Business and Information Technology Alignment Measurement -- a recent Literature Review

Since technology has been involved in the business context, Business and Information Technology Alignment (BITA) has been one of the main concerns of IT and Business executives and directors due to its importance to overall company performance, especially today in the age of digital transformation. Several models and frameworks have been developed for BITA implementation and for measuring their level of success, each one with a different approach to this desired state. The BITA measurement is one of the main decision-making tools in the strategic domain of companies. In general, the classical-internal alignment is the most measured domain and the external environment evolution alignment is the least measured. This literature review aims to characterize and analyze current research on BITA measurement with a comprehensive view of the works published over the last 15 years to identify potential gaps and future areas of research in the field.Comment: 12 pages, Preprint version, BIS 2018 International Workshops, Berlin, Germany, July 18 to 20, 2018, Revised Paper

Mental health and adherence to covid-19 protective behaviors among cancer patients during the covid-19 pandemic: An international, multinational cross-sectional study

A population-based cross-sectional study was conducted during the first COVID-19 wave, to examine the impact of COVID-19 on mental health using an anonymous online survey, enrolling 9565 individuals in 78 countries. The current sub-study examined the impact of the pandemic and the associated lockdown measures on the mental health, and protective behaviors of cancer patients in comparison to non-cancer participants. Furthermore, 264 participants from 30 different countries reported being cancer patients. The median age was 51.5 years, 79.9% were female, and 28% had breast cancer. Cancer participants reported higher self-efficacy to follow recommended national guidelines regarding COVID-19 protective behaviors compared to non-cancer participants (p < 0.01). They were less stressed (p < 0.01), more psychologically flexible (p < 0.01), and had higher levels of positive affect compared to non-cancer participants. Amongst cancer participants, the majority (80.3%) reported COVID-19, not their cancer, as their priority during the first wave of the pandemic and females reported higher levels of stress compared to males. In conclusion, cancer participants appeared to have handled the unpredictable nature of the first wave of the pandemic efficiently, with a positive attitude towards an unknown and otherwise frightening situation. Larger, cancer population specific and longitudinal studies are warranted to ensure adequate medical and psychological care for cancer patients

Reflections on Using an Architecture Model for Matching Existing Applications to a Radical Business Requirements Change: a Case Study

Item does not contain fulltex

Reflections on Using an Architecture Model for Matching Existing Applications to a Radical Business Requirements Change:A Case Study

Item does not contain fulltex

Psychometric validation of the Reported and Intended Behaviour Scale (RIBS) in Hungary with a particular focus on ‘Don’t know’ responses and further scoring recommendations

Abstract Aims Reported and Intended Behaviour Scale (RIBS) was designed to measure mental health stigma-related behaviors in the general public. We aimed to examine its psychometric properties and validate the scale in a Hungarian non-clinical community sample. The secondary aim of this study was to assess the appropriateness of the current scoring recommendations of ‘Don’t know’ responses being coded as neutral, which had never been investigated before. In addition, we provide an overview of the results of already existing studies on the scale. Methods Hungarian participants completed the RIBS within this cross-sectional online survey study and were considered non-clinical individuals based on a cut-off point of the Global Severity Index T score of 63 on the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised. Confirmatory factor analysis, reliability measures, and comparative analyses were performed. Results Of the n = 5,701, n = 5,141 participants were included in the analysis. The mean age was 27.8 ± 11.1 years, and 89.2% (n = 4,587) of the sample were female. The unidimensional structure was supported by good model fit indices (RMSEA = 0.031, CFI = 0.999, TLI = 0.996, and WRMR = 0.006). Internal consistency of the RIBS and its test–retest reliability with a 5-month follow-up period were found to be good (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88 and ICC = 0.838). We found statistically significant differences between the total scores when the ‘Don’t know’ responders were excluded from the sample or when they were coded as neutral as recommended by the scale authors (16 (IQR:13–18) vs. 15 (IQR:13–18) p < 0.0001). There were also statistically significant differences between ‘Neither agree nor disagree’ and ‘Don’t know’ participants in several aspects of lived experiences of mental health problems. Conclusions The RIBS demonstrated good psychometric properties and can be transferred to the Hungarian context. It will be a valuable tool in assessing stigmatizing behavior and testing the efficacy of antistigma programs. Our results suggest that ‘Neither agree nor disagree’ and ‘Don’t know’ responses bear different meanings, and coding should account for this