Natalia Ziolkowski

Understanding student attitudes of mobile phone features: Rethinking adoption through conjoint, cluster and SEM analyses

Young adults have been labelled as one of the most important segments for mobile phones, however there is little empirical evidence to indicate how these young adults value the feature richness of their devices. This research presents a richer view of mobile phone user preferences and perceptions by applying methodologies from the marketing and information systems domains. Conjoint analysis provides insights into how students value various mobile phone applications and tools. Cluster analysis extracts salient and homogenous consumer segments from the conjoint analysis output. Structural equation modelling then explores how antecedents to attitude may differ by the elicited consumer segments.

Patients with bipolar disorder show a selective deficit in the episodic simulation of future events

A substantial body of evidence suggests that autobiographical recollection and simulation of future happenings activate a shared neural network. Many of the neural regions implicated in this network are affected in patients with bipolar disorder (BD), showing altered metabolic functioning and/or structural volume abnormalities. Studies of autobiographical recall in BD reveal overgeneralization, where autobiographical memory comprises primarily factual or repeated information as opposed to details specific in time and in place and definitive of re-experiencing. To date, no study has examined whether these deficits extend to future event simulation. We examined the ability of patients with BD and controls to imagine positive, negative and neutral future events using a modified version of the Autobiographical Interview (Levine, Svoboda, Hay, Winocur, & Moscovitch, 2002) that allowed for separation of episodic and non-episodic details. Patients were selectively impaired in imagining future positive, negative, and neutral episodic details; simulation of non-episodic details was equivalent across groups.

A Systematic Review of Surgical Randomized Controlled Trials: Part I. Risk of Bias and Outcomes: Common Pitfalls Plastic Surgeons Can Overcome

Background: The authors investigated the methodological validity of plastic surgery randomized controlled trials that compared surgical interventions. Methods: An electronic search identified randomized controlled trials published between 2000 and 2013. Reviewers, independently and in duplicate, assessed manuscripts and performed data extraction. Methodological safeguards (randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, and incomplete outcome data) were examined using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Regression analysis was used to identify trial characteristics associated with risk of bias. Results: Of 1664 potentially eligible studies, 173 randomized controlled trials were included. Proper randomization and allocation concealment methods were described in 61 of 173 (35 percent) and 21 of 173 (12 percent), respectively. Outcome assessors were blinded in 58 of 173 (34 percent) trials, and patients were blinded in 45 of 173 (26 percent). Follow-up rates were high, with 99 of 173 (57 percent) randomized controlled trials appearing to have complete follow-up. An intention-to-treat analysis was used in 19 of 173 (11 percent) trials. One-third (58 of 173, 34 percent) did not state their primary outcomes. The most common type of primary outcome used was a symptom/quality of life, class III, outcome (73 of 173, 42 percent). Multinomial regression demonstrated trials reporting an a priori sample size as more likely to have a low risk of bias (p = 0.001). Conclusions: This article highlights methodological safeguards that plastic surgeons should consider when interpreting results of a surgical randomized controlled trial. Allocation concealment, outcome assessor blinding, and patient blinding were identified as areas of concern. Valid and reliable outcome measures are being used in plastic surgery. This analysis provides strong rationale for continued focus on the performance and reporting of clinical trials within our specialty.

Systematic review of economic evaluations in plastic surgery.

Background: Economic evaluations are quantitative methods comparing alternative interventions using cost data and expected outcomes. They are used to recommend/dissuade adoption of new surgical interventions and compare different clinical pathways, settings (inpatient/outpatient), or time horizons to determine which procedure may be more cost-effective. The objective of this systematic review was to describe all published English economic evaluations related to a plastic surgery domain. Methods: A comprehensive English literature review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Health Economic Evaluations Database, Ovid Health Star, and Business Source Complete databases was conducted (January 1, 1986, to June 15, 2012). Articles were assessed by two independent reviewers using predefined data fields and selected using specific inclusion criteria. Extracted information included country of origin, journal, and date of publication. Domain of plastic surgery and type of economic evaluation were ascertained. Results: Ninety-five articles were included in the final analysis, with cost analysis being the most common economic evaluation (82 percent). Full economic evaluations represented 18 percent. General cutaneous disorders/burns (24 percent), breast surgery (20 percent), and “multiple” (15 percent) were the top domains studied. Authors were predominantly based in the United States (56 percent) and published in the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (22 percent), with a significant proportion (40 percent) published in the last 5 years. Conclusions: Partial economic assessments (cost analyses) with limited benefit represent the majority of economic evaluations in plastic surgery. This suggests an urgent need to alert plastic surgeons to the advantages of full economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness and cost utility analyses) and the need to perform such rigorous analyses.

