Talking about targets: How construction discourses of theory and reality represent the energy performance gap in the United Kingdom

Targets for energy performance in operation have been advocated as a solution to the well-documented mismatch between the expected and actual energy use of buildings. Although construction industry actors will be crucial in realising these targets, their response to them is currently under-explored. Augmenting research on how middle actors shape energy consumption, this paper examines how everyday talk in the construction industry sustains this mismatch, drawing on a study of a hospital construction project with targets for energy in use. It applies Gilbert and Mulkay's approach to discourse analysis, particularly their interest in “accounting for error”, to data drawn from interviews with actors across the construction project, observation of daily life on site, and an examination of written interactions. Findings show how actors make a discursive division between the “theory” and “reality” of energy use. Expressing scepticism about “theory”, in particular, allows them to rationalise problems with future operational energy consumption and thereby mitigate their professional liability. This division therefore perpetuates, rather than overcomes, the separation between energy in design and operation, displacing a more collaborative discussion of performance expectations. This challenges the assumption that targets for energy in use can be effective without accompanying changes in industry incentives and ways of working. This paper argues for more attention to the patterns of talk that are found in the construction industry, in order to uncover how this crucial set of actors will respond to new energy policy incentives

On the probability of cost-effectiveness using data from randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND: Acceptability curves have been proposed for quantifying the probability that a treatment under investigation in a clinical trial is cost-effective. Various definitions and estimation methods have been proposed. Loosely speaking, all the definitions, Bayesian or otherwise, relate to the probability that the treatment under consideration is cost-effective as a function of the value placed on a unit of effectiveness. These definitions are, in fact, expressions of the certainty with which the current evidence would lead us to believe that the treatment under consideration is cost-effective, and are dependent on the amount of evidence (i.e. sample size). METHODS: An alternative for quantifying the probability that the treatment under consideration is cost-effective, which is independent of sample size, is proposed. RESULTS: Non-parametric methods are given for point and interval estimation. In addition, these methods provide a non-parametric estimator and confidence interval for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. An example is provided. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed parameter for quantifying the probability that a new therapy is cost-effective is superior to the acceptability curve because it is not sample size dependent and because it can be interpreted as the proportion of patients who would benefit if given the new therapy. Non-parametric methods are used to estimate the parameter and its variance, providing the appropriate confidence intervals and test of hypothesis

Oral ondansetron administration to nondehydrated children with diarrhea and associated vomiting in emergency departments in Pakistan: A randomized controlled trial

Study objective: We determine whether single-dose oral ondansetron administration to children with vomiting as a result of acute gastroenteritis without dehydration reduces administration of intravenous fluid rehydration.Methods: In this 2-hospital, double-blind, placebo-controlled, emergency department–based, randomized trial conducted in Karachi Pakistan, we recruited children aged 0.5 to 5.0 years, without dehydration, who had diarrhea and greater than or equal to 1 episode of vomiting within 4 hours of arrival. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), through an Internet-based randomization service using a stratified variable-block randomization scheme, to single-dose oral ondansetron or placebo. The primary endpoint was intravenous rehydration (administration of 20 mL/kg of an isotonic fluid during 4 hours) within 72 hours of randomization.Results: Participant median age was 15 months (interquartile range 10 to 26) and 59.4% (372/626) were male patients. Intravenous rehydration use was 12.1% (38/314) and 11.9% (37/312) in the placebo and ondansetron groups, respectively (odds ratio 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60 to 1.61; difference 0.2%; 95% CI of the difference –4.9% to 5.4%). Bolus fluid administration occurred within 72 hours of randomization in 10.8% (34/314) and 10.3% (27/312) of children administered placebo and ondansetron, respectively (odds ratio 0.95; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.59). A multivariable regression model fitted with treatment group and adjusted for antiemetic administration, antibiotics, zinc prerandomization, and vomiting frequency prerandomization yielded similar results (odds ratio 0.91; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.53). There was no interaction between treatment group and age, greater than or equal to 3 stools in the preceding 24 hours, or greater than or equal to 3 vomiting episodes in the preceding 24 hours.Conclusion: Oral administration of a single dose of ondansetron did not result in a reduction in intravenous rehydration use. In children without dehydration, ondansetron does not improve clinical outcomes

Using the Incremental Net Benefit Framework for Quantitative Benefit–Risk Analysis in Regulatory Decision-Making—A Case Study of Alosetron in Irritable Bowel Syndrome

AbstractObjectiveThere is consensus that a more transparent, explicit, and rigorous approach to benefit–risk evaluation is required. The objective of this study is to evaluate the incremental net benefit (INB) framework for undertaking quantitative benefit–risk assessment by performing a quantitative benefit–risk analysis of alosetron for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome from the patients’ perspective.MethodsA discrete event simulation model was developed to determine the INB of alosetron relative to placebo, calculated as “relative value-adjusted life-years (RVALYs).”ResultsIn the base case analysis, alosetron resulted in a mean INB of 34.1 RVALYs per 1000 patients treated relative to placebo over 52 weeks of treatment. Incorporating parameter uncertainty into the model, probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed a mean INB of 30.4 (95% confidence interval 15.9–45.4) RVALYs per 1000 patients treated relative to placebo over 52 weeks of treatment. Overall, there was >99% chance that both the incremental benefit and incremental risk associated with alosetron are greater than placebo. As hypothesized, the INB of alosetron was greatest in patients with the worst quality of life experienced at baseline. The mean INB associated with alosetron in patients with mild, moderate, and severe symptoms at baseline was 17.97 (−0.55 to 36.23), 29.98 (17.05–43.37), and 35.98 (23.49–48.77) RVALYs per 1000 patients treated, respectively.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates the potential utility of applying the INB framework to real-life decision-making, and the ability to use simulation modeling incorporating outcomes data from different sources as a benefit–risk decision aid

Effect on birth outcomes of a formalised approach to care in hospital labour assessment units: international, randomised controlled trial

Objective To determine if a complex nursing and midwifery intervention in hospital labour assessment units would increase the likelihood of spontaneous vaginal birth and improve other maternal and neonatal outcomes

The African Women's Protocol: Bringing Attention to Reproductive Rights and the MDGs

Andrew Gibbs and colleagues discuss the African Women's Protocol, a framework for ensuring reproductive rights are supported throughout the continent and for supporting interventions to improve women's reproductive health, including the MDGs