Let's talk: public evaluation of large projects: variational inequialities, bilevel programming and complementarity. a survey

Large projects evaluation rises well known difficulties because -by definition- they modify the current price system; their public evaluation presents additional difficulties because they modify too existing shadow prices without the project. This paper analyzes -first- the basic methodologies applied until late 80s., based on the integration of projects in optimization models or, alternatively, based on iterative procedures with information exchange between two organizational levels. New methodologies applied afterwards are based on variational inequalities, bilevel programming and linear or nonlinear complementarity. Their foundations and different applications related with project evaluation are explored. As a matter of fact, these new tools are closely related among them and can treat more complex cases involving -for example- the reaction of agents to policies or the existence of multiple agents in an environment characterized by common functions representing demands or constraints on polluting emissions.

Reporting a program evaluation: Needs, program plan, intervention, and decisions

The approach to intervention programs varies depending on the methodological perspective adopted. This means that health professionals lack clear guidelines regarding how best to proceed, and it hinders the accumulation of knowledge. The aim of this paper is to set out the essential and common aspects that should be included in any program evaluation report, thereby providing a useful guide for the professional regardless of the procedural approach used. Furthermore, the paper seeks to integrate the different methodologies and illustrate their complementarity, this being a key aspect in terms of real intervention contexts, which are constantly changing. The aspects to be included are presented in relation to the main stages of the evaluation process: needs, objectives and design (prior to the intervention), implementation (during the intervention), and outcomes (after the intervention). For each of these stages the paper describes the elements on which decisions should be based, highlighting the role of empirical evidence gathered through the application of instruments to defined samples and according to a given procedure.

Evaluation of potential breath biomarkers for active smoking: assessment of smoking habits

Different compounds have been reported as biomarkers of a smoking habit, but, to date, there is no appropriate biomarker for tobacco-related exposure because the proposed chemicals seem to be nonspecific or they are only appropriate for short-term exposure. Moreover, conventional sampling methodologies require an invasive method because blood or urine samples are required. The use of a microtrap system coupled to gas chromatography–mass spectrometry analysis has been found to be very effective for the noninvasive analysis of volatile organic compounds in breath samples. The levels of benzene, 2,5-dimethylfuran, toluene, o-xylene, and m- p-xylene have been analyzed in breath samples obtained from 204 volunteers (100 smokers, 104 nonsmokers; 147 females, 57 males; ages 16 to 53 years). 2,5-Dimethylfuran was always below the limit of detection (0.005 ppbv) in the nonsmoker population and always detected in smokers independently of the smoking habits. Benzene was only an effective biomarker for medium and heavy smokers, and its level was affected by smoking habits. Regarding the levels of xylenes and toluene, they were only different in heavy smokers and after short-term exposure. The results obtained suggest that 2,5-dimethylfuran is a specific breath biomarker of smoking status independently of the smoking habits (e.g., short- and long-term exposure, light and heavy consumption), and so this compound might be useful as a biomarker of smoking exposure

Evaluation of potential breath biomarkers for active smoking: assessment of smoking habits

Different compounds have been reported as biomarkers of a smoking habit, but, to date, there is no appropriate biomarker for tobacco-related exposure because the proposed chemicals seem to be nonspecific or they are only appropriate for short-term exposure. Moreover, conventional sampling methodologies require an invasive method because blood or urine samples are required. The use of a microtrap system coupled to gas chromatography–mass spectrometry analysis has been found to be very effective for the noninvasive analysis of volatile organic compounds in breath samples. The levels of benzene, 2,5-dimethylfuran, toluene, o-xylene, and m- p-xylene have been analyzed in breath samples obtained from 204 volunteers (100 smokers, 104 nonsmokers; 147 females, 57 males; ages 16 to 53 years). 2,5-Dimethylfuran was always below the limit of detection (0.005 ppbv) in the nonsmoker population and always detected in smokers independently of the smoking habits. Benzene was only an effective biomarker for medium and heavy smokers, and its level was affected by smoking habits. Regarding the levels of xylenes and toluene, they were only different in heavy smokers and after short-term exposure. The results obtained suggest that 2,5-dimethylfuran is a specific breath biomarker of smoking status independently of the smoking habits (e.g., short- and long-term exposure, light and heavy consumption), and so this compound might be useful as a biomarker of smoking exposure