As seen in "a NULL" Wired and "a NULL" Time
A revealing look at how negative biases against women of color are embedded in search engine results and algorithms
Run a Google search for "black ...girls"-what will you find? "Big Booty" and other sexually explicit terms are likely to come up as top search terms. But, if you type in "white girls," the results are radically different. The suggested porn sites and un-moderated discussions about "why black women are so sassy" or "why black women are so angry" presents a disturbing portrait of black womanhood in modern society.
In Algorithms of Oppression, Safiya Umoja Noble challenges the idea that search engines like Google offer an equal playing field for all forms of ideas, identities, and activities. Data discrimination is a real social problem; Noble argues that the combination of private interests in promoting certain sites, along with the monopoly status of a relatively small number of Internet search engines, leads to a biased set of search algorithms that privilege whiteness and discriminate against people of color, specifically women of color.
Through an analysis of textual and media searches as well as extensive research on paid online advertising, Noble exposes a culture of racism and sexism in the way discoverability is created online. As search engines and their related companies grow in importance-operating as a source for email, a major vehicle for primary and secondary school learning, and beyond-understanding and reversing these disquieting trends and discriminatory practices is of utmost importance.
An original, surprising and, at times, disturbing account of bias on the internet, Algorithms of Oppression contributes to our understanding of how racism is created, maintained, and disseminated in the 21st century.
Safiya Noble discusses search engine bias in an interview with USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism
Proponents of disease-specific patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) often argue disease-agnostic measures do not adequately capture their patient population’s experience. Patient-Reported ...Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) provides a disease-agnostic domain set that may adequately cover many diseases. This study seeks to investigate whether PROMIS’s quality of life domain coverage can span patient-reported outcomes (PROs) elicited from patients across unrelated diseases.
The Food and Drug Administration Voice of the Patient reports were an initiative to elevate patient voices regarding their condition and associated treatments. Two reviewers extracted patient-reported health-related (quality of life) domains from the reports and categorized them into PROMIS domains or non-PROMIS domains. Domain coverage was summarized for each report. Any extracted PROs not covered by PROMIS domains were placed in an “other” category and analyzed for common themes.
Across 26 reports, PROMIS covered 216 of 374 (70%) of the reports’ PRO domains. The heritable bleeding disorders report had the highest coverage (82%). Human immunodeficiency virus had the lowest coverage (50%). The most common PROMIS domain, “ability to participate in social roles,” appeared in 25 reports (96%). The most common domains not included in PROMIS were stigma, sensitivities, and sensory deficits as evident in 19 (73%), 18 (69%), and 18 reports (69%), respectively. If the top 3 unincluded domains were amended into PROMIS, the total domain coverage would increase to 84%.
PRO domains elicited in the Food and Drug Administration Voice of the Patient reports were widely captured by PROMIS, suggesting domains patients experience contain enough overlap to be recorded by appropriate PROMIS domains. PROMIS could increase its coverage by adding domains.
•Health-related quality of life disease-specific patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are routinely used in research and clinical trials, but are limited in their standardization or uptake into clinical practice. Barriers include a lack of provider interpretation training, time constraints, and patient survey fatigue. An alternative to disease-specific PROMs is disease-agnostic PROMs.•Few studies investigate shared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) across different diseases. Using a mixed-methods approach, we assess PRO domains across 26 chronic diseases using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System domain framework, showing that domains across diseases are common enough to be measured by a single disease-agnostic measure. Furthermore, crosscutting coverage across diseases could increase through adding seperate social stigma, sensitivity, and sensory domains.•It may not be necessary to use different PROMs to measure PROs in different diseases. Patient measurement tools should be patient centered and of limited burden. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, as a disease-agnostic PROM, serves as one method to satisfy these aspirations.
Introduction
People with inherited and long‐term conditions such as haemophilia have been shown to adapt to their levels of disability, often reporting better quality of life (QoL) than expected from ...the general population (the disability paradox).
Aim
To investigate the disability paradox in people with haemophilia in the United States by examining preference differences in health state valuations versus the general population.
Methods
We conducted a discrete choice experiment including duration to capture valuations of health states based on patient‐reported preferences. Participants indicated their preferences for hypothetical health states using the EQ‐5D‐5L, where each participant completed 15 of the 120 choice tasks. Response inconsistencies were evaluated with dominated and repeated scenarios. Conditional‐logit regressions with random sampling of the general population responses were used to match the sample of patients with haemophilia. We compared model estimates and derived preferences associated with EQ‐5D‐5L health states.
Results
After removing respondents with response inconsistencies, 1327/2138 (62%) participants remained (177/283 haemophilia; 1150/1900 general population). Patients with haemophilia indicated higher preference value for 99% of EQ‐5D‐5L health states compared to the general population (when matched on age and gender). The mean health state valuation difference of 0.17 indicated a meaningful difference compared to a minimal clinically important difference threshold of 0.07. Results were consistent by haemophilia type and severity.
Conclusion
Our findings indicated the presence of a disability paradox among patients with haemophilia, who reported higher health states than the general population, suggesting the impact of haemophilia may be underestimated if general population value sets are used.
