4 results
COVID-19 passenger screening to reduce travel risk and translocation of disease
- Lindsay L. Waite, Ahmad Nahhas, Jan Irvahn, Grace Garden, Caroline M. Kerfonta, Elizabeth Killelea, William Ferng, Joshua J. Cummins, Rebecca Mereness, Thomas Austin, Stephen Jones, Nels Olson, Mark Wilson, Benson Isaac, Craig A. Pepper, Iain S. Koolhof, Jason Armstrong
-
- Journal:
- Epidemiology & Infection / Volume 152 / 2024
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 08 February 2024, e36
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Aviation passenger screening has been used worldwide to mitigate the translocation risk of SARS-CoV-2. We present a model that evaluates factors in screening strategies used in air travel and assess their relative sensitivity and importance in identifying infectious passengers. We use adapted Monte Carlo simulations to produce hypothetical disease timelines for the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 for travelling passengers. Screening strategy factors assessed include having one or two RT-PCR and/or antigen tests prior to departure and/or post-arrival, and quarantine length and compliance upon arrival. One or more post-arrival tests and high quarantine compliance were the most important factors in reducing pathogen translocation. Screening that combines quarantine and post-arrival testing can shorten the length of quarantine for travelers, and variability and mean testing sensitivity in post-arrival RT-PCR and antigen tests decrease and increase with the greater time between the first and second post-arrival test, respectively. This study provides insight into the role various screening strategy factors have in preventing the translocation of infectious diseases and a flexible framework adaptable to other existing or emerging diseases. Such findings may help in public health policy and decision-making in present and future evidence-based practices for passenger screening and pandemic preparedness.
Real-world evidence use in assessments of cancer drugs by NICE
- Ash Bullement, Tanja Podkonjak, Mark J. Robinson, Eugene Benson, Ross Selby, Anthony J. Hatswell, Gemma E. Shields
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 36 / Issue 4 / August 2020
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 10 July 2020, pp. 388-394
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Objective
To establish how real-world evidence (RWE) has been used to inform single technology appraisals (STAs) of cancer drugs conducted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).
MethodsSTAs published by NICE from April 2011 to October 2018 that evaluated cancer treatments were reviewed. Information regarding the use of RWE to directly inform the company-submitted cost-effectiveness analysis was extracted and categorized by topic. Summary statistics were used to describe emergent themes, and a narrative summary was provided for key case studies.
ResultsMaterials for a total of 113 relevant STAs were identified and analyzed, of which nearly all (96 percent) included some form of RWE within the company-submitted cost-effectiveness analysis. The most common categories of RWE use concerned the health-related quality of life of patients (71 percent), costs (46 percent), and medical resource utilization (40 percent). While sources of RWE were routinely criticized as part of the appraisal process, we identified only two cases where the use of RWE was overtly rejected; hence, in the majority of cases, RWE was accepted in cancer drug submissions to NICE.
DiscussionRWE has been used extensively in cancer submissions to NICE. Key criticisms of RWE in submissions to NICE are seldom regarding the use of RWE in general; instead, these are typically concerned with specific data sources and the applicability of these to the decision problem. Within an appropriate context, RWE constitutes an extremely valuable source of information to inform decision making; yet the development of best practice guidelines may improve current reporting standards.
Family warmth, self-perception, social competence, and friendships in emerging adulthood
- Albert Alegre, Mark J. Benson
-
- Journal:
- The Educational and Developmental Psychologist / Volume 36 / Issue 2 / December 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 November 2019, pp. 75-81
- Print publication:
- December 2019
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
This study examines the factors influencing friendship quality during emergent adulthood. Data were collected on a sample of 393 college students (age range 18–22, M = 20.01). Nine multi-item measures were used as indicators in this study. Seven scales were drawn from the Battery of Adolescent Measures (Benson & Faas, 2014). The other two were the pragmatic (social) language and the aloof scales, which provided sensitised assessment of interpersonal deficits (Hurley, Losh, Parlier, Reznick, & Piven, 2007). The article hypothesises that family warmth predicts friendship quality during emergent adulthood. It also hypothesises that this relationship is mediated by emergent adults’ self-perceptions and by their social competence. Structural equation models supported the first hypothesis and also showed that self-perceptions and social competence partially mediate the main relationship. We also examined each mediator separately for evidence of partial mediation, but the full model remained a significantly better fit to the data compared to both single mediator models.
Technical Summary
-
- By Thomas B. Johansson, Lund University, Nebojsa Nakicenovic, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and Vienna University of Technology, Anand Patwardhan, Indian Institute of Technology, Luis Gomez-Echeverri, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Doug J. Arent, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Rangan Banerjee, Indian Institute of Technology, Sally M. Benson, Stanford University, Daniel H. Bouille, Bariloche Foundation, Abeeku Brew-Hammond, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Aleh Cherp, Central European University, Suani T. Coelho, National Reference Center on Biomass, University of São Paulo, Lisa Emberson, Stockholm Environment Institute, University of York, Maria Josefina Figueroa, Technical University, Arnulf Grubler, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria and Yale University, Kebin He, Tsinghua University, Mark Jaccard, Simon Fraser University, Suzana Kahn Ribeiro, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Stephen Karekezi, AFREPREN/FWD, Eric D. Larson, Princeton University and Climate Central, Zheng Li, Tsinghua University, Susan McDade, United Nations Development Programme, Lynn K. Mytelka, United Nations University-MERIT, Shonali Pachauri, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Keywan Riahi, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Johan Rockström, Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm University, Hans-Holger Rogner, International Atomic Energy Agency, Joyashree Roy, Jadavpur University, Robert N. Schock, World Energy Council, UK and Center for Global Security Research, Ralph Sims, Massey University, Kirk R. Smith, University of California, Wim C. Turkenburg, Utrecht University, Diana Ürge-Vorsatz, Central European University, Frank von Hippel, Princeton University, Kurt Yeager, Electric Power Research Institute and Galvin Electricity Initiative
- Global Energy Assessment Writing Team
-
- Book:
- Global Energy Assessment
- Published online:
- 05 September 2012
- Print publication:
- 27 August 2012, pp 31-94
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Energy is essential for human development and energy systems are a crucial entry point for addressing the most pressing global challenges of the 21st century, including sustainable economic, and social development, poverty eradication, adequate food production and food security, health for all, climate protection, conservation of ecosystems, peace, and security. Yet, more than a decade into the 21st century, current energy systems do not meet these challenges.
In this context, two considerations are important. The first is the capacity and agility of the players within the energy system to seize opportunities in response to these challenges. The second is the response capacity of the energy system itself, as the investments are long-term and tend to follow standard financial patterns, mainly avoiding risks and price instabilities. This traditional approach does not embrace the transformation needed to respond properly to the economic, environmental, and social sustainability challenges of the 21st century.
A major transformation is required to address these challenges and to avoid potentially catastrophic consequences for human and planetary systems. The GEA identifies strategies that could help resolve the multiple challenges simultaneously and bring multiple benefits. Their successful implementation requires determined, sustained, and immediate action.
The industrial revolution catapulted humanity onto an explosive development path, whereby reliance on muscle power and traditional biomass was replaced mostly by fossil fuels. In 2005, approximately 78% of global energy was based on fossil energy sources that provided abundant and ever cheaper energy services to more than half the world's population.