Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Item Type
      Item Type
      Clear All
      Item Type
  • Subject
      Subject
      Clear All
      Subject
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
121 result(s) for "Exel, Job"
Sort by:
Hope Mediates the Relation between Income and Subjective Well-Being
In this study, we examine whether the positive effect of income gains on subjective well-being (SWB) can in part be explained by the improved future prospects that are generated by a more solid financial situation. Using three-wave panel data from the US, we inspect the relation between changes in income, hope and SWB using a fixed-effects model. Results show that hope indeed partially mediates the relation between income and SWB, but only for monthly incomes over $1800. Positive expectations, on the other hand, mediate the relation for all income levels. From the two components of hope, agency, the belief that we can achieve our goals, seems to be the strongest mediator. We find no indications that extremely high levels of hope or expectations will harm SWB through disappointment.
An Overview of Methods and Applications to Value Informal Care in Economic Evaluations of Healthcare
This paper compares several applied valuation methods for including informal care in economic evaluations of healthcare programmes: the proxy good method; the opportunity cost method; the contingent valuation method (CVM); conjoint measurement (CM); and valuation of health effects in terms of health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) and well-being. The comparison focuses on three questions: what outcome measures are available for including informal care in economic evaluations of healthcare programmes; whether these measures are compatible with the common types of economic evaluation; and, when applying these measures, whether all relevant aspects of informal care are incorporated. All types of economic evaluation can incorporate a monetary value of informal care (using the opportunity cost method, the proxy good method, CVM and CM) on the cost side of an analysis, but only when the relevant aspects of time costs have been valued. On the effect side of a cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analysis, the health effects (for the patient and/or caregiver) measured in natural units or QALYs can be combined with cost estimates based on the opportunity cost method or the proxy good method. One should be careful when incorporating CVM and CM in cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, as the health effects of patients receiving informal care and the carers themselves may also have been valued separately. One should determine whether the caregiver valuation exercise allows combination with other valuation techniques. In cost-benefit analyses, CVM and CM appear to be the best tools for the valuation of informal care. When researchers decide to use the well-being method, we recommend applying it in a cost-benefit analysis framework. This method values overall QOL (happiness); hence it is broader than just HR-QOL, which complicates inclusion in traditional health economic evaluations that normally define outcomes more narrowly. Using broader, non-monetary valuation techniques, such as the CarerQol instrument, requires a broader evaluation framework than cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analysis, such as cost-consequence or multi-criteria analysis.
Patients as team members: Factors affecting involvement in treatment decisions from the perspective of patients with a chronic condition
Background Active patient involvement in treatment decisions is seen as a feature of patient‐centred care that will ultimately lead to better healthcare services and patient outcomes. Although many factors have been identified that influence patient involvement in treatment decisions, little is known about the different views that patients have on which factors are most important. Objective This study explores the views of patients with a chronic condition on factors influencing their involvement in treatment decisions. Design Q‐methodology was used to study the views of patients. Respondents were asked to rank a set of 42 statements from the least important to the most important for active patient involvement in treatment decision‐making. The set of 42 statements was developed based on a literature search and a pilot in which two external researchers, 15 patients and four healthcare professionals participated. A total of 136 patients with one of three major chronic conditions were included: diabetes types 1 and 2, respiratory disease (i.e., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma) and cancer (i.e., breast cancer and prostate cancer). Data were collected in a face‐to‐face interview setting in the Netherlands. Results Four distinct views on the factors influencing active patient involvement were identified among patients with a chronic condition. (1) Enabled involvement: the extent to which patients are facilitated and empowered to participate will lead to patient involvement. (2) Relationship‐driven involvement: the relationship between patients and healthcare professionals drives patient involvement. (3) Disease impact‐driven involvement: the severity of disease drives patient involvement. (4) Cognition‐driven involvement: knowledge and information drive patient involvement. Discussion and Conclusion From the patients' perspective, this study shows that there is no one‐size‐fits‐all approach to involving patients more actively in their healthcare journey. Strategies aiming to enhance active patient involvement among patients with a chronic condition should consider this diversity in perspectives among these patients. Patient Contribution Patients are the respondents as this study researches their perspective on factors influencing patient involvement. In addition, patients were involved in pilot‐testing the statement set.
