Editorial

Cancer outlook - any light at the end of the tunnel

eHealth in support for daily functioning of people with intellectual disability:Views of service users, relatives, and professionals on both its advantages and disadvantages and its facilitating and impeding factors

Background: The use of eHealth in support for daily functioning of service users with intellectual disability (ID) is a rather unexplored domain. Therefore, the current study identified the a) level of familiarity, b) advantages/disadvantages, and c) facilitating/impeding factors for the use of eHealth in support for daily functioning of people with ID according to service users, relatives, and professionals. Method: Four focus groups and one semi-structured qualitative interview were conducted. Results: Participants were familiar with numerous eHealth applications. Benefits were related to service users (e.g., increased independency) and relatives/professionals (e.g., providing more efficient support). Adequate informing and involving all stakeholders and centrally positioning the needs and possibilities of service users were reported as important facilitators. Contrary, impeding factors were malfunctioning Internet, expenses of eHealth, and lack of proper IT-support. Conclusions: The results provide imperative information for future eHealth implementations and to direct its use more specifically to people with ID

eHealth in the support of people with mild intellectual disability in daily life:A systematic review

Background:  eHealth has recently made rapid progress in care, support and treatment. However, studies on the use of eHealth to support people with a mild intellectual disability in daily life are limited. A systematic review was conducted to provide an overview of this use of eHealth.  Methods:  Seven databases were searched for relevant studies and assessed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Descriptive analyses were deployed using the Matching Person to Technology model to evaluate the key areas contributing to successful eHealth use.  Results:  Most of the 46 studies included were small-scale case studies and focused on using eHealth to acquire daily living skills and vocational skills. In addition, several studies focused on eHealth use for self-support in daily living, and three studies focused on remote professional support.  Conclusions:  eHealth offers opportunities to support people with mild intellectual disability in various different contexts of daily life. Scientific research on this topic is in its early stage, and further high-quality research is needed

Employing lytic phage-mediated horizontal gene transfer in Lactococcus lactis

Lactococcus lactis is a lactic acid bacterium widely used as a starter culture in the manufacture of dairy products, especially a wide variety of cheeses. Improved industrial strains would help to manufacture better food products that can meet the industry's and consumer's demands with respect to e.g. quality, taste, texture and shelf life. Bacteriophage infection of L. lactis starter cultures represents one of the main causes of fermentation failure and consequent economic losses for the dairy industry. In this study, however, we aim at employing bacteriophages for beneficial purposes. We developed an experimental setup to assess whether phage-mediated horizontal gene transfer could be used to enhance the genetic characteristics of L. lactis strains in accordance with the European law regarding the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the food industry. Although we could not show the transfer of chromosomal DNA we did successfully transduce two dissimilar plasmids from L. lactis strain MG1363 to one of its derivatives employing three different lactococcal bacteriophages

Characteristics of innovators adopting a national personal health record in Portugal : cross-sectional study

©Liliana Laranjo, Inês Rodolfo, Ana Marta Pereira, Armando Brito de Sá. Originally published in JMIR Medical Informatics (http://medinform.jmir.org), 11.10.2017. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Medical Informatics, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://medinform.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.Background: Personal health records (PHRs) are increasingly being deployed worldwide, but their rates of adoption by patients vary widely across countries and health systems. Five main categories of adopters are usually considered when evaluating the diffusion of innovations: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Objective: We aimed to evaluate adoption of the Portuguese PHR 3 months after its release, as well as characterize the individuals who registered and used the system during that period (the innovators). Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study. Users and nonusers were defined based on their input, or not, of health-related information into the PHR. Users of the PHR were compared with nonusers regarding demographic and clinical variables. Users were further characterized according to their intensity of information input: single input (one single piece of health-related information recorded) and multiple inputs. Multivariate logistic regression was used to model the probability of being in the multiple inputs group. ArcGis (ESRI, Redlands, CA, USA) was used to create maps of the proportion of PHR registrations by region and district. Results: The number of registered individuals was 109,619 (66,408/109,619, 60.58% women; mean age: 44.7 years, standard deviation [SD] 18.1 years). The highest proportion of registrations was observed for those aged between 30 and 39 years (25,810/109,619, 23.55%). Furthermore, 16.88% (18,504/109,619) of registered individuals were considered users and 83.12% (91,115/109,619) nonusers. Among PHR users, 32.18% (5955/18,504) engaged in single input and 67.82% (12,549/18,504) in multiple inputs. Younger individuals and male users had higher odds of engaging in multiple inputs (odds ratio for male individuals 1.32, CI 1.19-1.48). Geographic analysis revealed higher proportions of PHR adoption in urban centers when compared with rural noncoastal districts. Conclusions: Approximately 1% of the country’s population registered during the first 3 months of the Portuguese PHR. Registered individuals were more frequently female aged between 30 and 39 years. There is evidence of a geographic gap in the adoption of the Portuguese PHR, with higher proportions of adopters in urban centers than in rural noncoastal districts.This work was supported by a Junior Clinical Research award from the Harvard Medical School—Portugal program (HMSP-ICJ/0005/2010; Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia) attributed to the first author.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

