99 research outputs found

    A Roadmap toward Achieving Sustainable Environment: Evaluating the Impact of Technological Innovation and Globalization on Load Capacity Factor

    Get PDF
    Technological innovations have been a matter of contention, and their environmental consequences remain unresolved. Moreover, studies have extensively evaluated environmental challenges using metrics such as nitrogen oxide emissions, sulfur dioxide, carbon emissions, and ecological footprint. The environment has the supply and demand aspect, which is not a component of any of these indicators. By measuring biocapacity and ecological footprint, the load capacity factor follows a certain ecological threshold, allowing for a thorough study on environmental deterioration. With the reduction in load capacity factor, the environmental deterioration increases. In the context of the environment, the interaction between technological innovation and load capacity covers the demand and supply side of the environment. In light of this, employing the dataset ranging from 1980 to 2017 for the case of South Africa, the bound cointegration test in conjunction with the critical value of Kripfganz and Schneider showed cointegration in the model. The study also employed the ARDL, whose outcome revealed that nonrenewable energy usage and economic growth contribute to environmental deterioration, whereas technological innovation and globalization improve the quality of the environment. This study validated the hypothesis of the environmental Kuznets curve for South Africa, as the short-term coefficient value was lower than the long-term elasticity. Furthermore, using the frequency-domain causality test revealed that globalization and economic growth predict load capacity in the long term, and nonrenewable energy predicts load capacity factors in the long and medium term. In addition, technological innovation predicts load capacity factors in the short and long term. Based on the findings, we propose that policymakers should focus their efforts on increasing funding for the research and development of green technologies. © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland

    Use and detailed metric properties of patient-reported outcome measures for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review covering two decades

    Get PDF
    Introduction The importance of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) clinical studies has been recognised for many years. The current study aims to describe the RA PROMs used over the past 20 years, and their performance metrics, to underpin appropriate tool selection. Methods The study included a systematic search for PROMs that have been in use over the period 2000–2019, with detailed documentation of their psychometric properties, and a user-friendly presentation of the extensive evidence base. Results 125 PROMs were identified with psychometric evidence available. The domains of pain, fatigue, emotional functions, mobility, physical functioning and work dominated, with self-efficacy and coping as personal factors. Domains such as stiffness and sleep were poorly served. The most frequently used PROMs included the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ), the Short Form 36 (SF-36), the EuroQoL and the Modified HAQ which, between them, appeared in more than 3500 papers. Strong psychometric evidence was found for the HAQ, and the SF-36 Physical Functioning and Vitality (fatigue) domains. Otherwise, all domains except stiffness, sleep, education and health utility, had at least one PROM with moderate level of psychometric evidence. Conclusion There is a broad range of PROMs for measuring RA outcomes, but the quality of psychometric evidence varies widely. This work identifies gaps in key RA domains according to the biopsychosocial model

    Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Osteoarthritis: A systematic search and review of their use and psychometric properties

    Get PDF
    Introduction Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) or self-completed questionnaires have been used to report outcomes in osteoarthritis (OA) for over 35 years. Choices will always need to be made about what should be measured and, if relevant, what would be the most appropriate PROM to use. The current study aims to describe the available PROMs used in OA and their performance quality, so that informed choices can be made about the most appropriate PROM for a particular task. Methods The study included a systematic search for PROMs that have been in use over a 17 year-period (2000-2016), and to catalogue their psychometric properties, and to present the evidence in a user-friendly fashion. Results 78 PROM’s were identified with psychometric evidence available. The domains of Pain, Selfcare, Mobility and Work dominated, whereas domains such as Cleaning & Laundry and Leisure, together with psychological and contextual factors were poorly served. The most frequently utilised PROMs included the WOMAC, the SF-36 and the KOOS which, between them, appeared in more than 4000 papers. Most domains had at least one PROM with the highest level of psychometric evidence. Conclusion A broad range of PROMs are available for measuring OA outcomes. Some have good psychometric evidence, others not so. Some important psychological areas such as self-efficacy were poorly served. The study provides a current baseline for what is available, and identifies the shortfall in key domains if the full biopsychosocial model is to be explored