Earnings losses in young‐onset dementia: Population‐based study with admin data
INTRODUCTION Young‐onset dementia is often diagnosed late, leaving gaps in understanding its impact on employment, income, and social security. METHODS Analyzing health insurance claims and medical records, we studied 16,010 young‐onset dementia cases and 129,616 matched controls. Using a non‐parametric event study, we assessed earnings, earnings plus benefits, employment losses, and benefit use, considering demographic and socio‐economic factors. RESULTS Earnings fell by 58.7% in the years prior to dementia identification, totaling €144,013 in losses, and earnings plus benefits decreased by 20.7% (€68,533). We observed a 35.5 percentage point decrease in employment, a 23.9 percentage point increase in disability insurance, and a 2.7 percentage point rise in welfare benefit use. Primary education and lack of a partner correlated with higher earning losses and lower disability insurance uptake. DISCUSSION Early diagnosis and robust social support systems are vital to alleviate the financial and professional challenges faced by individuals with dementia under age 65. Highlights Working‐age persons experience job loss at least 21 years before dementia identification. Job loss is linked to 59% (€16,643) earnings drop 16 years before dementia identification. Losses in earning were not fully compensated by social insurance. A generous social insurance system eases the financial impact of young‐onset dementia. Attention is needed in the work environment and on disability benefit decisions.
Vaccine hesitancy comes in waves: Longitudinal evidence on willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 from seven European countries
•COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was heterogeneous both in terms of time and magnitude.•Following COVID-19 news, trust levels, risk preferences, and vaccine confidence predicted intention reversals.•Lowering the cost of following the news for the population may raise vaccine uptake. This paper investigates the prevalence and determinants of three main states of people’s willingness to be vaccinated (WTBV) against COVID-19 – willing, unwilling and hesitant – and the occurrence and predictors of shifts between these states over time. Understanding the dynamics of vaccine intentions is crucial for developing targeted campaigns to increase uptake and emergency response preparedness. A panel survey consisting of 9 quarterly waves of data collected between April 2020 and January 2022. Baseline data included 24 952 adults from Germany, UK, Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Portugal, and Italy recruited from online panels to construct census-matched nationally representative samples. Self-reported COVID-19 vaccine intention was the main outcome. Multinomial logit random effects models were used to analyze the relationships of interest. All results reported as relative risk ratios (RRR). Hesitancy to get vaccinated was the most unstable vaccine intention, with on average 42% of ever hesitant respondents remaining in this state through future waves, followed by the ‘unwilling’ (53%) and ‘willing (82%). Following COVID-19 news, trust in information from the government, GPs and the WHO, risk preferences, risk perceptions, and confidence in vaccines (or lack thereof) predicted vaccination intention reversals. Risk preferences acted both as an impediment and as a facilitator for the vaccine uptake depending on the initial vaccine intention. This study revealed the dynamic nature of COVID-19 vaccine intentions and its predictors in 7 European countries. The findings provide insights to policymakers for designing more effective communication strategies, particularly targeted at hesitant and unwilling to vaccinate population groups, to increase vaccine uptake for future public health emergencies.
Caring for a Child with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Parents’ Quality of Life: Application of the CarerQol
This study describes the impact of caregiving on parents of children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). Secondly, we investigate construct validation of the care-related quality of life instrument (CarerQol) measuring impact of caregiving. Primary caregivers of children with ASDs were included. Many parents experienced considerable problems combining daily activities with care, had financial problems or suffered from depressive mood. Validity tests showed that a higher impact of caring on the CarerQol was positively associated with higher subjective burden and lower family quality of life. Most of the associations between CarerQol scores and background characteristics confirmed previous research. The CarerQol validly measures the impact of caregiving for children with ASDs on caregivers in our sample. The CarerQol may therefore be useful for including parent outcomes in research on ASDs.
Once we have it, will we use it? A European survey on willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19
While the focus of attention currently is on developing a vaccine against the Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 to protect against the disease COVID-19, policymakers should prepare for the next challenge: uptake of the vaccine among the public. Having a vaccine does not automatically imply it will be used. Compliance with the anti-H1N1 vaccine during the 2009 influenza pandemic, for instance, was low [1], and in the decade since, vaccination rates have remained an issue of concern [2] while vaccination hesitancy has become more prevalent, leading to increases in disease outbreaks in multiple countries [3]. It is, therefore, important to understand whether or not people are willing to be vaccinated against COVID-19, as this can have large consequences for the success a vaccination programme—with potentially large health and economic consequences. In this editorial, we provide some first insights into this willingness to be vaccinated, based on a multi-country European study [4], which hopefully result in more attention for this important issue.