STS in management education: connecting theory and practice

This paper explores the value of science and technology studies (STS) to management education. The work draws on an ethnographic study of second year management undergraduates studying decision making. The nature and delivery of the decision making module is outlined and the value of STS is demonstrated in terms of both teaching method and module content. Three particular STS contributions are identified and described: the social construction of technological systems; actor network theory; and ontological politics. Affordances and sensibilities are identified for each contribution and a discussion is developed that illustrates how these versions of STS are put to use in management education. It is concluded that STS has a pivotal role to play in critical management (education) and in the process offers opportunities for new forms of managin

Comparing Discrete Choice Experiment with Swing Weighting to Estimate Attribute Relative Importance:A Case Study in Lung Cancer Patient Preferences

Introduction: Discrete choice experiments (DCE) are commonly used to elicit patient preferences and to determine the relative importance of attributes but can be complex and costly to administer. Simpler methods that measure relative importance exist, such as swing weighting with direct rating (SW-DR), but there is little empirical evidence comparing the two. This study aimed to directly compare attribute relative importance rankings and weights elicited using a DCE and SW-DR. Methods: A total of 307 patients with non–small-cell lung cancer in Italy and Belgium completed an online survey assessing preferences for cancer treatment using DCE and SW-DR. The relative importance of the attributes was determined using a random parameter logit model for the DCE and rank order centroid method (ROC) for SW-DR. Differences in relative importance ranking and weights between the methods were assessed using Cohen’s weighted kappa and Dirichlet regression. Feedback on ease of understanding and answering the 2 tasks was also collected. Results: Most respondents (&gt;65%) found both tasks (very) easy to understand and answer. The same attribute, survival, was ranked most important irrespective of the methods applied. The overall ranking of the attributes on an aggregate level differed significantly between DCE and SW-ROC (P &lt; 0.01). Greater differences in attribute weights between attributes were reported in DCE compared with SW-DR (P &lt; 0.01). Agreement between the individual-level attribute ranking across methods was moderate (weighted Kappa 0.53–0.55). Conclusion: Significant differences in attribute importance between DCE and SW-DR were found. Respondents reported both methods being relatively easy to understand and answer. Further studies confirming these findings are warranted. Such studies will help to provide accurate guidance for methods selection when studying relative attribute importance across a wide array of preference-relevant decisions. Both DCEs and SW tasks can be used to determine attribute relative importance rankings and weights; however, little evidence exists empirically comparing these methods in terms of outcomes or respondent usability. Most respondents found the DCE and SW tasks very easy or easy to understand and answer. A direct comparison of DCE and SW found significant differences in attribute importance rankings and weights as well as a greater spread in the DCE-derived attribute relative importance weights.</p

Comparing Discrete Choice Experiment with Swing Weighting to Estimate Attribute Relative Importance:A Case Study in Lung Cancer Patient Preferences

Introduction: Discrete choice experiments (DCE) are commonly used to elicit patient preferences and to determine the relative importance of attributes but can be complex and costly to administer. Simpler methods that measure relative importance exist, such as swing weighting with direct rating (SW-DR), but there is little empirical evidence comparing the two. This study aimed to directly compare attribute relative importance rankings and weights elicited using a DCE and SW-DR. Methods: A total of 307 patients with non–small-cell lung cancer in Italy and Belgium completed an online survey assessing preferences for cancer treatment using DCE and SW-DR. The relative importance of the attributes was determined using a random parameter logit model for the DCE and rank order centroid method (ROC) for SW-DR. Differences in relative importance ranking and weights between the methods were assessed using Cohen’s weighted kappa and Dirichlet regression. Feedback on ease of understanding and answering the 2 tasks was also collected. Results: Most respondents (&gt;65%) found both tasks (very) easy to understand and answer. The same attribute, survival, was ranked most important irrespective of the methods applied. The overall ranking of the attributes on an aggregate level differed significantly between DCE and SW-ROC (P &lt; 0.01). Greater differences in attribute weights between attributes were reported in DCE compared with SW-DR (P &lt; 0.01). Agreement between the individual-level attribute ranking across methods was moderate (weighted Kappa 0.53–0.55). Conclusion: Significant differences in attribute importance between DCE and SW-DR were found. Respondents reported both methods being relatively easy to understand and answer. Further studies confirming these findings are warranted. Such studies will help to provide accurate guidance for methods selection when studying relative attribute importance across a wide array of preference-relevant decisions. Both DCEs and SW tasks can be used to determine attribute relative importance rankings and weights; however, little evidence exists empirically comparing these methods in terms of outcomes or respondent usability. Most respondents found the DCE and SW tasks very easy or easy to understand and answer. A direct comparison of DCE and SW found significant differences in attribute importance rankings and weights as well as a greater spread in the DCE-derived attribute relative importance weights.</p