Explore the vast range of titles available.

We combined survey, mobility, and infections data in greater Boston, MA to simulate the effects of racial disparities in the inclination to become vaccinated on continued infection rates and the attainment of herd immunity. The simulation projected marked inequities, with communities of color experiencing infection rates 3 times higher than predominantly White communities and reaching herd immunity 45 days later on average. Persuasion of individuals uncertain about vaccination was crucial to preventing the worst inequities but could only narrow them so far because 1/5th of Black and Latinx individuals said that they would never vaccinate. The results point to a need for well-crafted, compassionate messaging that reaches out to those most resistant to the vaccine.

A pandemic, like other disasters, changes how systems work. In order to support research on how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the dynamics of a single metropolitan area and the communities therein, we developed and made publicly available a “data-support system” for the city of Boston. We actively gathered data from multiple administrative (e.g., 911 and 311 dispatches, building permits) and internet sources (e.g., Yelp, Craigslist), capturing aspects of housing and land use, crime and disorder, and commercial activity and institutions. All the data were linked spatially through BARI’s Geographical Infrastructure, enabling conjoint analysis. We curated the base records and aggregated them to construct ecometric measures (i.e., descriptors of a place) at various geographic scales, all of which were also published as part of the database. The datasets were published in an open repository, each accompanied by a detailed documentation of methods and variables. We anticipate updating the database annually to maintain the tracking of the records and associated measures.Measurement(s)Neighborhood contextTechnology Type(s)Naturally-occurring dataSample Characteristic - EnvironmentCity neighborhoodsSample Characteristic - LocationBoston, MA, USA

Transportation Network Company (TNC) services have become a prominent factor in urban transportation in recent years, and there is an ongoing debate regarding their relationship with public transit. While many argue that TNCs draw passengers away from public transportation, others believe the two modes complement each other. However, due to the inadequate sample size of rider surveys as primary data sources, our understanding of how riders choose between these two modalities remains limited. This study uses nine months of trip planning data generated by the Transit App, which captures how travelers engage with multiple options in real time, including TNC and public transit services. We extract measures from Transit describing the travel options and the habits of each individual user for sessions in which the user “tapped” on one of these two modes, indicating consideration of it as an option. Machine learning models predict the likelihood of a rider tapping TNC based on features of the available public transit options and other contextual factors (e.g., time of day, weather conditions). The models find that these taps are driven by factors that highlight the convenience of TNC, such as the waiting time, walking distance, and the number of transfers for public transportation trips. We also find that the majority of TNC trips tapped by app users combine the two modes when using the Transit App, with TNC acting as a connection to or from public transit. These results provide detailed additional evidence for current arguments for both competition and complementarity between TNC and public transit from a population that uses an app to navigate public transit.

Transportation Network Company (TNC) services have become a prominent factor in urban transportation in recent years, and there is an ongoing debate regarding their relationship with public transit. While many argue that TNCs draw passengers away from public transportation, others believe the two modes complement each other. However, due to the inadequate sample size of rider surveys as primary data sources, our understanding of how riders choose between these two modalities remains limited. This study uses nine months of trip planning data generated by the Transit App, which captures how travelers engage with multiple options in real time, including TNC and public transit services. We extract measures from Transit describing the travel options and the habits of each individual user for sessions in which the user “tapped” on one of these two modes, indicating consideration of it as an option. Machine learning models predict the likelihood of a rider tapping TNC based on features of the available public transit options and other contextual factors (e.g., time of day, weather conditions). The models find that these taps are driven by factors that highlight the convenience of TNC, such as the waiting time, walking distance, and the number of transfers for public transportation trips. We also find that the majority of TNC trips tapped by app users combine the two modes when using the Transit App, with TNC acting as a connection to or from public transit. These results provide detailed additional evidence for current arguments for both competition and complementarity between TNC and public transit from a population that uses an app to navigate public transit.

BY AMANDA CORRALES, MEGAN FLANNERY, SAGE GIBBONS, LILY GOLDMAN AND CAOIMHE MCKEON. KIDSDAY REPORTERS, AGES 10 AND 9, SPRINGS For the past nine years, students at Springs School in Springs (near East Hampton) have produced an opera with help from the Metropolitan Opera Guild as part of its Creating Original Opera Program. This year's opera, called \"Days in Bonac,\" was produced by 40 fourth- graders. \"Ripley's Believe It or Not! Special Edition 2006\" by Mary Packard (Ripley Entertainment/Scholastic, $14.99) has some of the coolest, weirdest and grossest facts you'll ever read. Here's one: There's a lamb in Spain that has no problem standing on its head because it has a fifth leg growing out of it.

