1,720,992 research outputs found
Association Between Hearing and Vision Impairment and Risk of Dementia: Results of a Case-Control Study Based on Secondary Data
Full text linkIntroduction: Hearing and vision loss are highly prevalent in elderly adults, and thus frequently occur in conjunction with cognitive impairments. Studies have shown that hearing impairment is associated with a higher risk of dementia. However, evidence concerning the association between vision loss and dementia, as well as the co-occurrence of vision and hearing loss and dementia, has been inconclusive.
Objectives: To assess the association between: (i) either hearing or vision loss and the risk of dementia, as well as between; and (ii) the combination of both sensory impairments and the risk of dementia.
Methods: This case-control study was based on a 5-year data set that included patients aged 65 years and older who had initially been diagnosed with dementia diseases by one of 1,203 general practitioners in Germany between January 2013 and December 2017. In total, 61,354 identified dementia cases were matched to non-dementia controls, resulting in a sample size of 122,708 individuals. Hearing loss and vision loss were identified using the ICD-10 diagnoses documented in the general practitioners’ files prior to the initial dementia diagnosis. Multivariate logistic regression models were fitted to evaluate the associations between visual and/or hearing impairment and the risk of dementia and controlled for sociodemographic and clinical variables.
Results: Hearing impairment was documented in 11.2% of patients with a dementia diagnosis and 9.5% of patients without such a diagnosis. Some form of vision impairment was documented in 28.4% of patients diagnosed with dementia and 28.8% of controls. Visual impairment was not significantly associated with dementia (OR = 0.97, CI = 95% 0.97–1.02, p = 0.219). However, patients with hearing impairment were at a significantly higher risk of developing dementia (OR = 1.26, CI = 95% 1.15–1.38, p < 0.001), a finding that very likely led to the observed significant association of the combination of both visual and hearing impairments and the risk of dementia (OR = 1.14, CI = 95% 1.04–1.24, p = 0.005).
Discussion: This analysis adds important evidence that contributes to the limited body of knowledge about the association between hearing and/or vision loss and dementia. It further demonstrates that, of the two, only hearing impairment affects patients’ cognition and thus contributes to dementia risk
Is the whole larger than the sum of its parts? Impact of missing data imputation in economic evaluation conducted alongside randomized controlled trials
No full textOutcomes in economic evaluations, such as health utilities and costs, are products of multiple variables, often requiring complete item responses to questionnaires. Therefore, missing data are very common in cost-effectiveness analyses. Multiple imputations (MI) are predominately recommended and could be made either for individual items or at the aggregate level. We, therefore, aimed to assess the precision of both MI approaches (the item imputation vs. aggregate imputation) on the cost-effectiveness results. The original data set came from a cluster-randomized, controlled trial and was used to describe the missing data pattern and compare the differences in the cost-effectiveness results between the two imputation approaches. A simulation study with different missing data scenarios generated based on a complete data set was used to assess the precision of both imputation approaches. For health utility and cost, patients more often had a partial (9% vs. 23%, respectively) rather than complete missing (4% vs. 0%). The imputation approaches differed in the cost-effectiveness results (the item imputation: - 61,079€/QALY vs. the aggregate imputation: 15,399€/QALY). Within the simulation study mean relative bias (&lt; 5% vs. &lt; 10%) and range of bias (&lt; 38% vs. &lt; 83%) to the true incremental cost and incremental QALYs were lower for the item imputation compared to the aggregate imputation. Even when 40% of data were missing, relative bias to true cost-effectiveness curves was less than 16% using the item imputation, but up to 39% for the aggregate imputation. Thus, the imputation strategies could have a significant impact on the cost-effectiveness conclusions when more than 20% of data are missing. The item imputation approach has better precision than the imputation at the aggregate level
Diagnosing and treating dementia in German primary and specialized care between 2011 and 2015
