Toisenlainen muusikkoelämäkerta

Luettua

Social inequalities of functioning and perceived health in Switzerland: a representative cross-sectional analysis.

Many people worldwide live with a disability, i.e. limitations in functioning. The prevalence is expected to increase due to demographic change and the growing importance of non-communicable disease and injury. To date, many epidemiological studies have used simple dichotomous measures of disability, even though the WHO's International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) provides a multi-dimensional framework of functioning. We aimed to examine associations of socio-economic status (SES) and social integration in 3 core domains of functioning (impairment, pain, limitations in activity and participation) and perceived health. We conducted a secondary analysis of representative cross-sectional data of the Swiss Health Survey 2007 including 10,336 female and 8,424 male Swiss residents aged 15 or more. Guided by a theoretical ICF-based model, 4 mixed effects Poisson regressions were fitted in order to explain functioning and perceived health by indicators of SES and social integration. Analyses were stratified by age groups (15-30, 31-54, ≥55 years). In all age groups, SES and social integration were significantly associated with functional and perceived health. Among the functional domains, impairment and pain were closely related, and both were associated with limitations in activity and participation. SES, social integration and functioning were related to perceived health. We found pronounced social inequalities in functioning and perceived health, supporting our theoretical model. Social factors play a significant role in the experience of health, even in a wealthy country such as Switzerland. These findings await confirmation in other, particularly lower resourced settings.

Detecting, quantifying and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses: protocol of a systematic review on methods.

BACKGROUND: Health professionals and policymakers aspire to make healthcare decisions based on the entire relevant research evidence. This, however, can rarely be achieved because a considerable amount of research findings are not published, especially in case of 'negative' results - a phenomenon widely recognized as publication bias. Different methods of detecting, quantifying and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses have been described in the literature, such as graphical approaches and formal statistical tests to detect publication bias, and statistical approaches to modify effect sizes to adjust a pooled estimate when the presence of publication bias is suspected. An up-to-date systematic review of the existing methods is lacking. METHODS/DESIGN: The objectives of this systematic review are as follows:âeuro¢ To systematically review methodological articles which focus on non-publication of studies and to describe methods of detecting and/or quantifying and/or adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses.âeuro¢ To appraise strengths and weaknesses of methods, the resources they require, and the conditions under which the method could be used, based on findings of included studies.We will systematically search Web of Science, Medline, and the Cochrane Library for methodological articles that describe at least one method of detecting and/or quantifying and/or adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses. A dedicated data extraction form is developed and pilot-tested. Working in teams of two, we will independently extract relevant information from each eligible article. As this will be a qualitative systematic review, data reporting will involve a descriptive summary. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available in mid 2013. This systematic review together with the results of other systematic reviews of the OPEN project (To Overcome Failure to Publish Negative Findings) will serve as a basis for the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the assessment and handling of publication bias in meta-analyses.

Tirkistyksiä musiikkiteollisuuden kulisseihin

Luettua

Itkuvirsien ja itkijöiden elämästä ennen ja nyt

Kirja-arvio

OSAAMISINTENSIIVISET LIIKE-ELÄMÄN PALVELUT, Osaavan työvoiman saatavuuden turvaaminen Case: Yritysten ja työhallinnon yhteistyö työvoimapoliittisen koulutuksen suunnittelussa

Työn tavoitteena on selvittää kuinka yritykset osallistuvat työvoimakoulutuksen suunnitteluun. Kyselyn avulla on selvitetty suunnitteluprosessia, johon osallistui osa TE-keskuksista ja työvoimatoimistoista. Kirjallisuustutkimuksessa tarkastellaan osaamisintensiivisiä liike-elämän palveluita, tiedon hallintaa, miljöön analysointia, liiketoimintasuhteita sekä verkostoitumista. Tutkimuksen empiirisessä osassa tarkastellaan työhallinnon tavoitteita ja kyselyn avulla selvitettyjätoimintatapoja yritysten osallistumisesta työvoimakoulutuksen suunnitteluun. Tuloksena saatiin runsaasti yhteistyötapoja yritysten kanssa, mutta Lappeenrannan työvoimatoimiston näkökulmasta ei mitään uutta noussut esille. Suoran yhteistyön esteenä on edelleen yrityksien sekä myös työvoimahallinnon motivaationpuute.

Defining publication bias: protocol for a systematic review of highly cited articles and proposal for a new framework.

BACKGROUND: Selective publication of studies, which is commonly called publication bias, is widely recognized. Over the years a new nomenclature for other types of bias related to non-publication or distortion related to the dissemination of research findings has been developed. However, several of these different biases are often still summarized by the term 'publication bias'. METHODS/DESIGN: As part of the OPEN Project (To Overcome failure to Publish nEgative fiNdings) we will conduct a systematic review with the following objectives:- To systematically review highly cited articles that focus on non-publication of studies and to present the various definitions of biases related to the dissemination of research findings contained in the articles identified.- To develop and discuss a new framework on nomenclature of various aspects of distortion in the dissemination process that leads to public availability of research findings in an international group of experts in the context of the OPEN Project.We will systematically search Web of Knowledge for highly cited articles that provide a definition of biases related to the dissemination of research findings. A specifically designed data extraction form will be developed and pilot-tested. Working in teams of two, we will independently extract relevant information from each eligible article.For the development of a new framework we will construct an initial table listing different levels and different hazards en route to making research findings public. An international group of experts will iteratively review the table and reflect on its content until no new insights emerge and consensus has been reached. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available in mid-2013. This systematic review together with the results of other systematic reviews of the OPEN project will serve as a basis for the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the assessment and prevention of publication bias.