Improvements in population-based survival of patients presenting with metastatic rectal cancer in the south of the Netherlands, 1992–2008

We analysed population-based treatment and survival data of patients who presented with metastatic rectal cancer. All patients diagnosed with primary synchronous metastatic rectal cancer between 1992 and 2008 in the Eindhoven Cancer Registry area were included. Date of diagnosis was divided into three periods (1992–1999, 2000–2004, 2005–2008) according to the availability of chemotherapy type. We assessed treatment patterns and overall survival according to period of diagnosis. The proportion of patients diagnosed with stage IV disease increased from 16% in 1992–1999 to 20% in 2005–2008 (P < 0.0001). Chemotherapy use increased from 5% in 1992 to 61% in 2008 (P < 0.0001). Resection rates of the primary tumour decreased from 65% in 1992 to 27% in 2008 (P < 0.0001), while metastasectomy rates remained constant since 1999 (9%). Median survival increased from 38 weeks (95% confidence interval (CI) 32–44) in 1992–1999 to 53 weeks (95% CI 48–61) in 2005–2008. Among patients not receiving chemotherapy median survival remained approximately 30 weeks. Multivariable analysis confirmed the lower risk of death among patients diagnosed in more recent years. Increased use of chemotherapy went together with improved median survival among patients with metastatic rectal cancer in the last two decades. Stage migration as an effect of more effective imaging procedures is likely to be partly responsible for this improved survival

Takeover Quality: Assessing the Effects of Time Budget and Traffic Density with the Help of a Trajectory-Planning Method

In highly automated driving, the driver can engage in a nondriving task but sometimes has to take over control. We argue that current takeover quality measures, such as the maximum longitudinal acceleration, are insufficient because they ignore the criticality of the scenario. This paper proposes a novel method of quantifying how well the driver executed an automation-to-manual takeover by comparing human behaviour to optimised behaviour as computed using a trajectory planner. A human-in-the-loop study was carried out in a high-fidelity 6-DOF driving simulator with 25 participants. The takeover required a lane change to avoid roadworks on the ego-lane while taking other traffic into consideration. Each participant encountered six different takeover scenarios, with a different time budget (5 s, 7 s, or 20 s) and traffic density level (low or medium). Results showed that drivers exhibited a considerably higher longitudinal and lateral acceleration than the optimised behaviour, especially in the short time budget scenarios. In scenarios of medium traffic density, the trajectory planner showed a moderate deceleration to let a vehicle in the left lane pass; many participants, on the other hand, did not decelerate before making a lane change, resulting in a dangerous emergency brake of the left-lane vehicle. In conclusion, our results illustrate the value of assessing human takeover behaviour relative to optimised behaviour. Using the trajectory planner, we showed that human drivers are unable to behave optimally in urgent scenarios and that, in some conditions, a medium deceleration, as opposed to a maximal or minimal deceleration, is optimal.Intelligent VehiclesHuman-Robot Interactio

Supplementary material for the paper: Take-over quality: Assessing the effects of time budget and traffic density with the help of a trajectory-planning method.

Supplementary materials for the paper Doubek, F., Loosveld, E., Happee, R., & De Winter, J. C. F. (2020). Take-over quality: Assessing the effects of time budget and traffic density with the help of a trajectory-planning method. Journal of Advanced Transportation

Mentoring is in the 'I' of the beholder:supporting mentors in reflecting on their actual and preferred way of mentoring

BACKGROUND: An important strategy to support the professional development of mentors in health professions education is to encourage critical reflection on what they do, why they do it, and how they do it. Not only the \u27how\u27 of mentoring should be covered, but also the implicit knowledge and beliefs fundamental to the mentoring practice (a mentor\u27s personal interpretative framework). This study analyzed the extent to which mentors perceive a difference between how they actually mentor and how they prefer to mentor. METHODS: The MERIT (MEntor Reflection InstrumenT) survey (distributed in 2020, N = 228), was used to ask mentors about the how, what, and why of their mentoring in two response modes: (1) regarding their actual mentoring practice and (2) regarding their preferred mentoring practice. With an analysis of covariance, it was explored whether potential discrepancies between these responses were influenced by experience, profession of the mentor, and curriculum-bound assessment requirements. RESULTS: The averaged total MERIT score and averaged scores for the subscales \u27Supporting Personal Development\u27 and \u27Monitoring Performance\u27 were significantly higher for preferred than for actual mentoring. In addition, mentors\u27 experience interacted significantly with these scores, such that the difference between actual and preferred scores became smaller with more years of experience. CONCLUSIONS: Mentors can reflect on their actual and preferred approach to mentoring. This analysis and the potential discrepancy between actual and preferred mentoring can serve as input for individual professional development trajectories

MERIT: A mentor reflection instrument for identifying the personal interpretative framework

BACKGROUND: Essential to the professional development of mentors is making explicit and critically challenging the knowledge and beliefs underpinning their mentoring practice. This paper reports on the development of a survey instrument called MERIT, MEntor Reflection InstrumenT, which was designed to support mentors' systematic reflection on the how, what and why of their practice. METHODS: In 2019, a twenty-item survey instrument was developed and piloted. Initial validation data (N = 228) were collected by distributing the survey through the authors' network. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted and internal consistency reliability coefficients were calculated. RESULTS: The Principal Axis EFA with Direct Oblimin rotation (Delta = 0) resulted in four factors: 1) supporting personal development, 2) modelling professional development, 3) fostering autonomy, and 4) monitoring performance. The four factors explained 43% of the total variance of item scores. The Cronbach's alphas for the subscale scores were between .42 and .75. CONCLUSIONS: The MERIT can help mentors reflect on their beliefs and professional knowhow. These reflections can serve as input for the faculty development initiatives mentors undertake, which may ultimately improve their knowledge and skills as a mentor

MERIT: a mentor reflection instrument for identifying the personal interpretative framework.

BACKGROUND: Essential to the professional development of mentors is making explicit and critically challenging the knowledge and beliefs underpinning their mentoring practice. This paper reports on the development of a survey instrument called MERIT, MEntor Reflection InstrumenT, which was designed to support mentors' systematic reflection on the how, what and why of their practice. METHODS: In 2019, a twenty-item survey instrument was developed and piloted. Initial validation data (N = 228) were collected by distributing the survey through the authors' network. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted and internal consistency reliability coefficients were calculated. RESULTS: The Principal Axis EFA with Direct Oblimin rotation (Delta = 0) resulted in four factors: 1) supporting personal development, 2) modelling professional development, 3) fostering autonomy, and 4) monitoring performance. The four factors explained 43% of the total variance of item scores. The Cronbach's alphas for the subscale scores were between .42 and .75. CONCLUSIONS: The MERIT can help mentors reflect on their beliefs and professional knowhow. These reflections can serve as input for the faculty development initiatives mentors undertake, which may ultimately improve their knowledge and skills as a mentor