In their own words: using text analysis to identify musicologists' attitudes towards technology

A widely distributed online survey gathered quantitative and qualitative data relating to the use of technology in the research practices of musicologists. This survey builds on existing work in the digital humanities and provides insights into the specific nature of musicology in relation to use and perceptions of technology. Analysis of the data (n=621) notes the preferences in resource format and the digital skills of the survey participants. The themes of comments on rewards, benefits, frustrations, risks, and limitations are explored using an h-point approach derived from applied linguistics. It is suggested that the research practices of musicologists reflect wider existing research into the digital humanities, and that efforts should be made into supporting development of their digital skills and providing usable, useful and reliable software created with a ‘musicology-centred’ design approach. This software should support online access to high quality digital resources (image, text, sound) which are comprehensive and discoverable, and can be shared, reused and manipulated at a micro- and macro level

What do musicologists do all day?

music and music metadata. Quite a few of these are specifically targeted at musicological research. Very often, such software, standards, services or resources are the outcome of interdisciplinary collaborations between computer scientists, audio engineers, musicologists and library scientists. An ever‐present subtext in the discourse around these collaborations is the potential of technology to transform the discipline of musicology. It is often asserted that technology will help musicologists to deal with issues such as searching large music collections, formalizing analysis, detecting high‐level patterns in music history, quantifying differences between musical cultures, and will generally strengthen the scientific nature of musicology. Yet the uptake of these technologies in mainstream musicology is not widespread. As a consequence, numerous pleas have been made for better training, more publicity and generally preaching the benefits of technologies, but more often than not attempts to do so have failed. In other digital humanities areas, a similar lukewarm reception of new technologies has frequently been signalled. This has stimulated a considerable amount of critical thinking about the collaboration between computer scientists and humanists, mainly from the perspectives of Human Computer Interaction and Human Centred Design. Contrary to popular belief, the underlying issue is not so much technophobia as the relevance and acceptability of technology as part of humanities research processes. Anecdotally, musicologists seem to be open to the use of technology whenever it allows them to work more effectively. Insights into the purposes and values of the researchers derived from a clearer understanding of the musicological work processes would enable and enhance interdisciplinary collaboration, leading to the development of usable and useful systems. To date, only very few studies have been made of the work processes and related technology needs of musicologists. A systematic exploration of the area is in order. As a first step, we will present the results of a questionnaire amongst musicologists worldwide focussing on the use of resources in their daily work processes, informed by their stories of rewarding and frustrating experiences and their views on the risks and limitations of technology. Based on the outcomes of the questionnaire, we will present an agenda for further research of musicological work practices, and a number of recommendations to enable a move towards the design of technologies to support these

A mixed-methods study to define Textbook Outcome for the treatment of patients with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease with hospital variation analyses in Dutch trial data

Background: International consensus on the ideal outcome for treatment of uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease is absent. This mixed-method study defined a Textbook Outcome (TO) for this large group of patients. Methods: First, expert meetings were organised with stakeholders to design the survey and identify possible outcomes. To reach consensus, results from expert meetings were converted in a survey for clinicians and for patients. During the final expert meeting, clinicians and patients discussed survey outcomes and a definitive TO was formulated. Subsequently, TO-rate and hospital variation were analysed in Dutch hospital data from patients with uncomplicated gallstone disease. Results: First expert meetings returned 32 outcomes. Outcomes were distributed in a survey among 830 clinicians from 81 countries and 645 Dutch patients. Consensus-based TO was defined as no more biliary colic, no biliary and surgical complications, and the absence or reduction of abdominal pain. Analysis of individual patient data showed that TO was achieved in 64.2% (1002/1561). Adjusted-TO rates showed modest variation between hospitals (56.6-74.9%). Conclusion: TO for treatment of uncomplicated gallstone disease was defined as no more biliary colic, no biliary and surgical complications, and absence or reduction of abdominal pain.TO may optimise consistent outcome reporting in care and guidelines for treating uncomplicated gallstone disease

Two Days Versus Five Days of Postoperative Antibiotics for Complex Appendicitis:Cost Analysis of a Randomized, Noninferiority Trial

