Understanding consumer evaluation criteria for repurchase in a performing arts context

The purpose of this paper is to examine consumers' experience of a performing arts service to identify the predictors of audience behaviour especially as related to positive repurchase intention. Experiential service settings such as the performing arts have been cited in recent research as service contexts that may challenge current theory that repurchase intention is driven by service quality and customer satisfaction. It is posited that consumer emotions and the hedonic nature of the consumption experience may complicate the evaluation process to repurchase intention in a setting such as the performing arts. Qualitative semi-structured indepth interviews were undertaken of twenty-six performing arts consumers using a pool of questions and prompts developed from a review of the extant literature. Transcribed field notes were examined for key words and phrases and data was divided into the main emergent themes related to each of the questions and also coded for confirmation and is-confirmation of the extant literature constructs and relationships. The dimensions of service experience,price, service quality, target goal-directed emotions and non-target appraisal emotions were identified as driving repurchase intention in a performing arts setting. Customer satisfaction in this setting appears to result from emotional factors rather than expectancy dis-confirmation. This research supports the notion that an experiential consumption experience such as the performing arts will challenge the current theory of the drivers of repurchase intention and suggests that a more thorough large scale examination of these dimensions in this service setting is warranted.

Evaluation of unsupervised semantic mapping of natural language with Leximancer concept mapping

The Leximancer system is a relatively new method for transforming lexical co-occurrence information from natural language into semantic patterns in an unsupervised manner. It employs two stages of co-occurrence information extraction-semantic and relational-using a different algorithm for each stage. The algorithms used are statistical, but they employ nonlinear dynamics and machine learning. This article is an attempt to validate the output of Leximancer, using a set of evaluation criteria taken from content analysis that are appropriate for knowledge discovery tasks.

Evaluation of WOMAC 20, 50, 70 response criteria in patients treated with hylan G-F 20 for knee osteoarthritis

Objective: A secondary analysis of a previously conducted one year randomised controlled trial to evaluate the capacity of responder criteria based on the WOMAC index to detect between treatment group differences. Methods: 255 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomised to appropriate care with hylan G-F 20'' (AC+H) or appropriate care without hylan G-F 20'' (AC). In the original analysis, two definitions of patient response from baseline to month 12 were used: ( 1) at least a 20% reduction in WOMAC pain score ( WOMAC 20P); ( 2) at least a 20% reduction in WOMAC pain score and at least a 20% reduction in either WOMAC function or stiffness score ( WOMAC 20PFS). For this analysis, a responder was identified using 50% and 70% minimum clinically important response levels to investigate how increasing response affects the ability to detect treatment group differences. Results: The hylan G- F 20 group had numerically more responders using all patient responder criteria. Increasing the response level from 20% to 50% detected similar differences between treatment groups (25% to 29%). Increasing the response level to 70% reduced the differences between treatment groups (11% to 12%) to a point where the differences were not significant after Bonferroni adjustment. Conclusions: These results provide evidence for incorporating response levels ( WOMAC 50) in clinical trials. While differences at the highest threshold ( WOMAC 70) were not statistically detectable, an appropriately powered study may be capable of detecting differences even at this very high level of improvement.

OMERACT-OARSI Initiative: Osteoarthritis Research Society International set of responder criteria for osteoarthritis clinical trials revisited.