    Reliability, construct validity and measurement potential of the ICF comprehensive core set for osteoarthritis

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study aimed to investigate the reliability and construct validity of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Comprehensive Core Set for osteoarthritis (OA) in order to test its possible use as a measuring tool for functioning.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>100 patients with OA (84 F, 16 M; mean age 63 yr) completed forms including demographic and clinical information besides the Short Form (36) Health Survey (SF-36<sup>®</sup>) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index of Osteoarthritis (WOMAC). The ICF Comprehensive Core Set for OA was filled by health professionals. The internal construct validities of "Body Functions-Body structures" (BF-BS), "Activity" (A), "Participation" (P) and "Environmental Factors" (EF) domains were tested by Rasch analysis and reliability by internal consistency and person separation index (PSI). External construct validity was evaluated by correlating the Rasch transformed scores with SF-36 and WOMAC.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In each scale, some items showing disordered thresholds were rescored, testlets were created to overcome the problem of local dependency and items that did not fit to the Rasch model were deleted. The internal construct validity of the four scales (BF-BS 16 items, A 8 items, P 7 items, EF 13 items) were good [mean item fit (SD) 0.138 (0.921), 0.216 (1.237), 0.759 (0.986) and -0.079 (2.200); person item fit (SD) -0.147 (0.652), -0.241 (0.894), -0.310 (1.187) and -0.491 (1.173) respectively], indicating a single underlying construct for each scale. The scales were free of differential item functioning (DIF) for age, gender, years of education and duration of disease. Reliabilities of the BF-BS, A, P, and EF scales were good with Cronbach's alphas of 0.79, 0.86, 0.88, and 0.83 and PSI's of 0.76, 0.86, 0.87, and 0.71, respectively. Rasch scores of BF-BS, A, and P showed moderate correlations with SF-36 and WOMAC scores where the EF had significant but weak correlations only with SF36-Social Functioning and SF36-Mental Health.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Since the four different scales derived from BF-BS, A, P, and EF components of the ICF core set for OA were shown to be valid and reliable through a combination of Rasch analysis and classical psychometric methods, these might be used as clinical assessment tools.</p

    An initial application of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) for measuring disability in patients with low back pain

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recent approaches to outcome measurement involving Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) offer an approach for measuring disability in low back pain (LBP) in a way that can reduce the burden upon patient and professional. The aim of this study was to explore the potential of CAT in LBP for measuring disability as defined in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) which includes impairments, activity limitation, and participation restriction.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>266 patients with low back pain answered questions from a range of widely used questionnaires. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to identify disability dimensions which were then subjected to Rasch analysis. Reliability was tested by internal consistency and person separation index (PSI). Discriminant validity of disability levels were evaluated by Spearman correlation coefficient (r), intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC(2,1)] and the Bland-Altman approach. A CAT was developed for each dimension, and the results checked against simulated and real applications from a further 133 patients.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Factor analytic techniques identified two dimensions named "body functions" and "activity-participation". After deletion of some items for failure to fit the Rasch model, the remaining items were mostly free of Differential Item Functioning (DIF) for age and gender. Reliability exceeded 0.90 for both dimensions. The disability levels generated using all items and those obtained from the real CAT application were highly correlated (i.e. > 0.97 for both dimensions). On average, 19 and 14 items were needed to estimate the precise disability levels using the initial CAT for the first and second dimension. However, a marginal increase in the standard error of the estimate across successive iterations substantially reduced the number of items required to make an estimate.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Using a combination approach of EFA and Rasch analysis this study has shown that it is possible to calibrate items onto a single metric in a way that can be used to provide the basis of a CAT application. Thus there is an opportunity to obtain a wide variety of information to evaluate the biopsychosocial model in its more complex forms, without necessarily increasing the burden of information collection for patients.</p
    corecore