How do indirect measures of evaluation work? Evaluating the inference of prejudice in the Implicit Association Test

There has been significant interest in indirect measures of attitudes like the Implicit Association Test (IAT), presumably because of the possibility of uncovering implicit prejudices. The authors derived a set of qualitative predictions for people's performance in the IAT on the basis of random walk models. These were supported in 3 experiments comparing clearly positive or negative categories to nonwords. They also provided evidence that participants shift their response criterion when doing the IAT. Because of these criterion shifts, a response pattern in the IAT can have multiple causes. Thus, it is not possible to infer a single cause (such as prejudice) from IAT results. A surprising additional result was that nonwords were treated as though they were evaluated more negatively than obviously negative items like insects, suggesting that low familiarity items may generate the pattern of data previously interpreted as evidence for implicit prejudice.

A novel multidimensional geriatric screening tool in the ED: evaluation of feasibility and clinical relevance

PURPOSES Geriatric problems frequently go undetected in older patients in emergency departments (EDs), thus increasing their risk of adverse outcomes. We evaluated a novel emergency geriatric screening (EGS) tool designed to detect geriatric problems. BASIC PROCEDURES The EGS tool consisted of short validated instruments used to screen 4 domains (cognition, falls, mobility, and activities of daily living). Emergency geriatric screening was introduced for ED patients 75 years or older throughout a 4-month period. We analyzed the prevalence of abnormal EGS and whether EGS increased the number of EGS-related diagnoses in the ED during the screening, as compared with a preceding control period. MAIN FINDINGS Emergency geriatric screening was performed on 338 (42.5%) of 795 patients presenting during screening. Emergency geriatric screening was unfeasible in 175 patients (22.0%) because of life-threatening conditions and was not performed in 282 (35.5%) for logistical reasons. Emergency geriatric screening took less than 5 minutes to perform in most (85.8%) cases. Among screened patients, 285 (84.3%) had at least 1 abnormal EGS finding. In 270 of these patients, at least 1 abnormal EGS finding did not result in a diagnosis in the ED and was reported for further workup to subsequent care. During screening, 142 patients (42.0%) had at least 1 diagnosis listed within the 4 EGS domains, significantly more than the 29.3% in the control period (odds ratio 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.29; P<.001). Emergency geriatric screening predicted nursing home admission after the in-hospital stay (odds ratio for ≥3 vs <3 abnormal domains 12.13; 95% confidence interval, 2.79-52.72; P=.001). PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS The novel EGS is feasible, identifies previously undetected geriatric problems, and predicts determinants of subsequent care.

Management of Joint Research Activities within ERA-ARD: Guidelines for ARD programme planning, monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment

The present document has been elaborated in the context of the ERA-ARD project “The Agricultural Research for Development (ARD) dimension of the European Research Area (ERA) “. It is based on work done within Task 3.2 to identify a set of common or compatible methodologies for ARD planning, monitoring and evaluation and impact assessment. This set should serve as a guide for the management of joint ARD activities that are presently developed within the framework of the ERA-ARD project.

Dexmedetomidine versus standard care sedation with propofol or midazolam in intensive care: an economic evaluation.

INTRODUCTION Dexmedetomidine was shown in two European randomized double-blind double-dummy trials (PRODEX and MIDEX) to be non-inferior to propofol and midazolam in maintaining target sedation levels in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Additionally, dexmedetomidine shortened the time to extubation versus both standard sedatives, suggesting that it may reduce ICU resource needs and thus lower ICU costs. Considering resource utilization data from these two trials, we performed a secondary, cost-minimization analysis assessing the economics of dexmedetomidine versus standard care sedation. METHODS The total ICU costs associated with each study sedative were calculated on the basis of total study sedative consumption and the number of days patients remained intubated, required non-invasive ventilation, or required ICU care without mechanical ventilation. The daily unit costs for these three consecutive ICU periods were set to decline toward discharge, reflecting the observed reduction in mean daily Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (TISS) points between the periods. A number of additional sensitivity analyses were performed, including one in which the total ICU costs were based on the cumulative sum of daily TISS points over the ICU period, and two further scenarios, with declining direct variable daily costs only. RESULTS Based on pooled data from both trials, sedation with dexmedetomidine resulted in lower total ICU costs than using the standard sedatives, with a difference of €2,656 in the median (interquartile range) total ICU costs-€11,864 (€7,070 to €23,457) versus €14,520 (€7,871 to €26,254)-and €1,649 in the mean total ICU costs. The median (mean) total ICU costs with dexmedetomidine compared with those of propofol or midazolam were €1,292 (€747) and €3,573 (€2,536) lower, respectively. The result was robust, indicating lower costs with dexmedetomidine in all sensitivity analyses, including those in which only direct variable ICU costs were considered. The likelihood of dexmedetomidine resulting in lower total ICU costs compared with pooled standard care was 91.0% (72.4% versus propofol and 98.0% versus midazolam). CONCLUSIONS From an economic point of view, dexmedetomidine appears to be a preferable option compared with standard sedatives for providing light to moderate ICU sedation exceeding 24 hours. The savings potential results primarily from shorter time to extubation. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00479661 (PRODEX), NCT00481312 (MIDEX).