A decision support tool development: an analysis of the statistical significance of the dichotic listening of speech test results

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 194
Author(s):  
Elena A. Popova ◽  
Evgeny L. Wasserman ◽  
Nikolay K. Kartashev
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Dichotic Listening ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Decision Support Tool ◽  
Tool Development ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Support Tool ◽  
Speech Test

scholarly journals Identifying and selecting implementation theories, models and frameworks: a qualitative study to inform the development of a decision support tool

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Strifler ◽  
Jan M. Barnsley ◽  
Michael Hillmer ◽  
Sharon E. Straus
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support Tool ◽  
The United States ◽  
Theory Model ◽  
User Preferences ◽  
Tool Development ◽  
End User ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Implementation Theory ◽  
Support Tool

Abstract Background: Implementation theories, models and frameworks offer guidance when implementing and sustaining healthcare evidence-based interventions. However, selection can be challenging given the myriad of potential options. We propose to develop a decision support tool to facilitate the appropriate selection of an implementation theory, model or framework in practice. To inform tool development, this study aimed to explore barriers and facilitators to identifying and selecting implementation theories, models and frameworks in research and practice, as well as end-user preferences for features and functions of the proposed tool.Methods: We used an interpretive descriptive approach to conduct semi-structured interviews with implementation researchers and practitioners in Canada, the United States and Australia. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim. Data were inductively coded by a single investigator with a subset of 20% coded independently by a second investigator and analyzed using thematic analysis.Results: Twenty-four individuals participated in the study. Categories of barriers/facilitators, to inform tool development, included characteristics of the individual or team conducting implementation and characteristics of the implementation theory, model or framework. Major barriers to selection included inconsistent terminology, poor fit with the implementation context and limited knowledge about and training in existing theories, models and frameworks. Major facilitators to selection included the importance of clear and concise language and evidence that the theory, model or framework was applied in a relevant health setting or context. Participants were enthusiastic about the development of a decision support tool that is user-friendly, accessible and practical. Preferences for tool features included key questions about the implementation intervention or project (e.g., purpose, stage of implementation, intended target for change) and a comprehensive list of relevant theories, models and frameworks to choose from along with a glossary of terms and the contexts in which they were applied.Conclusions: An easy to use decision support tool that addresses key barriers to selecting an implementation theory, model or framework in practice may be beneficial to individuals who facilitate implementation practice activities. Findings on end-user preferences for tool features and functions will inform tool development and design through a user-centered approach.

scholarly journals Identifying and selecting implementation theories, models and frameworks: a qualitative study to inform the development of a decision support tool

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Strifler ◽  
Jan M. Barnsley ◽  
Michael Hillmer ◽  
Sharon E. Straus
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support Tool ◽  
The United States ◽  
Theory Model ◽  
User Preferences ◽  
Tool Development ◽  
End User ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Implementation Theory ◽  
Support Tool

Abstract Background: Implementation theories, models and frameworks offer guidance when implementing and sustaining healthcare evidence-based interventions. However, selection can be challenging given the myriad of potential options. We propose to inform a decision support tool to facilitate the appropriate selection of an implementation theory, model or framework in practice. To inform tool development, this study aimed to explore barriers and facilitators to identifying and selecting implementation theories, models and frameworks in research and practice, as well as end-user preferences for features and functions of the proposed tool.Methods: We used an interpretive descriptive approach to conduct semi-structured interviews with implementation researchers and practitioners in Canada, the United States and Australia. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim. Data were inductively coded by a single investigator with a subset of 20% coded independently by a second investigator and analyzed using thematic analysis.Results: Twenty-four individuals participated in the study. Categories of barriers/facilitators, to inform tool development, included characteristics of the individual or team conducting implementation and characteristics of the implementation theory, model or framework. Major barriers to selection included inconsistent terminology, poor fit with the implementation context and limited knowledge about and training in existing theories, models and frameworks. Major facilitators to selection included the importance of clear and concise language and evidence that the theory, model or framework was applied in a relevant health setting or context. Participants were enthusiastic about the development of a decision support tool that is user-friendly, accessible and practical. Preferences for tool features included key questions about the implementation intervention or project (e.g., purpose, stage of implementation, intended target for change) and a comprehensive list of relevant theories, models and frameworks to choose from along with a glossary of terms and the contexts in which they were applied.Conclusions: An easy to use decision support tool that addresses key barriers to selecting an implementation theory, model or framework in practice may be beneficial to individuals who facilitate implementation practice activities. Findings on end-user preferences for tool features and functions will inform tool development and design through a user-centered approach.