Objective: To compare costs for 2 days versus 5 days of postoperative antibiotics within the antibiotics after an aPPendectomy In Complex appendicitis trial. Background: Recent studies suggest that restrictive antibiotic use leads to a significant reduction in hospital stays without compromising patient safety. Its potential effect on societal costs remains underexplored. Methods: This was a pragmatic, open-label, multicenter clinical trial powered for noninferiority. Patients with complex appendicitis (age ≥ 8 years) were randomly allocated to 2 days or 5 days of intravenous antibiotics after appendectomy. Patient inclusion lasted from June 2017 to June 2021 in 15 Dutch hospitals. The final follow-up was on September 1, 2021. The primary trial endpoint was a composite endpoint of infectious complications and mortality within 90 days. In the present study, the main outcome measures were overall societal costs (comprising direct health care costs and costs related to productivity loss) and cost-effectiveness. Direct health care costs were recorded based on data in the electronic patient files, complemented by a telephone follow-up at 90 days. In addition, data on loss of productivity were acquired through the validated Productivity Cost Questionnaire at 4 weeks after surgery. Cost estimates were based on prices for the year 2019. Results: In total, 1005 patients were evaluated in the "intention-to-treat" analysis: 502 patients were allocated to the 2-day group and 503 to the 5-day group. The mean difference in overall societal costs was - €625 (95% CI: -€ 958 to -€ 278) to the advantage of the 2-day group. This difference was largely explained by reduced hospital stay. Productivity losses were similar between the study groups. Restricting postoperative antibiotics to 2 days was cost-effective, with estimated cost savings of €31,117 per additional infectious complication. Conclusions: Two days of postoperative antibiotics for complex appendicitis results in a statistically significant and relevant cost reduction, as compared with 5 days. Findings apply to laparoscopic appendectomy in a well-resourced health care setting.</p

Two Days Versus Five Days of Postoperative Antibiotics for Complex Appendicitis:Cost Analysis of a Randomized, Noninferiority Trial

Objective: To compare costs for 2 days versus 5 days of postoperative antibiotics within the antibiotics after an aPPendectomy In Complex appendicitis trial. Background: Recent studies suggest that restrictive antibiotic use leads to a significant reduction in hospital stays without compromising patient safety. Its potential effect on societal costs remains underexplored. Methods: This was a pragmatic, open-label, multicenter clinical trial powered for noninferiority. Patients with complex appendicitis (age ≥ 8 years) were randomly allocated to 2 days or 5 days of intravenous antibiotics after appendectomy. Patient inclusion lasted from June 2017 to June 2021 in 15 Dutch hospitals. The final follow-up was on September 1, 2021. The primary trial endpoint was a composite endpoint of infectious complications and mortality within 90 days. In the present study, the main outcome measures were overall societal costs (comprising direct health care costs and costs related to productivity loss) and cost-effectiveness. Direct health care costs were recorded based on data in the electronic patient files, complemented by a telephone follow-up at 90 days. In addition, data on loss of productivity were acquired through the validated Productivity Cost Questionnaire at 4 weeks after surgery. Cost estimates were based on prices for the year 2019. Results: In total, 1005 patients were evaluated in the "intention-to-treat" analysis: 502 patients were allocated to the 2-day group and 503 to the 5-day group. The mean difference in overall societal costs was - €625 (95% CI: -€ 958 to -€ 278) to the advantage of the 2-day group. This difference was largely explained by reduced hospital stay. Productivity losses were similar between the study groups. Restricting postoperative antibiotics to 2 days was cost-effective, with estimated cost savings of €31,117 per additional infectious complication. Conclusions: Two days of postoperative antibiotics for complex appendicitis results in a statistically significant and relevant cost reduction, as compared with 5 days. Findings apply to laparoscopic appendectomy in a well-resourced health care setting.</p

Governance strategies for improving flood resilience in the face of climate change

Flooding is the most common of all natural disasters and accounts for large numbers of casualties and a high amount of economic damage worldwide. To be ‘flood resilient’, countries should have sufficient capacity to resist, the capacity to absorb and recover, and the capacity to transform and adapt. Based on international comparative research, we conclude that six key governance strategies will enhance ‘flood resilience’ and will secure the necessary capacities. These strategies pertain to: (i) the diversification of flood risk management approaches; (ii) the alignment of flood risk management approaches to overcome fragmentation; (iii) the involvement, cooperation, and alignment of both public and private actors in flood risk management; (iv) the presence of adequate formal rules that balance legal certainty and flexibility; (v) the assurance of sufficient financial and other types of resources; (vi) the adoption of normative principles that adequately deal with distributional effects. These governance strategies appear to be relevant across different physical and institutional contexts. The findings may also hold valuable lessons for the governance of climate adaptation more generally