1,720,980 research outputs found
NEED-evaluatiekader 2025 : EU Expert consensus en kernkader – Synthese
No full text18 p.ill.,Het doel van het NEED-initiatief is om op een wetenschappelijke en gestructureerde manier de onvervulde gezondheidsbehoeften van patiënten en maatschappij in kaart te brengen. Het resultaat wordt samengebracht in een specifieke database. De informatie kan vervolgens worden gebruikt om het innovatie- en gezondheidsbeleid te onderbouwen, zodat het zich nog meer kan richten op de domeinen met de grootste behoeften.
In 2024 ontwikkelde het NEED-onderzoeksteam een kader om de onvervulde behoeften voor een bepaalde aandoening of gezondheidstoestand te beoordelen. Sindsdien is het team dit kader voortdurend blijven verfijnen. Daarbij hield het rekening met de lessen die konden worden getrokken uit twee casestudy's en uit een bijkomende studie naar de toepasbaarheid van deze methode op zeldzame ziekten. Het team ontwikkelde ook een methodologie voor de identificatie en selectie van de te beoordelen aandoeningen.
Onlangs werd het kader voorgelegd aan 26 experts uit 17 EU-lidstaten. Bedoeling was om consensus te bereiken over de algemene structuur en de afzonderlijke delen (de criteria en indicatoren om gezondheidsgerelateerde behoeften te evalueren). Het is een belangrijke stap om de aanvaardbaarheid en relevantie van het kader in verschillende Europese contexten te waarborgen.
Dit nieuwe rapport bevat de meest recent versie van het kader na de Europese consensus en intern teamoverleg. Het introduceert ook een kernkader met de minimale criteria voor een zinvolle beoordeling van onvervulde gezondheidsbehoeften. Hopelijk zal dit het aanvullen van de NEED-database versnellen, want het gebruik van het kernkader vergt minder tijd en middelen, terwijl het relevant blijft voor de planning en het beleid van de gezondheidszorg.1 HET NEED-INITIATIEF 3 -- 1.1 CONTEXT 3 -- 1.2 VORIGE RAPPORTEN 3 -- 2 EEN KADER OM BEHOEFTEN IN KAART TE BRENGEN 5 -- 2.1 DIMENSIES 5 -- 2.2 DOMEINEN 5 -- 2.3 CRITERIA 5 -- 2.4 INDICATOREN 5 -- 3 2025: UPDATE VAN HET VOLLEDIGE EVALUATIEKADER EN ONTWIKKELING VAN HET KERNKADER 6 -- 3.1 VÓÓR DE EUROPESE CONSENSUS 6 -- 3.2 EUROPESE CONSENSUS 6 -- 3.3 BIJKOMENDE WIJZIGINGEN NA INTERN TEAMOVERLEG 6 -- 3.4 EEN KERNKADER MET ESSENTIËLE CRITERIA EN INDICATOREN 10 -- 4 CONCLUSIE 1
Cadre d’évaluation NEED 2025 : consensus d’experts européens et cadre de base – Synthèse
No full text19 p.ill.,L’objectif du projet NEED est d’évaluer les besoins non rencontrés liés à la santé des patients et de la société d’une manière scientifique et structurée. Cette information, collectée dans une base de données dédiée, peut alors être utilisée pour éclairer l’innovation et les politiques en matière de soins de santé et les aider à mieux cibler les domaines où les besoins sont les plus importants.
En 2024, l’équipe de recherche NEED a développé un cadre conceptuel pour l’évaluation des besoins non rencontrés pour une maladie ou un problème de santé spécifique. Depuis, les experts NEED travaillent d’arrache-pied pour continuer à affiner ce cadre, en tenant compte des enseignements de deux études de cas et d’une étude supplémentaire concernant l’applicabilité du concept aux maladies rares. Ils ont aussi développé une méthodologie pour l’identification et la sélection des problèmes de santé à évaluer.
Plus récemment, le cadre NEED a été soumis à 26 experts de 17 états-membres de l’Union européenne en vue de parvenir à un consensus sur sa structure générale et sur ses éléments individuels (les critères et indicateurs utilisés pour l’évaluation des besoins liés à la santé) – un pas important pour garantir l’acceptabilité et la pertinence du cadre dans divers contextes européens.