Purpose Systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) differ from reviews of interventions and diagnostic test accuracy studies and are complex. In fact, conducting a review of one ...or more PROMs comprises of multiple reviews (i.e., one review for each measurement property of each PROM). In the absence of guidance specifically designed for reviews on measurement properties, our aim was to develop a guideline for conducting systematic reviews of PROMs. Methods Based on literature reviews and expert opinions, and in concordance with existing guidelines, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) steering committee developed a guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. Results A consecutive ten-step procedure for conducting a systematic review of PROMs is proposed. Steps 1-4 concern preparing and performing the literature search, and selecting relevant studies. Steps 5-8 concern the evaluation of the quality of the eligible studies, the measurement properties, and the interpretability and feasibility aspects. Steps 9 and 10 concern formulating recommendations and reporting the systematic review. Conclusions The COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs includes methodology to combine the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties with the quality of the PROM itself (i.e., its measurement properties). This enables reviewers to draw transparent conclusions and making evidence-based recommendations on the quality of PROMs, and supports the evidence-based selection of PROMs for use in research and in clinical practice.
Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the ...selection of health Measure- ment INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.PURPOSEAlthough comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measure- ment INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.METHODSThe development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final check- list to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.RESULTSFrom the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final check- list to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding expla- nation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA- COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application.CONCLUSIONPRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding expla- nation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA- COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application.
Background: Despite the development of patient-centred or patient-reported outcome measures (PCOMs or PROMs) in palliative and end-of-life care over recent years, their routine use in practice faces ...continuing challenges.
Objective: To update a highly cited literature review, identify and synthesise new evidence on facilitators, barriers, lessons learned, PCOMs used, models of implementation, implementation outcomes, costs, and consequences of implementing PCOMs in palliative care clinical practice.
Methods: We will search MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, Emcare, SCI-Expanded, SSCI, ESCI, and BNI. The database search will be supplemented by a list of studies from the expert advisory committee, hand-searching of reference lists for included articles, and citations of the original review. We will include primary studies using a PCOM during clinical care of adult patients with advanced disease in palliative care settings and extract data on reported models of implementation, PCOMs, facilitators, barriers, lessons learned, costs, and implementation outcomes. Gough's Weight of Evidence Framework will be used to assess the robustness and relevance of the studies. We will narratively synthesise and tabulate the findings. This review will follow PRISMA, PRISMA-Abstract, PRISMA-P, and PRISMA-Search as the reporting guidelines.
Source of funding: Marie Curie. The funder is not involved in designing or conducting this study.
Protocol registration: CRD42023398653 (13/02/2023)
The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is used when interpreting the importance of outcome data. However, a consensus regarding the MCID for commonly used patient-reported outcomes in ...shoulder surgery has not been established. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the available literature on shoulder MCID to improve clinical interpretation of shoulder outcome data.
A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify studies reporting anchor-based MCID values for the patient-reported outcomes recommended by the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES): Veterans Rand 12 score, ASES score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) score, Western Ontario Osteoarthritis Score (WOOS), Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), Pennsylvania Shoulder Score, and Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS).
A total of 14 articles reporting anchor-based MCID values were included in the final analysis. No studies reporting the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis Score (WOOS) were identified. The ASES score (6 studies), OSS (4 studies), and WORC score (2 studies) were the only instruments investigated in more than 1 study. The average reported MCID values for the ASES, OSS, and WORC scores were 15.5 (15% total difference), 275.7 (13% total difference), and 6 (13% total difference), respectively. The vast majority of studies failed to report information necessary to validate the credibility of these MCID values.
The current utility of the MCID for patient-report shoulder outcome instruments is limited by poor study methodology, inadequate reporting, and a lack of data. Further research is needed to more clearly define the MCID values for commonly used patient-reported outcomes in shoulder surgery.
Scores on an outcome measurement instrument depend on the type and settings of the instrument used, how instructions are given to patients, how professionals administer and score the instrument, etc. ...The impact of all these sources of variation on scores can be assessed in studies on reliability and measurement error, if properly designed and analyzed. The aim of this study was to develop standards to assess the quality of studies on reliability and measurement error of clinician-reported outcome measurement instruments, performance-based outcome measurement instrument, and laboratory values.
We conducted a 3-round Delphi study involving 52 panelists.
Consensus was reached on how a comprehensive research question can be deduced from the design of a reliability study to determine how the results of a study inform us about the quality of the outcome measurement instrument at issue. Consensus was reached on components of outcome measurement instruments, i.e. the potential sources of variation. Next, we reached consensus on standards on design requirements (n = 5), standards on preferred statistical methods for reliability (n = 3) and measurement error (n = 2), and their ratings on a four-point scale. There was one term for a component and one rating of one standard on which no consensus was reached, and therefore required a decision by the steering committee.
We developed a tool that enables researchers with and without thorough knowledge on measurement properties to assess the quality of a study on reliability and measurement error of outcome measurement instruments.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Purpose The original COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist was developed to assess the methodological quality of single studies on ...measurement properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Now it is our aim to adapt the COSMIN checklist and its four-point rating system into a version exclusively for use in systematic reviews of PROMs, aiming to assess risk of bias of studies on measurement properties. Methods For each standard (i.e., a design requirement or preferred statistical method), it was discussed within the COSMIN steering committee if and how it should be adapted. The adapted checklist was pilot-tested to strengthen content validity in a systematic review on the quality of PROMs for patients with hand osteoarthritis. Results Most important changes were the reordering of the measurement properties to be assessed in a systematic review of PROMs; the deletion of standards that concerned reporting issues and standards that not necessarily lead to biased results; the integration of standards on general requirements for studies on item response theory with standards for specific measurement properties; the recommendation to the review team to specify hypotheses for construct validity and responsiveness in advance, and subsequently the removal of the standards about formulating hypotheses; and the change in the labels of the four-point rating system. Conclusions The COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist was developed exclusively for use in systematic reviews of PROMs to distinguish this application from other purposes of assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties, such as guidance for designing or reporting a study on the measurement properties.
PDF
