scholarly journals Scaling-down mass ivermectin treatment for onchocerciasis elimination: modelling the impact of the geographical unit for decision making

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wilma A Stolk ◽  
David J Blok ◽  
Jonathan I D Hamley ◽  
Paul T Cantey ◽  
Sake J de Vlas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Economic Resources ◽  
Ivermectin Treatment ◽  
National Programmes ◽  
Geographical Unit ◽  
Upper Limits ◽  
Geographical Scale ◽  
Scale Down ◽  
Key Driver ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Due to spatial heterogeneity in onchocerciasis transmission, the duration of ivermectin mass drug administration (MDA) required for eliminating onchocerciasis will vary within endemic areas and the occurrence of transmission ‘hotspots’ is inevitable. The geographical scale at which stop-MDA decisions are made will be a key driver in how rapidly national programmes can scale down active intervention upon achieving the epidemiological targets for elimination. Methods We use two onchocerciasis models (EPIONCHO-IBM and ONCHOSIM) to predict the likelihood of achieving elimination by 2030 in Africa, accounting for variation in pre-intervention endemicity levels and histories of ivermectin treatment. We explore how decision-making at contrasting geographical scales (community vs. larger scale ‘project’) changes projections on populations still requiring MDA or transitioning to post-treatment surveillance. Results The total population considered grows from 118 million people in 2020 to 136 million in 2030. If stop-MDA decisions are made at project level, the number of people requiring treatment declines from 69-118 million in 2020 to 59-118 million in 2030. If stop-MDA decisions are made at community level, the numbers decline from 23-81 million in 2020 to 15-63 million in 2030. The lower estimates in these predictions intervals are based on ONCHOSIM, the upper limits on EPIONCHO-IBM. Discussion/Conclusions The geographical scale at which stop-MDA decisions are made strongly determines how rapidly national onchocerciasis programmes can scale down MDA programmes. Stopping in portions of project areas or transmission zones would free up human and economic resources.

scholarly journals Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats analysis on choice of multi chamber bag or compounded parenteral nutrition

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (SPL4) ◽  
pp. 2298-2303
Author(s):  
Sahar Elnajjar ◽  
Dixon Thomas ◽  
Osama Tabbara ◽  
Danial Baker
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Parenteral Nutrition ◽  
Swot Analysis ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Multiple Stakeholders ◽  
Scale Down ◽  
Internal And External Factors ◽  
The Impact

Reasons for choosing parenteral nutrition (PN) products depend on healthcare institutions internal and external factors. A decision to start, continue, scale-up, scale down, or stop compounding of PN involves multiple stakeholders. This study is an effort to analyze such factors and recommendations on decision-making. A strength, weakness, opportunities, threats (SWOT) analysis was prepared in consultation with major PN providers in the UAE and comparing to international best practices. Based on the SWOT analysis, a set of recommendations was prepared using the GRADE system (classification of quality of evidence and strength of recommendation). Feedback on the SWOT analysis and recommendations were collected from the PN providers. The SWOT analysis and recommendations address aspects of the choice of MCB-PN or compounded PN. It includes considerations on PN indication, availability of ingredients, types of patients, safety, and cost management with labor, automation, and outsourcing. It was received well. The SWOT analysis and recommendations are useful in decision-making in complex therapy like PN. It helps in institutional decisions on choices of MCB-PN or compounded PN. The impact of the recommendations is to be measured in the future.

Quota Women Are Threatening to Men

2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (3) ◽  
pp. 107-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klea Faniko ◽  
Till Burckhardt ◽  
Oriane Sarrasin ◽  
Fabio Lorenzi-Cioldi ◽  
Siri Øyslebø Sørensen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Organizational Performance ◽  
Gender Stereotypes ◽  
Perceived Threat ◽  
Preferential Treatment ◽  
Public Sector Employees ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Low Levels ◽  
Women In Decision Making ◽  
The Impact

