19 research outputs found
Goodbye Hartmann trial: a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study on the current use of a surgical procedure developed a century ago
Background: Literature suggests colonic resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) instead of Hartmann's procedure (HP) for the treatment of left-sided colonic emergencies. We aim to evaluate the surgical options globally used to treat patients with acute left-sided colonic emergencies and the factors that leading to the choice of treatment, comparing HP and RPA. Methods: This is a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. A total 1215 patients with left-sided colonic emergencies who required surgery were included from 204 centers during the period of March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020. with a 1-year follow-up. Results: 564 patients (43.1%) were females. The mean age was 65.9 ± 15.6 years. HP was performed in 697 (57.3%) patients and RPA in 384 (31.6%) cases. Complicated acute diverticulitis was the most common cause of left-sided colonic emergencies (40.2%), followed by colorectal malignancy (36.6%). Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3b) were higher in the HP group (P < 0.001). 30-day mortality was higher in HP patients (13.7%), especially in case of bowel perforation and diffused peritonitis. 1-year follow-up showed no differences on ostomy reversal rate between HP and RPA. (P = 0.127). A backward likelihood logistic regression model showed that RPA was preferred in younger patients, having low ASA score (≤ 3), in case of large bowel obstruction, absence of colonic ischemia, longer time from admission to surgery, operating early at the day working hours, by a surgeon who performed more than 50 colorectal resections. Conclusions: After 100 years since the first Hartmann's procedure, HP remains the most common treatment for left-sided colorectal emergencies. Treatment's choice depends on patient characteristics, the time of surgery and the experience of the surgeon. RPA should be considered as the gold standard for surgery, with HP being an exception
Die Prognosegüte von Wahlbörsen und Meinungsumfragen zur Bundestagswahl 2005
Die Gegenüberstellung von Wahlbörsenresultaten und Meinungsumfragen gehört zu den Ritualen, die in der Berichterstattung über Wahlen nach Bekanntgabe der Resultate einsetzen. Doch viele dieser Analysen beziehen sich nicht auf eigentliche Vorhersagen. In diesem Aufsatz stellen wir einen ähnlichen Vergleich an, beziehen uns aber auf Prognosen, die wir vor dem Wahlausgang für die Bundestagswahl 2005 errechneten. Die Analyse zeigt, dass die Wahlbörse Wahl$treet auch 2005 besser abschnitt als die kommerziellen Institute. Angesichts der außergewöhnlich großen Prognosefehler besonders der Umfrageinstitute diskutieren wir überdies im Licht der Social Choice-Theorie, welche Auswirkungen fehlerhafte Umfragen auf Wahlentscheidungen haben
Wind Turbines, Public Acceptance, and Electoral Outcomes
Despite a widespread public support for wind energy in general, wind turbine proposals attract a considerable amount of public opposition. At a time of political commitments to building more wind turbines for climate risk mitigation, we study the potential causes of this opposition and its electoral effects. Our analysis draws on a survey experiment in Switzerland, where the number of wind turbines will grow from a couple of dozens to many hundreds in the next three decades. We find that exposure to wind turbines increases public acceptance, but this affect does not translate into electoral turnout or vote choice. Moreover, locality or politicisation does not seem to have an effect at all—neither on acceptance nor on electoral outcomes. Our results suggest that voters do not reward or punish political parties for their positions on wind energy, even when turbines might soon be rising in their local area
Self-interest versus sociotropic considerations : an information-based perspective to understanding individuals’ trade preferences
Economic self-interest has been central to explaining individual trade preferences. Depending on the theoretical trade model different variables influence individuals’ attitude towards globalization and existing research has come to different conclusions as to whether individuals’ preferences are dependent on skill level, income or the sector of employment. Other studies depart from economic self-interest by arguing that it is not self-interest that motivates individuals to form their preference, but country-level economic factors (sociotropic considerations) instead. We argue that one needs to approach trade preference formation from an information-based perspective and we test experimentally how people react if they are aware that they personally or nationally will gain or lose from trade and which of the two aspects are more important. By using survey experiments embedded in a representative national survey in the U.S. we are able to differentiate whether a person was triggered by ego- or sociotropic benefits/costs of free trade.publishe
Public support for national vs. international climate change obligations
To achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, much will depend on how governments implement future progression toward more ambitious climate policy. While there is research on the acceptance of international climate policy or specific national policy instruments, we know comparatively little about public support for internationally pledged national emissions targets. We are thus interested in the causal effect of framing government policies aimed toward emission reductions as either national or international obligations. Can policymakers increase support by leveraging one or the other? Our results from a survey experiment in Switzerland indicate that while international frames improve target evaluation, substantive effects are small and we effectively report null findings for our main framing treatments. Eliciting the international obligation may nevertheless be regarded as an advisable strategy for policymakers as it significantly improves young peoples’ evaluation of emission targets and also makes less climate-conscious respondents more supportive of the reduction target
Adding Another Level: Individual Responses to Globalization and Government Welfare Policies
Literature on the compensation hypothesis overwhelmingly concentrates on either the macro or micro level of the relationship between globalization and welfare spending. This paper explicitly addresses this shortcoming by using individual citizens and country-specific characteristics in a hierarchical model framework. We start by examining individual’s context-conditional reactions to actual economic globalization and welfare generosity; after which, we make the effect of actual economic globalization (welfare generosity) conditional on whether the individual is a globalization winner or loser. In contrast to theoretical expectations, our results indicate that actual economic globalization does not affect people’s perception in the manner expected by the compensation hypothesis. However, individuals display more positive attitudes toward globalization if welfare state generosity is proxied using government spending on active labor market programs
How to measure public demand for policies when there is no appropriate survey data?
Explanatory models accounting for variation in policy choices by democratic governments usually include a demand (by the public) and a supply (by the government) component, whereas the latter component is usually better developed from a measurement viewpoint. The main reason is that public opinion surveys, the standard approach to measuring public demand, are expensive, difficult to implement simultaneously for different countries for purposes of crossnational comparison and impossible to implement ex post for purposes of longitudinal analysis if survey data for past time periods are lacking. We therefore propose a new approach to measuring public demand, focussing on political claims made by nongovernmental actors and expressed in the news. To demonstrate the feasibility and usefulness of our measure of published opinion, we focus on climate policy in the time period between 1995 and 2010. When comparing the new measure of published opinion with the best available public opinion survey and internet search data, it turns out that our data can serve as a meaningful proxy for public demand.ISSN:0141-814XISSN:0143-814