 71 – 87. Special issue on Success Stories in Model Driven Engineering.Brown, A. (2009). Simple and practical model driven architecture (mda) @ONLINE.Bruel, J.-M., Combemale, B., Ober, I., & Raynal, H. (2015). Mde in practice for computational science. Procedia Computer Science, 51, 660–669.Budgen, D., Burn, A.J., Brereton, O.P., Kitchenham, B.A., & Pretorius, R. (2011). Empirical evidence about the uml: a systematic literature review. Software: Practice and Experience, 41(4), 363–392.Burden, H., Heldal, R., & Whittle, J. (2014). Comparing and contrasting model-driven engineering at three large companies. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM ’14 (pp. 14:1–14:10). New York: ACM.Cabot, J. Has mda been abandoned (by the omg)?Cabot, J. (2009). Modeling will be commonplace in three years time @ONLINE.Cachero, C., Poels, G., Calero, C., & Marhuenda, Y. (2007). Towards a Quality-Aware Engineering Process for the Development of Web Applications. Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 07/462, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.Challenger, M., Kardas, G., & Tekinerdogan, B. (2015). A systematic approach to evaluating domain-specific modeling language environments for multi-agent systems. Software Quality Journal, 1–41.Chaudron, M.V., Heijstek, W., & Nugroho, A. (2012). How effective is uml modeling? Software & Systems Modeling, 11(4), 571–580. J2: Softw Syst Model.Chenouard, R., Granvilliers, L., & Soto, R. (2008). Model-driven constraint programming. pages 236–246. Affiliation: CNRS, LINA, Universit de Nantes, France; Affiliation: Pontificia Universidad Catlica de, Valparaiso, Chile. Cited By (since 1996):8.Clark, T., & Muller, P.-A. (2012). Exploiting model driven technology: a tale of two startups. Software and Systems Modeling, 11(4), 481–493.Corneliussen, L. (2008). What do you think of model-driven software development?Costal, D., Gómez, C., & Guizzardi, G. (2011). Formal semantics and ontological analysis for understanding subsetting, specialization and redefinition of associations in uml. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 6998 LNCS:189–203. cited By (since 1996)3.Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Maes, A., Género, M., Poels, G., & Piattini, M. (2010). The impact of structural complexity on the understandability of uml statechart diagrams. Information Sciences, 180(11), 2209–2220. Cited By (since 1996):14.Cuadrado, J.S., Izquierdo, J.L.C., & Molina, J.G. (2014). Applying model-driven engineering in small software enterprises. Science of Computer Programming, 89 Part B(0), 176 – 198. Special issue on Success Stories in Model Driven Engineering.Da Silva, A.R. (2015). Model-driven engineering: a survey supported by the unified conceptual model. Computer Languages Systems and Structures, 43, 139–155.Da Silva Teixeira, D.G.M., Quirino, G.K., Gailly, F., De Almeida Falbo, R., Guizzardi, G., & Perini Barcellos, M. (2016). PoN-S: a Systematic Approach for Applying the Physics of Notation (PoN), (pp. 432–447). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Davies, I., Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., & Gallo, S. (2006). How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? Data and Knowledge Engineering, 58(3), 358 – 380. Including the special issue : {ER} 2004ER 2004.Davies, J., Milward, D., Wang, C.-W., & Welch, J. (2015). Formal model-driven engineering of critical information systems. Science of Computer Programming, 103(0), 88 – 113. Selected papers from the First International Workshop on Formal Techniques for Safety-Critical Systems (FTSCS 2012).De Oca, I.M.-M., Snoeck, M., Reijers, H.A., & Rodríguez-Morffi, A. (2015). A systematic literature review of studies on business process modeling quality. Information and Software Technology, 58, 187–205.DenHaan, J. (2009). 8 reasons why model driven development is dangerous @ONLINE.DenHaan, J. (2010). Model driven engineering vs the commando pattern @ONLINE.DenHaan, J. (2011a). Why aren’t we all doing model driven development yet @ONLINE.DenHaan, J. (2011b). Why there is no future model driven development @ONLINE.Di Ruscio, D., Iovino, L., & Pierantonio, A. (2013). Managing the coupled evolution of metamodels and textual concrete syntax specifications. cited By (since 1996)0.Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., & Ouyang, C. (2008). Semantics and analysis of business process models in {BPMN}. Information and Software Technology, 50(12), 1281–1294.Domínguez-Mayo, F.J., Escalona, M.J., Mejías, M., Ramos, I., & Fernández, L. (2011). A framework for the quality evaluation of mdwe methodologies and information technology infrastructures. International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals, 2(4), 11–22.Domínguez-Mayo, F.J., Escalona, M.J., Mejías, M., & Torres, A.H. (2010). A quality model in a quality evaluation framework for mdwe methodologies. pages 495–506. Affiliation: Departamento de Lenguajes y Sistemas Informíticos, University of Seville, Seville, Spain., Cited By (since 1996):1.Dubray, J.-J. (2011). Why did mde miss the boat?.Escalona, M.J., Gutiérrez, J.J., Pérez-Pérez, M., Molina, A., Domínguez-Mayo, E., & Domínguez-Mayo, F.J. (2011). Measuring the Quality of Model-Driven Projects with NDT-Quality, (pp. 307–317). New York: Springer.Espinilla, M., Domínguez-Mayo, F.J., Escalona, M.J., Mejías, M., Ross, M., & Staples, G. (2011). A Method Based on AHP to Define the Quality Model of QuEF (Vol. 123, pp. 685–694). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Fabra, J., Castro, V.D., Álvarez, P., & Marcos, E. (2012). Automatic execution of business process models: exploiting the benefits of model-driven engineering approaches. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(3), 607–625. Novel approaches in the design and implementation of systems/software architecture.Falkenberg, E.D., Hesse, W., Lindgreen, P., Nilsson, B.E., Oei, J.L.H., Rolland, C., Stamper, R.K., Assche, F.J.M.V., Verrijn-Stuart, A.A., & Voss, K. (1996). Frisco: a framework of information system concepts. Technical report, The IFIP WG 8. 1 Task Group FRISCO.Fettke, P., Houy, C., Vella, A.-L., & Loos, P. (2012). Towards the Reconstruction and Evaluation of Conceptual Model Quality Discourses – Methodical Framework and Application in the Context of Model Understandability, volume 113 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, chapter 28, pages 406–421, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Finnie, S. (2015). Modeling community: Are we missing something?Fournier, C. (2008). Is uml [email protected], R., & Rumpe, B. (2007). Model-driven development of complex software: a research roadmap. In Future of Software Engineering, 2007, FOSE ’07 (pp. 37–54).Gallego, M., Giraldo, F.D., & Hitpass, B. (2015). Adapting the pbec-otss software selection approach for bpm suites: an application case. In 2015 34th International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society (SCCC) (pp. 1–10).Galvão, I., & Goknil, A. (2007). Survey of traceability approaches in model-driven engineering. cited By (since 1996)22.Giraldo, F., España, S., Giraldo, W., & Pastor, O. (2015). Modelling language quality evaluation in model-driven information systems engineering: a roadmap. In 2015 IEEE 9th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS) (pp. 64–69).Giraldo, F., España, S., & Pastor, O. (2014). Analysing the concept of quality in model-driven engineering literature: a systematic review. In 2014 IEEE Eighth International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS) (pp. 1–12).Giraldo, F.D., España, S., & Pastor, O. (2016). Evidences of the mismatch between industry and academy on modelling language quality evaluation. arXiv: 1606.02025 .González, C., & Cabot, J. (2014). Formal verification of static software models in mde: a systematic review. Information and Software Technology, 56(8), 821–838. cited By (since 1996)0.González, C.A., Büttner, F., Clarisó, R., & Cabot, J. (2012). Emftocsp: a tool for the lightweight verification of emf models. pages 44–50. Affiliation: cole des Mines de Nantes, INRIA, LINA, Nantes, France; Affiliation: Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain. Cited By (since 1996):1.Gorschek, T., Tempero, E., & Angelis, L. (2014). On the use of software design models in software development practice: an empirical investigation. Journal of Systems and Software, 95(0), 176– 193.Goulão, M., Amaral, V., & Mernik, M. (2016). Quality in model-driven engineering: a tertiary study. Software Quality Journal, 1–33.Grobshtein, Y., & Dori, D. (2011). Generating sysml views from an opm model: design and evaluation. Systems Engineering, 14(3), 327–340.Haan, J.d. (2008). 8 reasons why model-driven approaches (will) fail.Harel, D., & Rumpe, B. (2000). Modeling languages: Syntax, semantics and all that stuff, part i: The basic stuff, Israel. Technical report Jerusalem Israel.Harel, D., & Rumpe, B. (2004). Meaningful modeling: what’s the semantics of semantics? Computer, 37(10), 64–72.Hebig, R., & Bendraou, R. (2014). On the need to study the impact of model driven engineering on software processes. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Software and System Process, ICSSP 2014 (pp. 164–168). New York: ACM.Heidari, F., & Loucopoulos, P. (2014). Quality evaluation framework (qef): modeling and evaluating quality of business processes. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 15(3), 193–223. Business Process Modeling.Heymans, P., Schobbens, P.Y., Trigaux, J.C., Bontemps, Y., Matulevicius, R., & Classen, A. (2008). Evaluating formal properties of feature diagram languages. Software, IET, 2(3), 281–302. ID 2.Hindawi, M., Morel, L., Aubry, R., & Sourrouille, J.-L. (2009). Description and Implementation of a UML Style Guide (Vol. 5421, pp. 291–302). Berlin: Springer.Hoang, D. (2012). Current limitations of mdd and its implications @ONLINE.Hodges, W. (2013). Model theory Zalta, E.N. (Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall 2013 edition.Hutchinson, J., Rouncefield, M., & Whittle, J. (2011a). Model-driven engineering practices in industry. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE’11 (pp. 633–642). New York: ACM.Hutchinson, J., Whittle, J., & Rouncefield, M. (2014). Model-driven engineering practices in industry: social, organizational and managerial factors that lead to success or failure. Science of Computer Programming, 89 Part B(0), 144–161. Special issue on Success Stories in Model Driven Engineering.Hutchinson, J., Whittle, J., Rouncefield, M., & Kristoffersen, S. (2011b). Empirical assessment of mde in industry. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE’11 (pp. 471–480). New York: ACM.Igarza, I.M.H., Boada, D.H.G., & Valdés, A.P. (2012). Una introducción al desarrollo de software dirigido por modelos. Serie Científica, 5(3).ISO/IEC (2001). ISO/IEC 9126. Software engineering—Product quality. ISO/IEC.Izurieta, C., Rojas, G., & Griffith, I. (2015). Preemptive management of model driven technical debt for improving software quality. In Proceedings of the 11th International ACM SIGSOFT Conference on Quality of Software Architectures, QoSA’15 (pp. 31–36). New York: ACM.Jalali, S., & Wohlin, C. (2012). Systematic literature studies: Database searches vs. backward snowballing. In Proceedings of the ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM’12 (pp. 29–38). New York: ACM.Kahraman, G., & Bilgen, S. (2013). A framework for qualitative assessment of domain-specific languages. Software & Systems Modeling, 1–22.Kessentini, M., Langer, P., & Wimmer, M. (2013). Searching models, modeling search: On the synergies of sbse and mde (pp. 51–54).Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. Technical Report EBSE 2007-001, Keele University and Durham University Joint Report.Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S., Pickard, L., Jones, P., Hoaglin, D., El Emam, K., & Rosenberg, J. (2002). Preliminary guidelines for empirical research in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(8), 721–734.Klinke, M. (2008). Do you use mda/mdd/mdsd, any kind of model-driven approach? Will it be the future?Köhnlein, J. (2013). Eclipse diagram editors from a user’s perspective.Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., & Polack, F.A. (2008). The grand challenge of scalability for model driven engineering. In Models in Software Engineering (pp. 48–53): Springer.Kolovos, D.S., Rose, L.M., Matragkas, N., Paige, R.F., Guerra, E., Cuadrado, J.S., De Lara, J., Ráth, I., Varró, D., Tisi, M., & Cabot, J. (2013). A research roadmap towards achieving scalability in model driven engineering. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Scalability in Model Driven Engineering, BigMDE’13 (pp. 2:1–2:10). New York: ACM.Krill, P. (2016). Uml to be ejected from microsoft visual studio (infoworld).Krogstie, J. (2012a). Model-based development and evolution of information systems: a quality approach, Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated.Krogstie, J. (2012b). Quality of modelling languages, (pp. 249–280). London: Springer.Krogstie, J. (2012c). Quality of models, (pp. 205–247). London: Springer.Krogstie, J. (2012d). Specialisations of SEQUAL, (pp. 281–326). London: Springer.Krogstie, J., Lindland, O.I., & Sindre, G. (1995). Defining quality aspects for conceptual models. In Proceedings of the IFIP International Working Conference on Information System Concepts: Towards a Consolidation of Views (pp. 216–231). London: Chapman & Hall, Ltd.Kruchten, P. (2000). The rational unified process: an introduction, 2nd edn. Boston: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.Kruchten, P., Nord, R., & Ozkaya, I. (2012). Technical debt: from metaphor to theory and practice. Software, IEEE, 29(6), 18–21.Kulkarni, V., Reddy, S., & Rajbhoj, A. (2010). Scaling up model driven engineering – experience and lessons learnt. In Petriu, D., Rouquette, N., & Haugen, y. (Eds.) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, volume 6395 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 331–345). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Laguna, M.A., & Marqués, J.M. (2010). Uml support for designing software product lines: the package merge mechanism, 16(17), 2313–2332.Lange, C. (2007a). Model size matters. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 4364 LNCS:211–216. cited By (since 1996)1.Lange, C., & Chaudron, M. (2005). Managing Model Quality in UML-Based Software Development. In 13th IEEE International Workshop on Technology and Engineering Practice, 2005 (pp. 7–16).Lange, C., Chaudron, M.R.V., Muskens, J., Somers, L.J., & Dortmans, H.M. (2003). An empirical investigation in quantifying inconsistency and incompleteness of uml designs. In Incompleteness of UML Designs, Proceedings Workshop on Consistency Problems in UML-based Software Development, 6th International Conference on Unified Modeling Language, UML, 2003.Lange, C., DuBois, B., Chaudron, M., & Demeyer, S. (2006). An experimental investigation of uml modeling conventions. In Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., & Reggio, G. (Eds.) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, volume 4199 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 27–41). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Lange, C.F.J., & Chaudron, M.R.V. (2006). Effe

Protocol for the ROSE sustainment (ROSES) study, a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial to determine the minimum necessary intervention to maintain a postpartum depression prevention program in prenatal clinics serving low-income women

Background: More research on sustainment of interventions is needed, especially return on investment (ROI) studies to determine cost-benefit trade-offs for effort required to sustain and how much is gained when effective programs are sustained. The ROSE sustainment (ROSES) study uses a sequential multiple assignment randomized (SMART) design to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stepwise approach to sustainment of the ROSE postpartum depression prevention program in 90 outpatient clinics providing prenatal care to pregnant women on public assistance. Postpartum depression (PPD) is common and can have lasting consequences. Outpatient clinics offering prenatal care are an opportune place to provide PPD prevention because most women visit while pregnant. The ROSE (Reach Out, Stay Strong, Essentials for mothers of newborns) program is a group educational intervention to prevent PPD, delivered during pregnancy. ROSE has been found to reduce cases of PPD in community prenatal settings serving low-income pregnant women. Methods: All 90 prenatal clinics will receive enhanced implementation as usual (EIAU; initial training + tools for sustainment). At the first time at which a clinic is determined to be at risk for failure to sustain (i.e., at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 months), that clinic will be randomized to receive either (1) no additional implementation support (i.e., EIAU only), or (2) low-intensity coaching and feedback (LICF). If clinics receiving LICF are still at risk at subsequent assessments, they will be randomized to either (1) EIAU + LICF only, or (2) high-intensity coaching and feedback (HICF). Additional follow-up interviews will occur at 18, 24, and 30 months, but no implementation intervention will occur after 18 months. Outcomes include (1) percent sustainment of core program elements at each time point, (2) health impact (PPD rates over time at each clinic) and reach, and (3) ROI (costs and cost-effectiveness) of each sustainment step. Hypothesized mechanisms include sustainment of capacity to deliver core elements and engagement/ownership. Discussion: This study is the first randomized trial evaluating the ROI of a stepped approach to sustainment, a critical unanswered question in implementation science. It will also advance knowledge of implementation mechanisms and clinical care for an at-risk population

