Financial Engineering Instruments and their Assessment Under EU State Aid Rules. Bruges European Economic Policy (BEEP) Briefing 26/2013

Financial engineering instruments such as guarantees, loans and equity are increasingly used in public funding of enterprises. These instruments have three attractive features: they are repayable, they “leverage” private involvement, and they have a multiplier effect because they generate new income. At the same time, however, they are technically complex and they are subject to state aid rules. Their assessment under EU state aid rules creates two additional problems. First, under certain conditions financial instruments may not contain state aid. This is when public authorities act as “private investors”. This means that state aid cannot be presumed to exist in all financial instruments. It must first be established through market analysis. Second, when state aid is found to be present it is not always possible to quantify it. For this reason the state aid rules that apply to financial instruments differ significantly from other rules. This paper reviews how financial instruments have been assessed by the European Commission and under which conditions the state aid they may contain can be considered to be compatible with the internal market. The paper finds that by and large Member States have succeeded to design measures that have all been approved by the Commission.

Systematic review of outcome domains and instruments used in clinical trials of tinnitus treatments in adults

BACKGROUND: There is no evidence-based guidance to facilitate design decisions for confirmatory trials or systematic reviews investigating treatment efficacy for adults with tinnitus. This systematic review therefore seeks to ascertain the current status of trial designs by identifying and evaluating the reporting of outcome domains and instruments in the treatment of adults with tinnitus. METHODS: Records were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE CINAHL, EBSCO, and CENTRAL clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, ICTRP) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Eligible records were those published from 1 July 2006 to 12 March 2015. Included studies were those reporting adults aged 18 years or older who reported tinnitus as a primary complaint, and who were enrolled into a randomised controlled trial, a before and after study, a non-randomised controlled trial, a case-controlled study or a cohort study, and written in English. Studies with fewer than 20 participants were excluded. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-eight studies were included. Thirty-five different primary outcome domains were identified spanning seven categories (tinnitus percept, impact of tinnitus, co-occurring complaints, quality of life, body structures and function, treatment-related outcomes and unclear or not specified). Over half the studies (55 %) did not clearly define the complaint of interest. Tinnitus loudness was the domain most often reported (14 %), followed by tinnitus distress (7 %). Seventy-eight different primary outcome instruments were identified. Instruments assessing multiple attributes of the impact of tinnitus were most common (34 %). Overall, 24 different patient-reported tools were used, predominantly the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (15 %). Loudness was measured in diverse ways including a numerical rating scale (8 %), loudness matching (4 %), minimum masking level (1 %) and loudness discomfort level (1 %). Ten percent of studies did not clearly report the instrument used. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate poor appreciation of the basic principles of good trial design, particularly the importance of specifying what aspect of therapeutic benefit is the main outcome. No single outcome was reported in all studies and there was a broad diversity of outcome instruments. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: The systematic review protocol is registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews): CRD42015017525 . Registered on 12 March 2015 revised on 15 March 2016.

Mountains of the world - Sustainable development in mountain areas: The need for adequate policies and instruments

This brochure deals with policies and policy instruments needed to promote sustainable development in mountain areas. The first part presents an overview of key issues in mountain development, and principles and strategies that should be adopted. Each principle contains a checklist for policy-makers. The second part presents national and regional case studies of successful approaches and initiatives relating to mountain policy from all over the world. The brochure concludes with a call for multi-level initiatives and partnerships. This full-colour publication is part of the Mountains of the World series. It was prepared for the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg by an international panel of experts coordinated by CDE. It was commissioned and funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC).

Synthèse systématique des écrits : les instruments d’évaluation de la comorbidité psychiatrique présentée par les adolescent(e)s.

Ce mémoire présente les résultats d’une synthèse systématique (SS) des écrits traitant des instruments d’évaluation multidimensionnelle des troubles concomitants qui peuvent être présentés par les adolescent(e)s. La SS a permis d’identifier 11 instruments en mesure d’évaluer les troubles comorbides de l’Axe I du DSM-IV, incluant chaque fois les troubles liés à l’utilisation de substances psychoactives (TUS). Une fois les instruments répertoriés, une seconde recherche fut effectuée afin identifier les études les ayant mis à l’épreuve du point de vue de leur validité et de leur fidélité diagnostique : 57 études furent identifiées. La robustesse méthodologique de ces études fut analysée à l’aide de la grille du QUADAS-2 et 47 études furent retenues pour l’échantillon final. Les résultats sont présentés par diagnostics (troubles liés à l’utilisation des substances (TUS) (obligatoire), trouble d’anxiété généralisée (TAG), épisode dépressif majeur (ÉDM), troubles des conduites (TC), trouble du déficit de l’attention /hyperactivité (TDA/H), état de stress post-traumatique (ÉSPT) et par instrument retenu. Suite à l’analyse des données recueillies, il s’avère difficile de comparer les instruments les uns aux autres, étant donnée la très grande diversité des échelles qu’ils contiennent, ainsi que les devis fort différents des études qui les ont mis à l’épreuve. Par contre, deux instruments se distinguent par la robustesse méthodologique des études à leur sujet, ainsi que leur excellente performance globale. Il s’agit du ChIPS et du K-SADS.

Duey in recording studio

23729