The performance and publication of cost-utility analyses in plastic surgery: Making our specialty relevant.

Increased spending and reduced funding for health care is forcing decision makers to prioritize procedures and redistribute funds. Decision making is based on reliable data regarding the costs and benefits of medical and surgical procedures; such a study design is known as an economic evaluation. The onus is on the plastic surgery community to produce high-quality economic evaluations that support the cost effectiveness of the procedures that are performed. The present review focuses on the cost-utility analysis and its role in deciding whether a novel technique/procedure/technology should be accepted over one that is prevalent. Additionally, the five steps in undertaking a cost-utility (effectiveness) analysis are outlined.

A Systematic Review of Surgical Randomized Controlled Trials: Part 2. Funding Source, Conflict of Interest, and Sample Size in Plastic Surgery.

Background: The authors examined industry support, conflict of interest, and sample size in plastic surgery randomized controlled trials that compared surgical interventions. They hypothesized that industry-funded trials demonstrate statistically significant outcomes more often, and randomized controlled trials with small sample sizes report statistically significant results more frequently. Methods: An electronic search identified randomized controlled trials published between 2000 and 2013. Independent reviewers assessed manuscripts and performed data extraction. Funding source, conflict of interest, primary outcome direction, and sample size were examined. Chi-squared and independent-samples t tests were used in the analysis. Results: The search identified 173 randomized controlled trials, of which 100 (58 percent) did not acknowledge funding status. A relationship between funding source and trial outcome direction was not observed. Both funding status and conflict of interest reporting improved over time. Only 24 percent (six of 25) of industry-funded randomized controlled trials reported authors to have independent control of data and manuscript contents. The mean number of patients randomized was 73 per trial (median, 43, minimum, 3, maximum, 936). Small trials were not found to be positive more often than large trials (p = 0.87). Conclusions: Randomized controlled trials with small sample size were common; however, this provides great opportunity for the field to engage in further collaboration and produce larger, more definitive trials. Reporting of trial funding and conflict of interest is historically poor, but it greatly improved over the study period. Underreporting at author and journal levels remains a limitation when assessing the relationship between funding source and trial outcomes. Improved reporting and manuscript control should be goals that both authors and journals can actively achieve.

Cost-effectiveness analysis parallel to a randomized controlled trial comparing vertical scar reduction and inverted T-shaped reduction mammaplasty.

Background: A previous randomized controlled trial showed no clear superiority of vertical scar over inverted T-shaped reduction mammaplasty in terms of health-related quality of life. No economic evaluation has been undertaken comparing vertical scar reduction and inverted T -shaped reduction. Methods: A total of 255 patients were randomized to either vertical scar or inverted T -shaped reduction. The effectiveness was measured with the Health Utilities Index Mark 3. Direct and productivity costs were captured parallel to the randomized controlled trial. Perspectives of the Ministry of Health, patient, and society were considered. Results: Inverted T -shaped reduction dominated vertical scar reduction from the Ministry of Health perspective by being slightly less costly (

Timing of Presentation of Pediatric Compartment Syndrome and its Microsurgical Implication: A Retrospective Review.

3090.06 versus

Understanding Student Attitudes of Mobile Phone Applications and Tools: A study using conjoint, cluster and SEM analyses.

3106.58) and slightly more effective (0.87 quality-adjusted life-years versus 0.86 quality-adjusted life-years). From the societal and patient perspectives, vertical scar reduction was both less costly and less effective. At the commonly quoted Canadian threshold of

Understanding Student Attitudes of Mobile Phone Applications and Tools

50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, the probability that vertical scar reduction was cost-effective was 29.3, 68.2, and 66.9 percent from the Ministry of Health, patient, and societal perspectives. Subgroup analysis of reductions less than 500 g found that vertical scar reduction was more likely cost-effective. Conclusions: Vertical scar reduction is more likely than not cost-effective from patient and societal perspectives but not from the Ministry of Health perspective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of