Health-related quality of life in seven European countries throughout the course of the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from the European COvid Survey (ECOS)
Purpose To investigate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic in seven European countries and its association with selected sociodemographic as well as COVID-19-related variables. Methods We used longitudinal data from nine quarterly waves collected between April 2020 and January 2022 (sample size per wave ranging from N  = 7025 to 7300) of the European COvid Survey (ECOS), a representative survey of adults in Germany, United Kingdom, Denmark, Netherlands, France, Portugal and Italy. HRQoL was measured using the EQ-5D-5L. The association of self-reported COVID-19 infection, perceived health risk from COVID-19, selected sociodemographic variables and the COVID-19 stringency index with HRQoL was analyzed by logistic and linear fixed effects regressions. Results On average across all nine waves, the proportion of respondents reporting any problems in at least one of the EQ-5D dimensions ranged between 63.8% (Netherlands) and 71.0% (Denmark). Anxiety/depression was the most frequently affected EQ-5D dimension in four countries (Portugal: 52.0%; United Kingdom: 50.2%; Italy: 49.2%; France: 49.0%), whereas pain/discomfort ranked first in three countries (Denmark: 58.3%; Germany: 55.8%; Netherlands: 49.0%). On average across all nine waves, the EQ-VAS score ranged from 70.1 in the United Kingdom to 78.4 in Portugal. Moreover, the EQ-5D-5L index ranged from .82 in Denmark to .94 in France. The occurrence of COVID-19 infection, changes in the perceived risk to one’s own health from COVID-19, the occurrence of income difficulties and an increase in the COVID-19 stringency index were associated with increased likelihood of problems in EQ-5D dimensions, reduced EQ-VAS score and reduced EQ-5D-5L index. Conclusions Across seven European countries, we found large proportions of respondents reporting problems in HRQoL dimensions throughout the pandemic, especially for anxiety/depression. Various sociodemographic and COVID-19-related variables were associated with HRQoL in longitudinal analysis.
Perspectives of general dental practitioners on preventive, patient-centred, and evidence-based oral healthcare—A Q-methodology study
In the last 30 years, innovations in oral healthcare (OHC), such as advanced restorative techniques, shifts towards preventive and evidence-based care and changes in patients' expectations, have increased the complexity of clinical decision-making in OHC. Little is known about the perspectives of general dental practitioners (GDPs) on the value of providing preventive, patient-centred and evidence-based OHC. This study aimed to explore the range of perspectives present amongst GDPs on OHC. Q-methodology was used to explore perspectives among 78 GDPs working in the Netherlands. Participants were asked to sort 50 statements representing three central domains in OHC: i.) restorative versus preventative OHC, ii.) disease-centred versus patient-centred OHC and iii.) expertise-based versus evidence-based OHC. Opinion statements about delivering OHC were formulated on the basis of published literature and input from OHC professionals. By-person factor analysis was used to reveal clusters of communality in statement rankings, which were interpreted and formed perspectives on OHC. Four perspectives, explaining 47% of variance, on OHC were identified amongst GDPs: 'the patient-focused dentist who values prevention', 'the outcome-oriented dentist who values learning from colleagues', 'the team player with ultimate care responsibility' and 'the dentist who considers oral health the responsibility of the patient.' Q-methodology can be effectively used to describe the different perspectives that GDPs have on the challenges of preventive, patient-centred and evidence-based OHC. GDPs should not be seen as a homogenous group; rather they have different views and approaches to the care they provide. This has implications for health systems; awareness of the heterogeneity of practitioners' perspectives can potentially be used to develop bespoke quality of care improvement strategies that constructively engage with each of these different groups.
Production Losses due to Absenteeism and Presenteeism: The Influence of Compensation Mechanisms and Multiplier Effects
Background Productivity costs can form a large and influential component of total costs in an economic evaluation taking a societal perspective. In calculating productivity costs, estimating productivity losses is a central element. Compensation mechanisms and multiplier effects may influence these losses but remain understudied. Compensation mechanisms could reduce productivity losses while multiplier effects may increase them. Methods Data on productivity losses were collected in 2015 using an online survey among a sample of persons aged 15–65 years in The Netherlands who worked at least 12 h per week and reported to have experienced absenteeism and/or presenteeism during the past 4 weeks. A total of 877 respondents completed the survey that contained questions on productivity losses, compensation mechanisms, and multiplier effects. Results We found that 45.5% of the respondents reported absenteeism (average 6.5 days) during the past 4 weeks, losing on average 48.7 working hours, while presenteeism was experienced by 75.9% of respondents, with an average loss of 10.7 working hours. Compensation mechanisms were reported by 76.9% of respondents, compensating almost 80% of their lost production, while multiplier effects were reported by 23.6% of respondents, reducing the productivity of 4.2 colleagues by 27.8% on average, implying a multiplier of 2.1 in that subgroup. Conclusions This study highlights that compensation mechanisms and multiplier effects are common and may substantially affect production losses. Investigating these mechanisms and effects further, as well as their interactions, remains important. Translating these findings into productivity cost calculations in economic evaluations is not straightforward and requires attention, especially since compensation mechanisms may not be costless and, for multiplier effects, the value of hours of colleagues may not be similar to that of the person experiencing health problems.