6 resultados para Collaborative research
em Duke University
Resumo:
This dissertation consists of three essays on behavioral economics, with a general aim of enriching our understanding of economic decisions using behavioral insights and experimental methodology. Each essay takes on one particular topic with this general aim.
The first chapter studies savings behavior of the poor. In this project, partnering with a savings product provider in Kenya, we tested the extent to which behavioral interventions and financial incentives can increase the saving rate of individuals with low and irregular income. Our experiment lasted for six months and included a total of twelve conditions. The control condition received weekly reminders and balance reporting via text messages. The treatment conditions received in addition one of the following interventions: (1) reminder text messages framed as if they came from the participant’s kid (2) a golden colored coin with numbers for each week of the trial, on which participants were asked to keep track of their weekly deposits (3) a match of weekly savings: The match was either 10% or 20% up to a certain amount per week. The match was either deposited at the end of each week or the highest possible match was deposited at the start of each week and was adjusted at the end. Among these interventions, by far the most effective was the coin: Those in the coin condition saved on average the highest amount and more than twice as those in the control condition. We hypothesize that being a tangible track-keeping object; the coin made subjects remember to save more often. Our results support the line of literature suggesting that saving decisions involve psychological aspects and that policy makers and product designers should take these influences into account.
The second chapter is related to views towards inequality. In this project, we investigate how the perceived fairness of income distributions depends on the beliefs about the process that generated the inequality. Specifically, we examine how two crucial features of this process affect fairness views: (1) Procedural justice - equal treatment of all, (2) Agency - one's ability to determine his/her income. We do this in a lab experiment by varying the equality of opportunity (procedural justice), and one's ability to make choices, which consequently influence subjects’ ability to influence their income (agency). We then elicit ex-post redistribution decisions of the earnings as a function of these two elements. Our results suggest both agency and procedural justice matter for fairness. Our main findings can be summarized as follows: (1) Highlighting the importance of agency, we find that inequality resulting from risk is considered to be fair only when risk is chosen freely; (2) Highlighting the importance of procedural justice, we find that introducing inequality of opportunity significantly increases redistribution, however the share of subjects redistributing none remain close to the share of subjects redistributing fully revealing an underlying heterogeneity in the population about how fairness views should account for inequality of opportunity.
The third chapter is on morality. In this project, we study whether religious rituals act as an internal reminder for basic moral principles and thus affect moral judgments. To this end, we conducted two survey experiments in Turkey and Israel to specifically test the effect of Ramadan and Yom Kippur. The results from the Turkish sample how that Ramadan has a significant effect on moral judgments to some extent for those who report to believe in God. Those who believe in God judged the moral acceptability of ten out of sixty one actions significantly differently in Ramadan, whereas those who reported not to believe in God significantly changed their judgments only for one action in Ramadan. Our results extends the hypothesis established by lab experiments that religious reminders have a significant effect on morality, by testing it in the field in the natural environment of religious rituals.
This thesis is part of a broader collaborative research agenda with both colleagues and advisors. The programming, analyses, and writing, as well as any errors in this work, are my own.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Sharing of epidemiological and clinical data sets among researchers is poor at best, in detriment of science and community at large. The purpose of this paper is therefore to (1) describe a novel Web application designed to share information on study data sets focusing on epidemiological clinical research in a collaborative environment and (2) create a policy model placing this collaborative environment into the current scientific social context. METHODOLOGY: The Database of Databases application was developed based on feedback from epidemiologists and clinical researchers requiring a Web-based platform that would allow for sharing of information about epidemiological and clinical study data sets in a collaborative environment. This platform should ensure that researchers can modify the information. A Model-based predictions of number of publications and funding resulting from combinations of different policy implementation strategies (for metadata and data sharing) were generated using System Dynamics modeling. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The application allows researchers to easily upload information about clinical study data sets, which is searchable and modifiable by other users in a wiki environment. All modifications are filtered by the database principal investigator in order to maintain quality control. The application has been extensively tested and currently contains 130 clinical study data sets from the United States, Australia, China and Singapore. Model results indicated that any policy implementation would be better than the current strategy, that metadata sharing is better than data-sharing, and that combined policies achieve the best results in terms of publications. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our empirical observations and resulting model, the social network environment surrounding the application can assist epidemiologists and clinical researchers contribute and search for metadata in a collaborative environment, thus potentially facilitating collaboration efforts among research communities distributed around the globe.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Palliative medicine has made rapid progress in establishing its scientific and clinical legitimacy, yet the evidence base to support clinical practice remains deficient in both the quantity and quality of published studies. Historically, the conduct of research in palliative care populations has been impeded by multiple barriers including health care system fragmentation, small number and size of potential sites for recruitment, vulnerability of the population, perceptions of inappropriateness, ethical concerns, and gate-keeping. METHODS: A group of experienced investigators with backgrounds in palliative care research convened to consider developing a research cooperative group as a mechanism for generating high-quality evidence on prioritized, clinically relevant topics in palliative care. RESULTS: The resulting Palliative Care Research Cooperative (PCRC) agreed on a set of core principles: active, interdisciplinary membership; commitment to shared research purposes; heterogeneity of participating sites; development of research capacity in participating sites; standardization of methodologies, such as consenting and data collection/management; agile response to research requests from government, industry, and investigators; focus on translation; education and training of future palliative care researchers; actionable results that can inform clinical practice and policy. Consensus was achieved on a first collaborative study, a randomized clinical trial of statin discontinuation versus continuation in patients with a prognosis of less than 6 months who are taking statins for primary or secondary prevention. This article describes the formation of the PCRC, highlighting processes and decisions taken to optimize the cooperative group's success.