Abstract. Two studies carried out among Albanian public-sector employees examined the impact of different types of affirmative action policies (AAPs) on (counter)stereotypical perceptions of women in decision-making positions. Study 1 (N = 178) revealed that participants – especially women – perceived women in decision-making positions as more masculine (i.e., agentic) than feminine (i.e., communal). Study 2 (N = 239) showed that different types of AA had different effects on the attribution of gender stereotypes to AAP beneficiaries: Women benefiting from a quota policy were perceived as being more communal than agentic, while those benefiting from weak preferential treatment were perceived as being more agentic than communal. Furthermore, we examined how the belief that AAPs threaten men’s access to decision-making positions influenced the attribution of these traits to AAP beneficiaries. The results showed that men who reported high levels of perceived threat, as compared to men who reported low levels of perceived threat, attributed more communal than agentic traits to the beneficiaries of quotas. These findings suggest that AAPs may have created a backlash against its beneficiaries by emphasizing gender-stereotypical or counterstereotypical traits. Thus, the framing of AAPs, for instance, as a matter of enhancing organizational performance, in the process of policy making and implementation, may be a crucial tool to countering potential backlash.

The impact of patient narratives on medical students’ perceptions of shared decision making: A randomized controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martina Bientzle ◽  
Marie Eggeling ◽  
Simone Korger ◽  
Joachim Kimmerle
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Medical Students ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Medical Training ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Information Text ◽  
The Impact

BACKGROUND: Successful shared decision making (SDM) in clinical practice requires that future clinicians learn to appreciate the value of patient participation as early as in their medical training. Narratives, such as patient testimonials, have been successfully used to support patients’ decision-making process. Previous research suggests that narratives may also be used for increasing clinicians’ empathy and responsiveness in medical consultations. However, so far, no studies have investigated the benefits of narratives for conveying the relevance of SDM to medical students.METHODS: In this randomized controlled experiment, N = 167 medical students were put into a scenario where they prepared for medical consultation with a patient having Parkinson disease. After receiving general information, participants read either a narrative patient testimonial or a fact-based information text. We measured their perceptions of SDM, their control preferences (i.e., their priorities as to who should make the decision), and the time they intended to spend for the consultation.RESULTS: Participants in the narrative patient testimonial condition referred more strongly to the patient as the one who should make decisions than participants who read the information text. Participants who read the patient narrative also considered SDM in situations with more than one treatment option to be more important than participants in the information text condition. There were no group differences regarding their control preferences. Participants who read the patient testimonial indicated that they would schedule more time for the consultation.CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that narratives can potentially be useful for imparting the relevance of SDM and patient-centered values to medical students. We discuss possible causes of this effect and implications for training and future research.

The impact of a physician’s recommendation and gender on informed decision making: A randomized controlled study in a simulated decision situation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Eggeling ◽  
Anna Meinhardt ◽  
Ulrike Cress ◽  
Joachim Kimmerle ◽  
Martina Bientzle
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
General Information ◽  
Treatment Preference ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Treatment Preferences ◽  
Hypothetical Scenario ◽  
And Gender ◽  
The Impact

Objective: This study examined the influence of physicians’ recommendations and gender on the decision-making process in a preference-sensitive situation. Methods: N = 201 participants were put in a hypothetical scenario in which they suffered from a rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). They received general information on two equally successful treatment options for this injury (surgery vs. physiotherapy) and answered questions regarding their treatment preference, certainty and satisfaction regarding their decision, and attitude toward the treatment options. Then participants watched a video that differed regarding physician’s recommendation (surgery vs. physiotherapy) and physician’s gender (female vs. male voice and picture). Afterward, they indicated again their treatment preference, certainty, satisfaction, and attitude, as well as the physician’s professional and social competence.Results: Participants changed their treatment preferences in the direction of the physician’s recommendation (P<.001). Decision certainty (P<.001) and satisfaction (P<.001) increased more strongly if the physician’s recommendation was congruent with the participant’s prior attitude than if the recommendation was contrary to the participant’s prior attitude. Finally, participants’ attitudes toward the recommended treatment became more positive (surgery recommendation: P<.001; physiotherapy recommendation: P<.001). We found no influence of the physician’s gender on participants’ decisions, attitudes, or competence assessments.Conclusion: This research indicates that physicians should be careful with recommendations when aiming for shared decisions, as they might influence patients even if the patients have been made aware that they should take their personal preferences into account. This could be particularly problematic if the recommendation is not in line with the patient’s preferences.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document