Exploiting the crowd: The New Zealand response to equity crowd funding

<p>The crowd funding exclusion in the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 allows issuers, often innovative start-up businesses, to raise up to $2,000,000 in a 12 month period from retail investors through an internet platform provided by a licensed intermediary service, without the need for the product disclosure statement and on-line disclosures usually required under Part 3 of the Act. In order to protect the interests of investors in a market with a high risk of negligible return, other protections need to be provided. International jurisdictions have imposed investor caps, but New Zealand has failed to do so. This essay argues that, particularly in light of shortcomings with other aspects of crowd funding investor protections, a mandatory investor cap of five per cent of the amount being raised should be imposed, to protect investors both from the high risks of venture capital investing and from their own inexperience in this new and rapidly developing market.</p>

Exploiting the crowd: The New Zealand response to equity crowd funding

<p>The crowd funding exclusion in the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 allows issuers, often innovative start-up businesses, to raise up to $2,000,000 in a 12 month period from retail investors through an internet platform provided by a licensed intermediary service, without the need for the product disclosure statement and on-line disclosures usually required under Part 3 of the Act. In order to protect the interests of investors in a market with a high risk of negligible return, other protections need to be provided. International jurisdictions have imposed investor caps, but New Zealand has failed to do so. This essay argues that, particularly in light of shortcomings with other aspects of crowd funding investor protections, a mandatory investor cap of five per cent of the amount being raised should be imposed, to protect investors both from the high risks of venture capital investing and from their own inexperience in this new and rapidly developing market.</p>

Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Systematic Reviews Regarding the Management of Chronic Non-Cancer Pain with Opioids Analgesics

Objective We sought to determine whether author conflict of interest (disclosed or undisclosed) or industry sponsorship influenced the favorability of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating the use of opioid analgesics for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. Methods Our search included the MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) databases. Study sponsorship was determined using the funding statement provided in each systematic review. Author COI information was extracted from the COI disclosure statement. This information was cross-referenced with information available on the CMS Open Payments Database, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and previously published COI disclosures. Results Eight systematic reviews authored by 83 authors were included. Of these authors, 19 (23.0%) were found to have a COI, of which the majority (17/19; 89.5%) had at least one undisclosed COI. Despite nearly one-quarter of authors having a COI, we found no association between the presence of a COI and the favorability of results (P = 0.64) or conclusions (P = 0.07). Conclusions COI are common and frequently undisclosed among systematic review authors investigating opioid analgesics for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. Despite a high prevalence of COI, we did not find that these author-industry relationships had a significant influence on the favorability of results and conclusions; however, our findings should be considered a lower bound estimate of the true influence author COI have on outcomes of pain medicine systematic reviews secondary to the low sample size included in the present study.

The Effects of Written Stuttering Disclosure on the Perceptions of a Child Who Stutters

Purpose This study measured between-groups differences in perceived speech skills and personality characteristics of a 12-year-old male child who stutters (CWS) as a function of a written factual stuttering disclosure statement, delivered by the CWS, his “mother,” or his “teacher.” Method Four hundred twenty-four college-age adults were assigned to one of four groups, including three experimental groups (i.e., written self-disclosure, mother-written disclosure, and teacher-written disclosure) and a control group (no written disclosure). Participants in the control conditions viewed a brief video of the CWS. In the experimental conditions, participants read a brief written disclosure statement for 30 s, followed by the same video used in the control condition. After viewing the video, all participants completed surveys relative to their perceptions of the CWS speech skills and personality characteristics. Results Results reveal that a written stuttering disclosure statement provided by the mother correlated with select significant desirable perceptual differences of the CWS, while a written disclosure statement provided by the CWS yielded insignificant or even undesirable perceptual differences of the CWS. Written stuttering disclosures provided by a “teacher” did not yield any significant between-groups differences in the perception of a CWS. Gender affiliation was found to be a source of covariance in a number of perceived speech skills and personality characteristics. Conclusions Written stuttering disclosure statements provided by the “mother” correlated with select favorable perceptual differences of speech skills and personal characteristics of a CWS. Clinically, the application of novel methods (written and oral disclosure statements) and sources (i.e., CWS advocates such as “mother” and “teacher”) of stuttering disclosure statement can be integrated into a systematic therapeutic program, creating an innovative approach of scaffolding self-advocacy via stuttering disclosure in CWS. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.15505857

Estimating the Prevalence of Transparency and Reproducibility-Related Research Practices in Psychology (2014–2017)

Psychologists are navigating an unprecedented period of introspection about the credibility and utility of their discipline. Reform initiatives emphasize the benefits of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices; however, adoption across the psychology literature is unknown. Estimating the prevalence of such practices will help to gauge the collective impact of reform initiatives, track progress over time, and calibrate future efforts. To this end, we manually examined a random sample of 250 psychology articles published between 2014 and 2017. Over half of the articles were publicly available (154/237, 65%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [59%, 71%]); however, sharing of research materials (26/183; 14%, 95% CI = [10%, 19%]), study protocols (0/188; 0%, 95% CI = [0%, 1%]), raw data (4/188; 2%, 95% CI = [1%, 4%]), and analysis scripts (1/188; 1%, 95% CI = [0%, 1%]) was rare. Preregistration was also uncommon (5/188; 3%, 95% CI = [1%, 5%]). Many articles included a funding disclosure statement (142/228; 62%, 95% CI = [56%, 69%]), but conflict-of-interest statements were less common (88/228; 39%, 95% CI = [32%, 45%]). Replication studies were rare (10/188; 5%, 95% CI = [3%, 8%]), and few studies were included in systematic reviews (21/183; 11%, 95% CI = [8%, 16%]) or meta-analyses (12/183; 7%, 95% CI = [4%, 10%]). Overall, the results suggest that transparency and reproducibility-related research practices were far from routine. These findings establish baseline prevalence estimates against which future progress toward increasing the credibility and utility of psychology research can be compared.

