American politics: classic and contemporary readings

xviii+511hlm.;23c

American politics: classic and contemporery readings/ Cigler

xviii, 678 hal.; 23 cm

Public Interest Group Entrepreneurship and Theories of Group Mobilization

The bulk of the literature on group mobilization focuses on why individuals join groups and virtually ignores the group leader (entrepreneur). Thus, we argue that there is a gap in the literature on group development: while entrepreneurs are critical in the process of group mobilization, little is known about what they do and why and how they do it. Studies of group mobilization continue to focus on group supporters — the patrons and members who provide groups with the resources they need. We take a different approach. We examine the process of group mobilization from the perspective of the entrepreneur. Utilizing data from a survey of public interest group founders we test the effectiveness of three theories of group formation. Our analysis leads to four basic conclusions: We should reject any strong version of Jack Walker\u27s argument about the importance of patrons in group mobilization. While many public interest groups do form at the behest of patrons, most do not. Most public interest groups form because aggressive, independent entrepreneurs form them. The large number of groups which cannot trace their origins to patrons or disturbances attests to the importance of entrepreneurs in group formation. Many public interest group founders form groups in response to specific and easily identifiable events or series of events. Disturbances may not spur individuals to join groups, but they play an important role in stimulating entrepreneurial activity. The free-rider problem is not operative for most groups just starting out. Our data suggest that individuals-especially entrepreneurs and their friends-are the driving force behind public interest group formation

Associations of clinical, psychological, and sociodemographic characteristics and ecological momentary assessment completion in the 10‐week Hypo‐METRICS study: Hypoglycaemia MEasurements ThResholds and ImpaCtS

International audienceIntroduction: Reporting of hypoglycaemia and its impact in clinical studies is often retrospective and subject to recall bias. We developed the Hypo-METRICS app to measure the daily physical, psychological, and social impact of hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes in real-time using ecological momentary assessment (EMA). To help assess its utility, we aimed to determine Hypo-METRICS app completion rates and factors associated with completion.Methods: Adults with diabetes recruited into the Hypo-METRICS study were given validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at baseline. Over 10 weeks, they wore a blinded continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and were asked to complete three daily EMAs about hypoglycaemia and aspects of daily functioning, and two weekly sleep and productivity PROMs on the bespoke Hypo-METRICS app. We conducted linear regression to determine factors associated with app engagement, assessed by EMA and PROM completion rates and CGM metrics.Results: In 602 participants (55% men; 54% type 2 diabetes; median(IQR) age 56 (45-66) years; diabetes duration 19 (11-27) years; HbA1c 57 (51-65) mmol/mol), median(IQR) overall app completion rate was 91 (84-96)%, ranging from 90 (81-96)%, 89 (80-94)% and 94(87-97)% for morning, afternoon and evening check-ins, respectively. Older age, routine CGM use, greater time below 3.0 mmol/L, and active sensor time were positively associated with app completion.Discussion: High app completion across all app domains and participant characteristics indicates the Hypo-METRICS app is an acceptable research tool for collecting detailed data on hypoglycaemia frequency and impact in real-time

Associations of clinical, psychological, and sociodemographic characteristics and ecological momentary assessment completion in the 10-week Hypo-METRICS study: Hypoglycaemia MEasurements ThResholds and ImpaCtS.

INTRODUCTION: Reporting of hypoglycaemia and its impact in clinical studies is often retrospective and subject to recall bias. We developed the Hypo-METRICS app to measure the daily physical, psychological, and social impact of hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes in real-time using ecological momentary assessment (EMA). To help assess its utility, we aimed to determine Hypo-METRICS app completion rates and factors associated with completion. METHODS: Adults with diabetes recruited into the Hypo-METRICS study were given validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at baseline. Over 10 weeks, they wore a blinded continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and were asked to complete three daily EMAs about hypoglycaemia and aspects of daily functioning, and two weekly sleep and productivity PROMs on the bespoke Hypo-METRICS app. We conducted linear regression to determine factors associated with app engagement, assessed by EMA and PROM completion rates and CGM metrics. RESULTS: In 602 participants (55% men; 54% type 2 diabetes; median(IQR) age 56 (45-66) years; diabetes duration 19 (11-27) years; HbA1c 57 (51-65) mmol/mol), median(IQR) overall app completion rate was 91 (84-96)%, ranging from 90 (81-96)%, 89 (80-94)% and 94(87-97)% for morning, afternoon and evening check-ins, respectively. Older age, routine CGM use, greater time below 3.0 mmol/L, and active sensor time were positively associated with app completion. DISCUSSION: High app completion across all app domains and participant characteristics indicates the Hypo-METRICS app is an acceptable research tool for collecting detailed data on hypoglycaemia frequency and impact in real-time.This work was supported by the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (JU) under grant agreement No 777460. The JU receives support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and EFPIA and T1DExchange, JDRF, International Diabetes Federation (IDF) and The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust (HCT). This paper reflects the author's view and the JU is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. This study represents independent research supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) King’s Clinical Research Facility and the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Work was supported by the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre and carried out in the NIHR Cambridge Clinical Research Facility/ Translational Research Facility. The University of Cambridge has received salary support for MLE through the National Health Service in the East of England through the Clinical Academic Reserve