Advances in medical, biomedical and health services research have reduced the level of uncertainty in clinical practice. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) complement this progress by establishing standards of care backed by strong scientific evidence. CPGs are statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care. These statements are informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefits and costs of alternative care options. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust examines the current state of clinical practice guidelines and how they can be improved to enhance healthcare quality and patient outcomes. Clinical practice guidelines now are ubiquitous in our healthcare system. The Guidelines International Network (GIN) database currently lists more than 3,700 guidelines from 39 countries. Developing guidelines presents a number of challenges including lack of transparent methodological practices, difficulty reconciling conflicting guidelines, and conflicts of interest. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust explores questions surrounding the quality of CPG development processes and the establishment of standards. It proposes eight standards for developing trustworthy clinical practice guidelines emphasizing transparency; management of conflict of interest ; systematic review-guideline development intersection; establishing evidence foundations for and rating strength of guideline recommendations; articulation of recommendations; external review; and updating. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust shows how clinical practice guidelines can enhance clinician and patient decision-making by translating complex scientific research findings into recommendations for clinical practice that are relevant to the individual patient encounter, instead of implementing a one size fits all approach to patient care. This book contains information directly related to the work of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), as well as various Congressional staff and policymakers. It is a vital resource for medical specialty societies, disease advocacy groups, health professionals, private and international organizations that develop or use clinical practice guidelines, consumers, clinicians, and payers.

Advances in medical, biomedical and health services research have reduced the level of uncertainty in clinical practice. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) complement this progress by establishing standards of care backed by strong scientific evidence. CPGs are statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care. These statements are informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefits and costs of alternative care options. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust examines the current state of clinical practice guidelines and how they can be improved to enhance healthcare quality and patient outcomes. Clinical practice guidelines now are ubiquitous in our healthcare system. The Guidelines International Network (GIN) database currently lists more than 3,700 guidelines from 39 countries. Developing guidelines presents a number of challenges including lack of transparent methodological practices, difficulty reconciling conflicting guidelines, and conflicts of interest. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust explores questions surrounding the quality of CPG development processes and the establishment of standards. It proposes eight standards for developing trustworthy clinical practice guidelines emphasizing transparency; management of conflict of interest ; systematic review-guideline development intersection; establishing evidence foundations for and rating strength of guideline recommendations; articulation of recommendations; external review; and updating. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust shows how clinical practice guidelines can enhance clinician and patient decision-making by translating complex scientific research findings into recommendations for clinical practice that are relevant to the individual patient encounter, instead of implementing a one size fits all approach to patient care. This book contains information directly related to the work of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), as well as various Congressional staff and policymakers. It is a vital resource for medical specialty societies, disease advocacy groups, health professionals, private and international organizations that develop or use clinical practice guidelines, consumers, clinicians, and payers.

Advances in medical, biomedical and health services research have reduced the level of uncertainty in clinical practice. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) complement this progress by establishing standards of care backed by strong scientific evidence. CPGs are statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care. These statements are informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefits and costs of alternative care options. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust examines the current state of clinical practice guidelines and how they can be improved to enhance healthcare quality and patient outcomes. Clinical practice guidelines now are ubiquitous in our healthcare system. The Guidelines International Network (GIN) database currently lists more than 3,700 guidelines from 39 countries. Developing guidelines presents a number of challenges including lack of transparent methodological practices, difficulty reconciling conflicting guidelines, and conflicts of interest. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust explores questions surrounding the quality of CPG development processes and the establishment of standards. It proposes eight standards for developing trustworthy clinical practice guidelines emphasizing transparency; management of conflict of interest ; systematic review-guideline development intersection; establishing evidence foundations for and rating strength of guideline recommendations; articulation of recommendations; external review; and updating. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust shows how clinical practice guidelines can enhance clinician and patient decision-making by translating complex scientific research findings into recommendations for clinical practice that are relevant to the individual patient encounter, instead of implementing a one size fits all approach to patient care. This book contains information directly related to the work of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), as well as various Congressional staff and policymakers. It is a vital resource for medical specialty societies, disease advocacy groups, health professionals, private and international organizations that develop or use clinical practice guidelines, consumers, clinicians, and payers.