scholarly journals Identifying and selecting implementation theories, models and frameworks: a qualitative study to inform the development of a decision support tool

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Strifler ◽  
Jan M. Barnsley ◽  
Michael Hillmer ◽  
Sharon E. Straus
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support Tool ◽  
The United States ◽  
Theory Model ◽  
User Preferences ◽  
Tool Development ◽  
End User ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Implementation Theory ◽  
Support Tool

Abstract Background Implementation theories, models and frameworks offer guidance when implementing and sustaining healthcare evidence-based interventions. However, selection can be challenging given the myriad of potential options. We propose to develop a decision support tool to facilitate the appropriate selection of an implementation theory, model or framework in practice. To inform tool development, this study aimed to explore barriers and facilitators to identifying and selecting implementation theories, models and frameworks in research and practice, as well as end-user preferences for features and functions of the proposed tool.Methods We used an interpretive descriptive approach to conduct semi-structured interviews with implementation researchers and practitioners in Canada, the United States and Australia. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim. Data were inductively coded by a single investigator with a subset of 20% coded independently by a second investigator and analyzed using thematic analysis.Results A total of 24 participants identified characteristics of the individual or team conducting implementation and characteristics of the implementation theory, model or framework as major categories of barriers/facilitators to inform tool development. Major barriers to selection included inconsistent terminology, poor fit with the implementation context and limited knowledge about and training in existing theories, models and frameworks. Major facilitators to selection included the importance of clear and concise language and evidence that the theory, model or framework was applied in a relevant health setting or context. Participants were enthusiastic about the development of a decision support tool that is user-friendly, accessible and practical. Preferences for tool features included key questions about the implementation intervention or project (e.g., purpose, stage of implementation, intended target for change) and a comprehensive list of relevant theories, models and frameworks to choose from along with a glossary of terms and the contexts in which they were applied.Conclusions An easy to use decision support tool that addresses key barriers to selecting an implementation theory, model or framework in practice may be beneficial to individuals who facilitate implementation practice activities. Findings on end-user preferences for tool features and functions will inform tool design and development through a user-centered approach.

scholarly journals The Artificial University: Decision Support for Universities in the COVID-19 Era

Complexity ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Wesley J. Wildman ◽  
Saikou Y. Diallo ◽  
George Hodulik ◽  
Andrew Page ◽  
Andreas Tolk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support Tool ◽  
Contact Tracing ◽  
Contact Network ◽  
Online Classes ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Support Tool ◽  
Available Information ◽  
Testing Protocols ◽  
Sheer Number

Operating universities under pandemic conditions is a complex undertaking. The Artificial University (TAU) responds to this need. TAU is a configurable, open-source computer simulation of a university using a contact network based on publicly available information about university classes, residences, and activities. This study evaluates health outcomes for an array of interventions and testing protocols in an artificial university of 6,500 students, faculty, and staff. Findings suggest that physical distancing and centralized contact tracing are most effective at reducing infections, but there is a tipping point for compliance below which physical distancing is less effective. If student compliance is anything short of high, it helps to have separate buildings for quarantining infected students, thereby gracefully increasing compliance. Hybrid in-person and online classes and closing fitness centers do not significantly change cumulative infections but do significantly decrease the number of the infected at any given time, indicating strategies for “flattening the curve” to protect limited resources. Supplementing physical distancing with centralized contact tracing decreases infected individuals by an additional 14%; boosting frequency of testing for student-facing staff yields a further 7% decrease. A trade-off exists between increasing the sheer number of infection tests and targeting testing for key nodes in the contact network (i.e., student-facing staff). There are significant advantages to getting and acting on test results quickly. The costs and benefits to universities of these findings are discussed. Artificial universities can be an important decision support tool for universities, generating useful policy insights into the challenges of operating universities under pandemic conditions.

Decision Support Tool Development for Energy Production at Water Reclamation Facilities

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 (19) ◽  
pp. 5312-5316
Author(s):  
J. S Smith ◽  
S. I Safferman ◽  
D. F Binkley ◽  
M. R Thomas ◽  
S. A Miller
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Energy Production ◽  
Decision Support Tool ◽  
Water Reclamation ◽  
Tool Development ◽  
Support Tool
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document