Ce nouveau rapport présente une version adaptée du cadre suite au consensus européen et à une discussion d’équipe interne. Il introduit également une autre nouveauté, une « version de base » du cadre qui reprend un ensemble minimal de critères nécessaires à une évaluation pertinente des besoins non rencontrés liés à la santé. Celle-ci devrait permettre d’alimenter plus rapidement la base de données NEED, puisque ces évaluations de base nécessiteront moins de temps et de ressources tout en restant pertinentes pour la planification des soins de santé et la prise de décision.1 L’INITIATIVE NEED 3 -- 1.1 CONTEXTE 3 -- 1.2 RAPPORTS ANTÉRIEURS 3 -- 2 LE CADRE D’ÉVALUATION NEED 4 -- 2.1 DIMENSIONS 5 -- 2.2 DOMAINES 5 -- 2.3 CRITÈRES 5 -- 2.4 INDICATEURS 5 -- 3 2025 : MISE À JOUR DU CADRE D’ÉVALUATION COMPLET ET ÉLABORATION D’UN CADRE DE BASE 6 -- 3.1 AVANT LE CONSENSUS EUROPÉEN 7 -- 3.2 CONSENSUS EUROPÉEN 7 -- 3.3 MODIFICATIONS SUPPLÉMENTAIRES SUITE À UNE DISCUSSION D’ÉQUIPE 7 -- 3.4 UN CADRE DE BASE AVEC LES CRITÈRES ET INDICATEURS INCONTOURNABLES 10 -- 4 CONCLUSION 1
Need assessment framework 2025 : EU expert consensus and core version - Synthesis
No full text18 p.ill.,The goal of the NEED initiative is to assess patients’ and society’s unmet health-related needs in a scientific and structured way. This information, collected in a dedicated database, can then be used to inform innovation and healthcare policies to help them target the areas of highest need.
In 2024, the NEED research team developed a framework for assessing unmet needs for a given disease or health condition. Since then, it has been working tirelessly to refine the framework, taking on board the lessons learnt from two case studies and from an additional study on the applicability of the concept to rare diseases. It has also developed a methodology for the identification and selection of the health conditions to be assessed.
More recently, the framework was submitted to 26 experts from 17 EU member states in order to reach a consensus on its general structure and on its individual components (the criteria and indicators used to assess health-related needs). This is an important step to ensure the acceptability and relevance of the framework across diverse European contexts.
This new report presents the latest version of the framework following the European consensus and an internal team discussion. It also introduces a core version of the framework containing the minimally required criteria for a meaningful assessment of unmet health-related needs. This will hopefully speed up the process of filling up the NEED evidence database, as these core assessments, while still relevant to inform healthcare planning and decision-making, will require less time and resources.1 THE NEED INITIATIVE 3 -- 1.1 CONTEXT 3 -- 1.2 PREVIOUS REPORTS 3 -- 2 THE NEED ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK 5 -- 2.1 DIMENSIONS 5 -- 2.2 DOMAINS 5 -- 2.3 CRITERIA 5 -- 2.4 INDICATORS 5 -- 3 2025: UPDATED FULL FRAMEWORK AND CORE VERSION 6 -- 3.1 BEFORE THE EUROPEAN CONSENSUS 6 -- 3.2 EUROPEAN CONSENSUS 6 -- 3.3 ADDITIONAL CHANGES FOLLOWING AN INTERNAL TEAM DISCUSSION 6 -- 3.4 THE CORE NEED ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK 10 -- 4 CONCLUSION 1
Need assessment framework 2025 : EU expert consensus and core version
No full text61 p.ill.,The goal of the NEED initiative is to assess patients’ and society’s unmet health-related needs in a scientific and structured way. This information, collected in a dedicated database, can then be used to inform innovation and healthcare policies to help them target the areas of highest need.
In 2024, the NEED research team developed a framework for assessing unmet needs for a given disease or health condition. Since then, it has been working tirelessly to refine the framework, taking on board the lessons learnt from two case studies and from an additional study on the applicability of the concept to rare diseases. It has also developed a methodology for the identification and selection of the health conditions to be assessed.
More recently, the framework was submitted to 26 experts from 17 EU member states in order to reach a consensus on its general structure and on its individual components (the criteria and indicators used to assess health-related needs). This is an important step to ensure the acceptability and relevance of the framework across diverse European contexts.
This new report presents the latest version of the framework following the European consensus and an internal team discussion. It also introduces a core version of the framework containing the minimally required criteria for a meaningful assessment of unmet health-related needs. This will hopefully speed up the process of filling up the NEED evidence database, as these core assessments, while still relevant to inform healthcare planning and decision-making, will require less time and resources.1 INTRODUCTION 3 -- 2 AIMS 4 -- 3 METHODS 5 -- 3.1 MODIFIED DELPHI STUDY 6 -- 3.1.1 Participants 6 -- 3.1.2 Data Collection 6 -- 3.2 INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS 7 -- 4 RESULTS 7 -- 4.1 INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS ON THE NEED ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK 8 -- 4.1.1 Participants 8 -- 4.1.2 Round 1 and 2 results 9 -- 4.1.3 Modifications to criteria and indicators through the Delphi process 15 -- 4.2 THE NEED ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK 2025 15 -- 4.3 THE CORE NEED ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK 16 -- 5 DISCUSSION 17 -- 6 CONCLUSION 1
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
