Severity of anxiety and work-related outcomes of patients with anxiety disorders

Background : This study examined associations between anxiety and work-related outcomes in an anxiety disorders clinic population, examining both pretreatment links and the impact of anxiety change over 12 weeks of treatment on work outcomes. Four validated instruments were used to also allow examination of their psychometric properties, with the goal of improving measurement of work-related quality of life in this population. Methods : Newly enrolled adult patients seeking treatment in a university-based anxiety clinic were administered four work performance measures: Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI), Endicott Work Productivity Scale (EWPS), and Functional Status Questionnaire Work Performance Scale (WPS). Anxiety severity was determined using the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI). The Clinical Global Impressions, Global Improvement Scale (CGI-I) was completed by patients to evaluate symptom change at a 12-week follow-up. Two severity groups (minimal/mild vs. moderate/severe, based on baseline BAI score) were compared to each other on work measures. Results : Eighty-one patients provided complete baseline data. Anxiety severity groups did not differ in job type, time on job, job satisfaction, or job choice. Patients with greater anxiety generally showed lower work performance on all instruments. Job advancement was impaired for the moderate/severe group. The multi-item performance scales demonstrated better validity and internal consistency. The WLQ and the WPAI detected change with symptom improvement. Conclusion : Level of work performance was generally associated with severity of anxiety. Of the instruments tested, the WLQ and the WPAI questionnaire demonstrated acceptable validity and internal reliability. Depression and Anxiety, 2009. © 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/64535/1/20624_ftp.pd

Results from the centers for disease control and prevention's predict the 2013-2014 Influenza Season Challenge

Background: Early insights into the timing of the start, peak, and intensity of the influenza season could be useful in planning influenza prevention and control activities. To encourage development and innovation in influenza forecasting, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) organized a challenge to predict the 2013-14 Unites States influenza season. Methods: Challenge contestants were asked to forecast the start, peak, and intensity of the 2013-2014 influenza season at the national level and at any or all Health and Human Services (HHS) region level(s). The challenge ran from December 1, 2013-March 27, 2014; contestants were required to submit 9 biweekly forecasts at the national level to be eligible. The selection of the winner was based on expert evaluation of the methodology used to make the prediction and the accuracy of the prediction as judged against the U.S. Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network (ILINet). Results: Nine teams submitted 13 forecasts for all required milestones. The first forecast was due on December 2, 2013; 3/13 forecasts received correctly predicted the start of the influenza season within one week, 1/13 predicted the peak within 1 week, 3/13 predicted the peak ILINet percentage within 1 %, and 4/13 predicted the season duration within 1 week. For the prediction due on December 19, 2013, the number of forecasts that correctly forecasted the peak week increased to 2/13, the peak percentage to 6/13, and the duration of the season to 6/13. As the season progressed, the forecasts became more stable and were closer to the season milestones. Conclusion: Forecasting has become technically feasible, but further efforts are needed to improve forecast accuracy so that policy makers can reliably use these predictions. CDC and challenge contestants plan to build upon the methods developed during this contest to improve the accuracy of influenza forecasts. © 2016 The Author(s)

Exploring Issues in Software Systems Used and Developed by Domain Experts

Abstract—Software engineering researchers have paid a good deal of attention to fault cause, discovery, and repair in software systems developed by software professionals. Yet, not all software is developed by software professionals, and consequently, not as much research has been conducted that explores fault cause, discovery, and repair in software systems developed by domain experts. In this exploratory paper, we outline research plans for studying the types of faults that domain experts encounter when developing software for their own research. To attain this goal we propose a multiple case study that will allow us to explore questions about domain expert software use, needs, and development. I