Should we use glucocorticoid in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis?: Results at 5 years from the ERA UCLouvain Brussels cohort

Objectives To evaluate the proportion of patients with ERA who have initiated or not GC, to analyse the baseline characteristics, and to assess the clinical benefit and side effects of GC during 5 years of follow-up. Methods We included patients with ERA from the UCLouvain Brussels cohort who met the ACR/EULAR 2010 classification criteria and were naïve to cDMARDs. We retrospectively collected patient characteristics prior to the introduction of cDMARDs with or without GC. Efficiency and serious adverse events were analysed at 6, 12, 36 and 60 months. Results Data from 474 eligible ERA patients were collected. 180 patients initiated GC compared with 294 who did not. At baseline, the increased CRP is the main factor that favors the initiation of GC followed by smoking, absence of ACPA, prescription of methotrexate as a monotherapy and age. 5 years follow-up of DAS28-CRP, HAQ or VAS pain values did not differ between the two groups. We also analysed a subgroup of 139 patients who received &gt;1 g of prednisolone during the 5 years period. We confirmed the same baseline differences and observed in addition more males and higher DAS-28CRP values. During the 5 years follow up, DAS-28CRP, VAS pain and HAQ remained significantly higher in this subgroup. More severe infections were also reported. Conclusion In our ERA cohort, the initiation of GC treatment does not bring additional benefit for the short and long-term control of the disease. GC was more prescribed in seronegative RA patients with a higher level of inflammation. Disclosure statement the authors declare no conflicts of interest. Ethics statement authors declare that the study complies with the Declaration of Helsinki.

The Effects of Different Sources of Stuttering Disclosure on the Perceptions of a Child Who Stutters

Purpose This study measured between-group differences in perceived speech skills and personality characteristics of a 12-year-old boy who stutters as a function of a factual stuttering disclosure statement, delivered by the boy who stutters, his “mother,” or his “teacher.” Method Two hundred seventeen college-aged adults were randomly assigned to one of four groups, including a control group (no stuttering disclosure) and three experimental groups (child disclosure, mother disclosure, and teacher disclosure). Participants in the control condition viewed a brief video of a 12-year-old boy who stutters. For the experimental conditions, participants viewed a brief factual stuttering disclosure video (delivered by the child, mother, or teacher), followed by the same minute-long video of a boy who stutters used in the control condition. Following the videos, participants completed surveys relative to their perception of the boy's speech skills and personality characteristics. Results Results support previous research citing benefits of stuttering disclosure. Significant between-group differences in both perceived speech skills and personality characteristics were observed when stuttering was disclosed by not only the child who stutters but also his teacher. When stuttering was disclosed by the mother, limited positive attitudinal differences were observed in speech skills; as a matter of fact, a number of personality characteristics were perceived more negatively as a function of stuttering disclosure by the mother. Conclusions While results were generally most positive when the boy disclosed his own stuttering, data from this study support the efficacy of verbal stuttering disclosure provided by a teacher as a means of improving perceptions associated with stuttering. Accordingly, data support the notion that children who stutter will experience an improved quality of life when taught effective self-disclosure strategies by both parents and professionals, and that professionals (but not necessarily parents) can effectively disclose their clients' stuttering during this mentorship and self-advocacy process.

Estimating the prevalence of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices in psychology (2014-2017)

Psychologists are navigating an unprecedented period of introspection about the credibility and utility of their discipline. Reform initiatives have emphasized the benefits of several transparency and reproducibility-related research practices; however, their adoption across the psychology literature is unknown. To estimate their prevalence, we manually examined a random sample of 250 psychology articles published between 2014-2017. Over half of the articles were publicly available (154/237, 65% [95% confidence interval, 59%-71%]); however, sharing of research materials (26/183, 14% [10%-19%]), study protocols (0/188, 0% [0%-1%]), raw data (4/188, 2% [1%-4%]), and analysis scripts (1/188, 1% [0%-1%]) was rare. Pre-registration was also uncommon (5/188, 3% [1%-5%]). Many articles included a funding disclosure statement (142/228, 62% [56%-69%]), but conflict of interest statements were less common (88/228, 39% [32%-45%]). Replication studies were rare (10/188, 5% [3%-8%]) and few studies were included in systematic reviews (21/183, 11% [8%-16%]) or meta-analyses (12/183, 7% [4%-10%]). Overall, the results suggest that transparency and reproducibility-related research practices were far from routine. These findings establish a baseline which can be used to assess future progress towards increasing the credibility and utility of psychology research.