Background: The OARSI Standing Committee for Clinical Trials Response Criteria Initiative had developed two sets of responder criteria to present the results of changes after treatment in three symptomatic domains (pain, function, and patient's global assessment) as a single variable for clinical trials (1). For each domain, a response was defined by both a relative and an absolute change, with different cut-offs with regard to the drug, the route of administration and the OA localization. Objective: To propose a simplified set of responder criteria with a similar cut-off, whatever the drug, the route or the OA localization. Methods: Data driven approach: (1) Two databases were considered The 'elaboration' database with which the formal OARSI sets of responder criteria were elaborated and The 'revisit' database. (2) Six different scenarios were evaluated: The two formal OARSI sets of criteria Four proposed scenarios of simplified sets of criteria Data from clinical randomized blinded placebo controlled trials were used to evaluate the performances of the two formal scenarios with two different databases ('elaboration' versus 'revisit') and those of the four proposed simplified scenarios within the 'revisit' database. The placebo effect, active effect, treatment effect, and the required sample arm size to obtain the placebo effect and the active treatment effect observed were the performances evaluated for each of the six scenarios. Experts' opinion approach: Results were discussed among the participants of the OMERACT VI meeting, who voted to select the definite OMERACT-OARSI set of criteria (one of the six evaluated scenarios). Results: Data driven approach: Fourteen trials totaling 1886 CA patients and fifteen studies involving 8164 CA patients were evaluated in the 'elaboration' and the 'revisit' databases respectively. The variability of the performances observed in the 'revisit' database when using the different simplified scenarios was similar to that observed between the two databases ('elaboration' versus 'revisit') when using the formal scenarios. The treatment effect and the required sample arm size were similar for each set of criteria. Experts' opinion approach: According to the experts, these two previous performances were the most important of an optimal set of responder criteria. They chose the set of criteria considering both pain and function as evaluation domain and requiring an absolute change and a relative change from baseline to define a response, with similar cut-offs whatever the drug, the route of administration or the CA localization. Conclusion: This data driven and experts' opinion approach is the basis for proposing an optimal simplified set of responder criteria for CA clinical trials. Other studies, using other sets of CA patients, are required in order to further validate this proposed OMERACT - OARSI set of criteria. (C) 2004 OsteoArthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The effectiveness of hylan G-F 20 in patients with knee osteoarthritis: an application of two sets of response criteria developed by the OARSI and one set developed by OMERACT-OARSI

Objective: Secondary analyses of a previously conducted 1-year randomized controlled trial were performed to assess the application of responder criteria in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) using different sets of responder criteria developed by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) (Propositions A and B) for intra-articular drugs and Outcome Measures in Arthritis Clinical Trials (OMERACT)-OARSI (Proposition D). Methods: Two hundred fifty-five patients with knee OA were randomized to appropriate care with hylan G-F 20 (AC + H) or appropriate care without hylan G-F 20 (AC). A patient was defined as a responder at month 12 based on change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain and function (0-100 normalized scale) and patient global assessment of OA in the study knee (at least one-category improvement in very poor, poor, fair, good and very good). All propositions incorporate both minimum relative and absolute changes. Results: Results demonstrated that statistically significant differences in responders between treatment groups, in favor of hylan G-F 20, were detected for Proposition A (AC + H = 53.5%, AC = 25.2%), Proposition B (AC + H = 56.7%, AC = 32.3%) and Proposition D (AC + H = 66.9%, AC = 42.5%). The highest effectiveness in both treatment groups was observed with Proposition D, whereas Proposition A resulted in the lowest effectiveness in both treatment groups. The treatment group differences always exceeded the required 20% minimum clinically important difference between groups established a priori, and were 28.3%, 24.4% and 24.4% for Propositions A, B and D, respectively. Conclusion: This analysis provides evidence for the capacity of OARSI and OMERACT-OARSI responder criteria to detect clinically important statistically detectable differences between treatment groups. (C) 2004 OsteoArthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement

Background: In clinical trials, at the group level, results are usually reported as mean and standard deviation of the change in score, which is not meaningful for most readers. Objective: To determine the minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) of pain, patient's global assessment of disease activity, and functional impairment in patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: A prospective multicentre 4 week cohort study involving 1362 outpatients with knee or hip OA was carried out. Data on assessment of pain and patient's global assessment, measured on visual analogue scales, and functional impairment, measured on the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function subscale, were collected at baseline and final visits. Patients assessed their response to treatment on a five point Likert scale at the final visit. An anchoring method based on the patient's opinion was used. The MCII was estimated in a subgroup of 814 patients ( 603 with knee OA, 211 with hip OA). Results: For knee and hip OA, MCII for absolute ( and relative) changes were, respectively, ( a) -19.9 mm (-40.8%) and -15.3 mm (-32.0%) for pain; ( b) -18.3 mm ( - 39.0%) and -15.2 mm ( -32.6%) for patient's global assessment; ( c) -9.1 ( -26.0%) and -7.9 ( -21.1%) for WOMAC function subscale score. The MCII is affected by the initial degree of severity of the symptoms but not by age, disease duration, or sex. Conclusion: Using criteria such as MCII in clinical trials would provide meaningful information which would help in interpreting the results by expressing them as a proportion of improved patients.

Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state

Background: The patient acceptable symptom state ( PASS) is the value beyond which patients can consider themselves well. This concept can help in interpreting results of clinical trials. Objective: To determine the PASS estimate for patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) by assessing pain, patient's global assessment of disease activity, and functional impairment. Methods: A 4 week prospective multicentre cohort study of 1362 outpatients with knee or hip OA was carried out. Data on assessment of pain and patient's global assessment of disease, measured on visual analogue scales, and functional impairment, measured on the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function subscale, were collected at baseline and final visits. The patients assessed their satisfaction with their current state at the final visit. An anchoring method based on the patient's opinion was used. Results: For patients with knee and hip OA, the estimates of PASS were, respectively, 32.3 and 35.0 mm for pain, 32.0 and 34.6 mm for patient global assessment of disease activity, and 31.0 and 34.4 points for WOMAC function score. The PASS varied moderately across the tertiles of baseline scores but not across age, disease duration, or sex. Conclusion: The use of PASS in clinical trials would provide more meaningful results expressed as a proportion of patients in an acceptable symptom state.

Power generation investment opportunities evaluation: A comparison between net present value and real options approach

To evaluate an investment project in the competitive electricity market, there are several key factors that affects the project's value: the present value that the project could bring to investor, the possible future course of actions that investor has and the project's management flexibility. The traditional net present value (NPV) criteria has the ability to capture the present value of the project's future cash flow, but it fails to assess the value brought by market uncertainty and management flexibility. By contrast with NPV, the real options approach (ROA) method has the advantage to combining the uncertainty and flexibility in evaluation process. In this paper, a framework for using ROA to evaluate the generation investment opportunity has been proposed. By given a detailed case study, the proposed framework is compared with NPV and showing a different results

Comparison of ASAS improvement criteria for ankylosing spondylitis with clinically relevant improvement according to an expert panel

Objective: To investigate whether the recently developed (statistically derived) "ASsessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis Working Group" improvement criteria (ASAS-IC) for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) reflect clinically relevant improvement according to the opinion of an expert panel. Methods: The ASAS-IC consist of four domains: physical function, spinal pain, patient global assessment, and inflammation. Scores on these four domains of 55 patients with AS, who had participated in a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug efficacy trial, were presented to an international expert panel (consisting of patients with AS and members of the ASAS Working Group) in a three round Delphi exercise. The number of (non-) responders according to the ASAS-IC was compared with the final-consensus of the experts. The most important domains in the opinion of the experts were identified, and also selected with discriminant analysis. A number of provisional criteria sets that best represented the consensus of the experts were defined. Using other datasets, these clinically derived criteria sets as well as the statistically derived ASAS-IC were then tested for discriminative properties and for agreement with the end of trial efficacy by patient and doctor. Results: Forty experts completed the three Delphi rounds. The experts considered twice as many patients to be responders than the ASAS-IC (42 v 21). Overall agreement between experts and ASAS-IC was 62%. Spinal pain was considered the most important domain by most experts and was also selected as such by discriminant analysis. Provisional criteria sets with an agreement of greater than or equal to 80% compared with the consensus of the experts showed high placebo response rates (27-42%), in contrast with the ASAS-IC with a predefined placebo response rate of 25%. All criteria sets and the ASAS-IC discriminated well between active and placebo treatment (chi(2) = 36-45; p < 0.001). Compared with the end of trial efficacy assessment, the provisional criteria sets showed an agreement of 71-82%, sensitivity of 67-83%, and specificity of 81-88%. The ASAS-IC showed an agreement of 70%, sensitivity of 62%, and specificity of 89%. Conclusion: The ASAS-IC are strict in defining response, are highly specific, and consequently show lower sensitivity than the clinically derived criteria sets. However, those patients who are considered as responders by applying the ASAS-IC are acknowledged as such by the expert panel as well as by. patients' and doctors' judgments, and are therefore likely to be true responders.