Reduced costs with bisoprolol treatment for heart failure - An economic analysis of the second Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study (CIBIS-II)

Background Beta-blockers, used as an adjunctive to diuretics, digoxin and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, improve survival in chronic heart failure. We report a prospectively planned economic analysis of the cost of adjunctive beta-blocker therapy in the second Cardiac Insufficiency BIsoprolol Study (CIBIS II). Methods Resource utilization data (drug therapy, number of hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, ward type) were collected prospectively in all patients in CIBIS . These data were used to determine the additional direct costs incurred, and savings made, with bisoprolol therapy. As well as the cost of the drug, additional costs related to bisoprolol therapy were added to cover the supervision of treatment initiation and titration (four outpatient clinic/office visits). Per them (hospital bed day) costings were carried out for France, Germany and the U.K. Diagnosis related group costings were performed for France and the U.K. Our analyses took the perspective of a third party payer in France and Germany and the National Health Service in the U.K. Results Overall, fewer patients were hospitalized in the bisoprolol group, there were fewer hospital admissions perpatient hospitalized, fewer hospital admissions overall, fewer days spent in hospital and fewer days spent in the most expensive type of ward. As a consequence the cost of care in the bisoprolol group was 5-10% less in all three countries, in the per them analysis, even taking into account the cost of bisoprolol and the extra initiation/up-titration visits. The cost per patient treated in the placebo and bisoprolol groups was FF35 009 vs FF31 762 in France, DM11 563 vs DM10 784 in Germany and pound 4987 vs pound 4722 in the U.K. The diagnosis related group analysis gave similar results. Interpretation Not only did bisoprolol increase survival and reduce hospital admissions in CIBIS II, it also cut the cost of care in so doing. This `win-win' situation of positive health benefits associated with cost savings is Favourable from the point of view of both the patient and health care systems. These findings add further support for the use of beta-blockers in chronic heart failure

Probability of Major Depression Classification Based on the SCID, CIDI and MINI Diagnostic Interviews : A Synthesis of Three Individual Participant Data Meta-Analyses

Three previous individual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) reported that, compared to the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM (SCID), alternative reference standards, primarily the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), tended to misclassify major depression status, when controlling for depression symptom severity. However, there was an important lack of precision in the results.To compare the odds of the major depression classification based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI.We included and standardized data from 3 IPDMA databases. For each IPDMA, separately, we fitted binomial generalized linear mixed models to compare the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of major depression classification, controlling for symptom severity and characteristics of participants, and the interaction between interview and symptom severity. Next, we synthesized results using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis.In total, 69,405 participants (7,574 [11%] with major depression) from 212 studies were included. Controlling for symptom severity and participant characteristics, the MINI (74 studies; 25,749 participants) classified major depression more often than the SCID (108 studies; 21,953 participants; aOR 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.92]). Classification odds for the CIDI (30 studies; 21,703 participants) and the SCID did not differ overall (aOR 1.19; 95% CI 0.79-1.75); however, as screening scores increased, the aOR increased less for the CIDI than the SCID (interaction aOR 0.64; 95% CI 0.52-0.80).Compared to the SCID, the MINI classified major depression more often. The odds of the depression classification with the CIDI increased less as symptom levels increased. Interpretation of research that uses diagnostic interviews to classify depression should consider the interview characteristics