Two Essays on Valuing Climate Amenities

Chapter 2: I value climate amenities by estimating a discrete location choice model for U.S. households. The utility of each metropolitan statistical area (MSA) depends on location-specific amenities, earnings opportunities, housing costs, and the cost of moving to the MSA from the household head’s birthplace. I use the estimated trade-off among wages, housing costs, and climate amenities to value changes in mean winter and summer temperatures. I find that households sort among MSAs as a result of heterogeneous tastes for winter and summer temperatures. Preferences for winter and summer temperatures are negatively correlated: households that prefer milder winters, on average, prefer cooler summers, and households that prefer colder winters prefer warmer summers. Households in the Midwest region, on average, have lower marginal willingness to pay to increase winter and reduce summer temperatures than households in the Pacific and South Atlantic census divisions. I use my results to value changes in winter and summer temperatures for the period 2020 to 2050 under the B1 (climate-friendly) and A2 (more extreme) climate scenarios. On average, households are willing to pay 1 percent of income to avoid the B1 scenario and 2.4 percent of income to avoid the A2 scenario. Chapter 3: I examine differences between the two principal approaches used to estimate the value of urban amenities: the hedonic model, in which amenities are capitalized into wages and housing prices, and the discrete model of household location choices, which is derived from a random utility framework. Several empirical studies have noted that the discrete choice approach can yield much larger estimates of amenity values than the hedonic approach. Using 2000 PUMS census data, I investigate these differences and their possible causes by estimating how U.S. households value various aspects of climate. I estimate both hedonic and discrete choice models, allowing for heterogeneity in tastes for mean winter and summer temperature. In line with the previous literature, I find that discrete choice models consistently yield mean marginal willingness to pay estimates for climate amenities that significantly exceed those implied by hedonic estimates. Additionally, I find that the household sorting patterns implied by the two models are very different. For example, the discrete choice model suggests that households with the greatest preference for warmer winter temperature tend to locate in cities with the mildest winters, while the hedonic models do not. I show that explanations for these differences advanced by the previous literature, such as differences in mobility assumptions between the two approaches, cannot fully explain my findings, and I suggest an alternative theory that deserve further investigation

Florence Elizabeth & Martha Baker Dunn Correspondence

Entries include correspondence from the Maine State Library to Florence and her deceased mother Martha, both of whom were published in the anthology Maine and Vermont Poets, a handwritten biography, and a handwritten letter of presentation

Health Professions Students\u27 Attitudes Toward Teamwork Before and After an Interprofessional Education Co-Curricular Experience

Background: Effective interprofessional collaboration may positively impact clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and cost effectiveness. However, educational silos and discipline-specific socialization have reinforced each health profession’s independent values, attitudes, and problem-solving approaches. Methods and Findings: Students’ (N = 376) attitudes about teamwork were measured with the Interprofessional Attitudes Scale, Teamwork, Roles, and Responsibilities subscale using a pretest-posttest design. Experiential learning strategies and a case study approach were used to introduce students to the roles and responsibilities of the students’ disciplines. There was a positive mean difference in pretest-posttest measures (p \u3c .001) with a moderate effect size (r = .27). Conclusions: Providing opportunities for pre-licensure health sciences students to understand the roles and responsibilities of other disciplines through IPE co-curricular learning can enhance positive attitudes toward teamwork

Perspectives on ethnic and racial disparities in Alzheimer\u27s disease and related dementias: Update and areas of immediate need

Alzheimer\u27s disease and related dementias (ADRDs) are a global crisis facing the aging population and society as a whole. With the numbers of people with ADRDs predicted to rise dramatically across the world, the scientific community can no longer neglect the need for research focusing on ADRDs among underrepresented ethnoracial diverse groups. The Alzheimer\u27s Association International Society to Advance Alzheimer\u27s Research and Treatment (ISTAART; alz.org/ISTAART) comprises a number of professional interest areas (PIAs), each focusing on a major scientific area associated with ADRDs. We leverage the expertise of the existing international cadre of ISTAART scientists and experts to synthesize a cross-PIA white paper that provides both a concise “state-of-the-science” report of ethnoracial factors across PIA foci and updated recommendations to address immediate needs to advance ADRD science across ethnoracial populations. © 2018 The Author

Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research : An international consensus development study

STUDY QUESTION: Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection and reporting across future infertility research be developed? SUMMARY ANSWER: A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition and an arbitrary consensus threshold. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Fertility and Sterility and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study, the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of data, or manuscript preparation. B.W.J.M. is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). S.B. was supported by University of Auckland Foundation Seelye Travelling Fellowship. S.B. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form

Analysis of shared common genetic risk between amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and epilepsy

Because hyper-excitability has been shown to be a shared pathophysiological mechanism, we used the latest and largest genome-wide studies in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (n = 36,052) and epilepsy (n = 38,349) to determine genetic overlap between these conditions. First, we showed no significant genetic correlation, also when binned on minor allele frequency. Second, we confirmed the absence of polygenic overlap using genomic risk score analysis. Finally, we did not identify pleiotropic variants in meta-analyses of the 2 diseases. Our findings indicate that amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and epilepsy do not share common genetic risk, showing that hyper-excitability in both disorders has distinct origins