Towards designing assistants for well-being: clarifying the relationship between users’ intrinsic motivation and expectations from assistants

Although considerable research effort has been devoted to understanding the adoption and use of commercially available intelligent assistants, the relationship between user expectations from assistants and users’ endogenous intrinsic motivation to perform an activity has not been explored. Doing so is important to meet user expectations, prevent adoption failures, and design for well-being. In this paper, we investigate whether a person\u27s intrinsic motivation to perform an activity impacts (a) their expectations from an assistant, and, (b) the assistant feature set chosen to meet these expectations. Via a survey based study with N=296 participants, we provide empirical evidence showing that, after controlling for demographic factors, users\u27 prior, endogenous intrinsic motivation influences their intrinsic expectations for competence, stimulation and influence, but not extrinsic and hedonic expectations. Users with low prior motivation prefer an assistant in a supervisor role. Implications for research and practice are discussed

Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life after TBI: Comparison of a Disease-Specific (QOLIBRI) with a Generic (SF-36) Instrument

Psychosocial, emotional, and physical problems can emerge after traumatic brain njury (TBI), potentially impacting health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Until now, however, neither the discriminatory power of disease-specific (QOLIBRI) and generic (SF-36) HRQoL nor their correlates have been compared in detail. These aspects as well as some psychometric item characteristics were studied in a sample of 795 TBI survivors. The Shannon H耠 index absolute informativity, as an indicator of an instrument’s power to differentiate between individualswithin a specific group or health state,was investigated. Psychometric performance of the two instruments was predominantly good, generally higher, and more homogenous for the QOLIBRI than for the SF-36 subscales. Notably, the SF-36 “Role Physical,” “Role Emotional,” and “Social Functioning” subscales showed less satisfactory discriminatory power than all other dimensions or the sum scores of both instruments. The absolute informativity of disease-specific as well as generic HRQoL instruments concerning the different groups defined by different correlates differed significantly.When the focus is on how a certain subscale or sum score differentiates between individuals in one specific dimension/health state, the QOLIBRI can be recommended as the preferable instrument.Psychosocial, emotional, and physical problems can emerge after traumatic brain injury (TBI), potentially impacting health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Until now, however, neither the discriminatory power of disease-specific (QOLIBRI) and generic (SF-36) HRQoL nor their correlates have been compared in detail. These aspects as well as some psychometric item characteristics were studied in a sample of 795 TBI survivors. The Shannon H耠 index absolute informativity, as an indicator of an instrument’s power to differentiate between individualswithin a specific group or health state,was investigated. Psychometric performance of the two instruments was predominantly good, generally higher, and more homogenous for the QOLIBRI than for the SF-36 subscales. Notably, the SF-36 “Role Physical,” “Role Emotional,” and “Social Functioning” subscales showed less satisfactory discriminatory power than all other dimensions or the sum scores of both instruments. The absolute informativity of disease-specific as well as generic HRQoL instruments concerning the different groups defined by different correlates differed significantly.When the focus is on how a certain subscale or sum score differentiates between individuals in one specific dimension/health state, the QOLIBRI can be recommended as the preferable instrument.Peer reviewe

Variation in Structure and Process of Care in Traumatic Brain Injury: Provider Profiles of European Neurotrauma Centers Participating in the CENTER-TBI Study.

INTRODUCTION: The strength of evidence underpinning care and treatment recommendations in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is low. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has been proposed as a framework to provide evidence for optimal care for TBI patients. The first step in CER is to map the existing variation. The aim of current study is to quantify variation in general structural and process characteristics among centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. METHODS: We designed a set of 11 provider profiling questionnaires with 321 questions about various aspects of TBI care, chosen based on literature and expert opinion. After pilot testing, questionnaires were disseminated to 71 centers from 20 countries participating in the CENTER-TBI study. Reliability of questionnaires was estimated by calculating a concordance rate among 5% duplicate questions. RESULTS: All 71 centers completed the questionnaires. Median concordance rate among duplicate questions was 0.85. The majority of centers were academic hospitals (n = 65, 92%), designated as a level I trauma center (n = 48, 68%) and situated in an urban location (n = 70, 99%). The availability of facilities for neuro-trauma care varied across centers; e.g. 40 (57%) had a dedicated neuro-intensive care unit (ICU), 36 (51%) had an in-hospital rehabilitation unit and the organization of the ICU was closed in 64% (n = 45) of the centers. In addition, we found wide variation in processes of care, such as the ICU admission policy and intracranial pressure monitoring policy among centers. CONCLUSION: Even among high-volume, specialized neurotrauma centers there is substantial variation in structures and processes of TBI care. This variation provides an opportunity to study effectiveness of specific aspects of TBI care and to identify best practices with CER approaches

Variation in neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury

Background: Neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is challenging, with only low-quality evidence. We aimed to explore differences in neurosurgical strategies for TBI across Europe. Methods: A survey was sent to 68 centers participating in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. The questionnaire contained 21 questions, including the decision when to operate (or not) on traumatic acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) and intracerebral hematoma (ICH), and when to perform a decompressive craniectomy (DC) in raised intracranial pressure (ICP). Results: The survey was completed by 68 centers (100%). On average, 10 neurosurgeons work in each trauma center. In all centers, a neurosurgeon was available within 30 min. Forty percent of responders reported a thickness or volume threshold for evacuation of an ASDH. Most responders (78%) decide on a primary DC in evacuating an ASDH during the operation, when swelling is present. For ICH, 3% would perform an evacuation directly to prevent secondary deterioration and 66% only in case of clinical deterioration. Most respondents (91%) reported to consider a DC for refractory high ICP. The reported cut-off ICP for DC in refractory high ICP, however, differed: 60% uses 25 mmHg, 18% 30 mmHg, and 17% 20 mmHg. Treatment strategies varied substantially between regions, specifically for the threshold for ASDH surgery and DC for refractory raised ICP. Also within center variation was present: 31% reported variation within the hospital for inserting an ICP monitor and 43% for evacuating mass lesions. Conclusion: Despite a homogeneous organization, considerable practice variation exists of neurosurgical strategies for TBI in Europe. These results provide an incentive for comparative effectiveness research to determine elements of effective neurosurgical care

Präventive Potentiale neuer Technologien erkennen und nutzen

Werden im Rahmen der digitalen Transformation neue Technologien eingeführt, lassen sich seitens der Beteiligten oftmals sehr unterschiedliche positive wie auch negative Erwartungen an die Technologien und deren mögliche Auswirkungen feststellen. Ob diese dann tatsächlich eintreten oder nicht, hängt aber weniger mit den eingeführten Technologien an sich zusammen, sondern wird maßgeblich durch die Auseinandersetzung mit zu erwartenden Effekten im Vorfeld der Einführung bestimmt. Welche Aspekte gilt es aber konkret in Betracht zu ziehen und wie können vor allem Potentiale identifiziert und genutzt werden? Diesen Fragen ist das Teilvorhaben der Universität Greifswald im Rahmen des Verbundprojektes „Gesunde Arbeit in Pionierbranchen“ (GAP) nachgegangen. Dazu wurde ein umfassendes Konzept entwickelt, welches personelle, organisationale und psychische präventive Potentiale im Kontext der Einführung neuer Technologien fokussiert. Dieses Konzept wird mittels qualitativer und quantitativer Daten in ein Manual überführt und soll vermittelt über Branchennetzwerke vor allem klein- und mittelständischen Unternehmen bei der digitalen Transformation unterstützen. Durch den offenen und modularen Aufbau des Manualkonzeptes sind die Netzwerke in der Lage sowohl das Konzept als auch die Inhalte zu ergänzen und zu erweitern