Resumo:
© 2016 The Authors.We revisit the "paradox of openness" in the literature which consists of two conflicting views on the link between patenting and open innovation-the spillover prevention and the organizational openness views. We use the data from the Survey of Innovation and Patent Use and the Community Innovation Survey (CIS6) in the UK to assess the empirical support for the distinct predictions of these theories. We argue that both patenting and external sourcing (openness) are jointly-determined decisions made by firms. Their relationship is contingent upon whether the firms are technically superior to their rivals and lead in the market or not. Leading firms are more vulnerable to unintended knowledge spillovers during collaboration as compared to followers, and consequently, the increase in patenting due to openness is higher for leaders than for followers. We develop a simple framework that allows us to formally derive the empirical implications of this hypothesis and test it by estimating whether the reduced form relationship between patenting and collaboration is stronger for leaders than for followers.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Patients, clinicians, researchers and payers are seeking to understand the value of using genomic information (as reflected by genotyping, sequencing, family history or other data) to inform clinical decision-making. However, challenges exist to widespread clinical implementation of genomic medicine, a prerequisite for developing evidence of its real-world utility. METHODS: To address these challenges, the National Institutes of Health-funded IGNITE (Implementing GeNomics In pracTicE; www.ignite-genomics.org ) Network, comprised of six projects and a coordinating center, was established in 2013 to support the development, investigation and dissemination of genomic medicine practice models that seamlessly integrate genomic data into the electronic health record and that deploy tools for point of care decision making. IGNITE site projects are aligned in their purpose of testing these models, but individual projects vary in scope and design, including exploring genetic markers for disease risk prediction and prevention, developing tools for using family history data, incorporating pharmacogenomic data into clinical care, refining disease diagnosis using sequence-based mutation discovery, and creating novel educational approaches. RESULTS: This paper describes the IGNITE Network and member projects, including network structure, collaborative initiatives, clinical decision support strategies, methods for return of genomic test results, and educational initiatives for patients and providers. Clinical and outcomes data from individual sites and network-wide projects are anticipated to begin being published over the next few years. CONCLUSIONS: The IGNITE Network is an innovative series of projects and pilot demonstrations aiming to enhance translation of validated actionable genomic information into clinical settings and develop and use measures of outcome in response to genome-based clinical interventions using a pragmatic framework to provide early data and proofs of concept on the utility of these interventions. Through these efforts and collaboration with other stakeholders, IGNITE is poised to have a significant impact on the acceleration of genomic information into medical practice.
Resumo:
INTRODUCTION: The ability to reproducibly identify clinically equivalent patient populations is critical to the vision of learning health care systems that implement and evaluate evidence-based treatments. The use of common or semantically equivalent phenotype definitions across research and health care use cases will support this aim. Currently, there is no single consolidated repository for computable phenotype definitions, making it difficult to find all definitions that already exist, and also hindering the sharing of definitions between user groups. METHOD: Drawing from our experience in an academic medical center that supports a number of multisite research projects and quality improvement studies, we articulate a framework that will support the sharing of phenotype definitions across research and health care use cases, and highlight gaps and areas that need attention and collaborative solutions. FRAMEWORK: An infrastructure for re-using computable phenotype definitions and sharing experience across health care delivery and clinical research applications includes: access to a collection of existing phenotype definitions, information to evaluate their appropriateness for particular applications, a knowledge base of implementation guidance, supporting tools that are user-friendly and intuitive, and a willingness to use them. NEXT STEPS: We encourage prospective researchers and health administrators to re-use existing EHR-based condition definitions where appropriate and share their results with others to support a national culture of learning health care. There are a number of federally funded resources to support these activities, and research sponsors should encourage their use.