No full textWho Benefits Most from Collaborative Dementia Care from a Patient and Payer Perspective? A Subgroup Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
No full textComorbidity in Dementia Diseases and Associated Health Care Resources Utilization and Cost
No full textCovid-19-Pandemie: Angsterleben von niedergelassenen und Krankenhaus-Psychiatern
No full textZusammenfassung Hintergrund Bisher gibt es keine Studien, die das Pandemie bedingte Belastungserleben von stationär im Vergleich zu ambulant tätigen Psychiatern untersucht hat. Es soll deshalb das Ausmaß der Covid-19-Exposition, die Angst, das Belastungserleben und die Bewältigungsmöglichkeiten bei niedergelassenen Psychiatern im Vergleich zu Ärzten in psychiatrischen und psychosomatischen Kliniken untersucht werden. Methode Zur Erfassung von Angst- und Belastungserleben wurden E-Mail-gestützte Fragebögen mit 13 Items genutzt. Insgesamt wurden 105 niedergelassene Psychiater, und 73 Ärzte und Psychologen aus vier Klinikern (inkl. Klinik für Psychosomatische Medizin und Psychotherapie) zwischen Anfang April bis Mitte Mai 2020 befragt. Ergebnis In ihrem Belastungserleben fühlten sich niedergelassene im Vergleich zu Krankenhauspsychiatern häufiger stark eingeschränkt (52,4 vs. 32,9% p=0,010), infektionsgefährdet (35,2 vs. 13,7%, p<0,001) und finanziell bedroht (24,7 vs. 6,9%, p=0,002). Der Anteil gut Informierter niedergelassener Psychiater war geringer (47,6 vs. 63,0%, p=0,043) und der Anteil mit fehlender Schutzausrüstung höher (27,6 vs. 4,1%, p<0,001). Bei gleichem COVID-19 Expositionsniveau (8,6 vs. 8,2%) berichteten niedergelassene Psychiater im Vergleich zu Krankenhaus-Psychiatern häufiger, wenn auch nicht signifikant, große Angst (18,1 vs. 9,6%, p=0,114). Risikofaktoren für ein Angsterleben waren in beiden Gruppen das Gefühl der Einschränkung (OR=5,52, p=0,025) und die erlebte Infektionsgefahr (OR=5,74, p=0,005). Keinen Einfluss hatten das Expositionsniveau, die Klinik- bzw. Praxiszugehörigkeit, das Alter, das Geschlecht und andere Dimensionen des Bedrohungserlebens und des Bewältigungsverhaltens. Diskussion Niedergelassene Psychiater fühlten sich im Vergleich zu den Kollegen im Krankenhaus durch die COVID-19 Pandemie mehr belastet und bedroht. Das Erleben von Angst war abhängig vom Gefühl der Einschränkung und der Expositionsgefahr, nicht jedoch von der Exposition, der Ausstattung mit Schutzmitteln. Für die Ausprägung der Angst scheinen weniger objektive Indikatoren als das subjektive Erleben eine wichtige Rolle zu spielen.Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Bisher gibt es keine Studien, die das Pandemie bedingte Belastungserleben von stationär im Vergleich zu ambulant tätigen Psychiatern untersucht hat. Es soll deshalb das Ausmaß der Covid-19-Exposition, die Angst, das Belastungserleben und die Bewältigungsmöglichkeiten bei niedergelassenen Psychiatern im Vergleich zu Ärzten in psychiatrischen und psychosomatischen Kliniken untersucht werden. Methode Zur Erfassung von Angst- und Belastungserleben wurden E-Mail-gestützte Fragebögen mit 13 Items genutzt. Insgesamt wurden 105 niedergelassene Psychiater, und 73 Ärzte und Psychologen aus vier Klinikern (inkl. Klinik für Psychosomatische Medizin und Psychotherapie) zwischen Anfang April bis Mitte Mai 2020 befragt. Ergebnis In ihrem Belastungserleben fühlten sich niedergelassene im Vergleich zu Krankenhauspsychiatern häufiger stark eingeschränkt (52,4 vs. 32,9% p=0,010), infektionsgefährdet (35,2 vs. 13,7%, p<0,001) und finanziell bedroht (24,7 vs. 6,9%, p=0,002). Der Anteil gut Informierter niedergelassener Psychiater war geringer (47,6 vs. 63,0%, p=0,043) und der Anteil mit fehlender Schutzausrüstung höher (27,6 vs. 4,1%, p<0,001). Bei gleichem COVID-19 Expositionsniveau (8,6 vs. 8,2%) berichteten niedergelassene Psychiater im Vergleich zu Krankenhaus-Psychiatern häufiger, wenn auch nicht signifikant, große Angst (18,1 vs. 9,6%, p=0,114). Risikofaktoren für ein Angsterleben waren in beiden Gruppen das Gefühl der Einschränkung (OR=5,52, p=0,025) und die erlebte Infektionsgefahr (OR=5,74, p=0,005). Keinen Einfluss hatten das Expositionsniveau, die Klinik- bzw. Praxiszugehörigkeit, das Alter, das Geschlecht und andere Dimensionen des Bedrohungserlebens und des Bewältigungsverhaltens. Diskussion Niedergelassene Psychiater fühlten sich im Vergleich zu den Kollegen im Krankenhaus durch die COVID-19 Pandemie mehr belastet und bedroht. Das Erleben von Angst war abhängig vom Gefühl der Einschränkung und der Expositionsgefahr, nicht jedoch von der Exposition, der Ausstattung mit Schutzmitteln. Für die Ausprägung der Angst scheinen weniger objektive Indikatoren als das subjektive Erleben eine wichtige Rolle zu spielen
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
- …
