Studies on employment of autistic individuals mainly assessed if they work and what their working conditions are (e.g. weekly hours, salary) while less is known about where they work. We explore this ...issue in our study, by examining which employment sectors do autistic adults work in, and comparing them to the general workforce in the Netherlands. We also explored the possibility that gender, age, age at diagnosis, level of education, degree of autistic traits and presence of focused interests could lead to a higher likelihood of working in specific sectors. We assessed data from a survey filled in by 1115 employed autistic adults (476 male; 627 female; 12 other; mean age: 40.75). Dutch workforce information was based on data form the Central Bureau of Statistics. Results showed that a higher proportion of autistic employees worked in healthcare & welfare, information technology, and the public-army-charity sectors. These were the three most-common sectors for this group. A lower proportion of autistic employees worked in economics & finances, and industry & construction, compared to the general workforce. Most autistic employees in the healthcare & welfare sector were females while having a higher educational degree and being male increased the chance of working in information technology. In addition to the common impression that most autistic individuals have interests or abilities that align with employment in information technology and technology sectors, we found that autistic employees worked in various sectors. It is important to address individual characteristics and needs of autistic individuals, while encouraging diverse employment opportunities.
Many people have flipped coins but few have stopped to ponder the statistical and physical intricacies of the process. In a preregistered study we collected \(350{,}757\) coin flips to test the ...counterintuitive prediction from a physics model of human coin tossing developed by Diaconis, Holmes, and Montgomery (DHM; 2007). The model asserts that when people flip an ordinary coin, it tends to land on the same side it started -- DHM estimated the probability of a same-side outcome to be about 51%. Our data lend strong support to this precise prediction: the coins landed on the same side more often than not, \(\text{Pr}(\text{same side}) = 0.508\), 95% credible interval (CI) \(0.506\), \(0.509\), \(\text{BF}_{\text{same-side bias}} = 2359\). Furthermore, the data revealed considerable between-people variation in the degree of this same-side bias. Our data also confirmed the generic prediction that when people flip an ordinary coin -- with the initial side-up randomly determined -- it is equally likely to land heads or tails: \(\text{Pr}(\text{heads}) = 0.500\), 95% CI \(0.498\), \(0.502\), \(\text{BF}_{\text{heads-tails bias}} = 0.182\). Furthermore, this lack of heads-tails bias does not appear to vary across coins. Additional exploratory analyses revealed that the within-people same-side bias decreased as more coins were flipped, an effect that is consistent with the possibility that practice makes people flip coins in a less wobbly fashion. Our data therefore provide strong evidence that when some (but not all) people flip a fair coin, it tends to land on the same side it started. Our data provide compelling statistical support for the DHM physics model of coin tossing.
Recommendations of evidence- and formally consensus-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) represent a valuable source of quality indicators (QIs). Nevertheless, a standardized methodological ...procedure for developing QIs in the context of CPGs does not yet exist in Germany for all CPGs. For this reason, a methodological standard for the guideline-based development of QIs (QI Standard) was developed based on a structured consensus process involving multiple key stakeholders.
The proposed content of the QI Standard was derived from evidence, drawing upon results of reviews and qualitative studies, and considered German manuals for guideline-based QI development of two guideline programs. A multi-perspective consensus panel, broadly representing key stakeholders from the German healthcare system with expertise in CPGs and/or quality management, was nominated to vote on recommendations for guideline-based development of QIs. The iterative, structured consensus process included a two-stage online survey based on the Delphi method ("preliminary voting") and a moderated final stakeholder conference where all those recommendations were definitely included in the QI Standard that received approval of more than 75 % (consensus criterion) of the consensus panel.
Based on the agreed QI Standard, the QI development process starts with a criteria-based selection of "potential" QIs which - in case of adoption - are published in CPGs as "preliminary" QIs and can achieve the status "final" after successful testing. The QI Standard is composed of a total of 30 recommendations, which are allocated to six areas: A) preparatory work steps for the guideline-based recommendation of QIs, B) QI development group and cooperation with the CPG group, C) development of potential QIs, D) critical appraisal of potential QIs, E) formal adoption and publication as well as F) piloting/testing of preliminary QIs and conversion into final QIs.
Before the QI Standard can be recommended for implementation in future CPGs, it should have been successfully tested in selected German CPG projects. In addition to methodological requirements for the QI development, it must be ensured that guideline groups have adequate resources for the implementation of the QI Standard.
By using the QI Standard, scientifically sound and healthcare-relevant QIs can be expected.
Empfehlungen aus S3-Leitlinien (S3-LL) stellen eine wichtige Grundlage für die Entwicklung von Qualitätsindikatoren (QI) dar. Ein einheitliches methodisches Vorgehen zur Entwicklung von QI im Kontext ...von S3-LL existiert in Deutschland bisher nicht. Aus diesem Grund wurde ein methodischer Standard für die leitlinienbasierte Entwicklung von QI (QI-Standard) anhand eines strukturierten Konsensprozesses unter Einbezug der relevanten Experten- und Interessengruppen erarbeitet.
Die Inhalte des QI-Standards wurden evidenzgeleitet zusammengestellt, basierend auf den Ergebnissen von Übersichtsarbeiten und qualitativen Studien sowie unter Berücksichtigung der bereits existierenden Manuale zur leitlinienbasierten QI-Entwicklung. Für die Abstimmung des QI-Standards wurde ein multiperspektivisches Panel mit breiter Repräsentanz von Experten- und Interessengruppen aus dem deutschen Gesundheitssystem und Expertise in Leitlinienarbeit und/oder Qualitätsmanagement nominiert. Das iterative, strukturierte Konsensverfahren beinhaltete eine zweistufige Onlinebefragung angelehnt an das Delphi-Verfahren („vorläufige Abstimmung“) sowie eine moderierte Abschlusskonferenz, bei der diejenigen Empfehlungen in den QI-Standard aufgenommen wurden, die eine Zustimmung von>75% (Konsens-Kriterium) des Expertenpanels erhielten.
Der erarbeitete QI-Standard sieht als QI-Entwicklungsschritte zuerst die kriteriengestützte Auswahl „potenzieller QI“ vor, die nach ihrer Verabschiedung als „vorläufige QI“ in der S3-LL veröffentlicht werden und schließlich nach erfolgreicher Testung den Status „finale QI“ erlangen. Der QI-Standard setzt sich aus insgesamt 30 Empfehlungen zusammen, die sich auf sechs Bereiche verteilen: A) Vorbereitende Arbeitsschritte für die leitlinienbasierte Empfehlung von QI, B) Zusammensetzung der QI-Entwicklergruppe und Zusammenarbeit mit der LL-Gruppe, C) Entwicklung der potenziellen QI, D) Bewertung der potenziellen QI, E) Verabschiedung und Publikation sowie F) Pilotierung/Testung der vorläufigen und Überführung in finale QI.
Bevor der QI-Standard bei künftigen S3-LL-Erstellungen oder Aktualisierungen zur Implementierung empfohlen werden kann, sollte dieser in ausgewählten S3-Leitlinienprojekten erfolgreich erprobt worden sein. Neben methodischen Anforderungen an die QI-Entwicklung muss sichergestellt sein, dass den LL-Gruppen adäquate Ressourcen für die Umsetzung des QI-Standards zur Verfügung stehen.
Vom Einsatz des QI-Standards durch Leitliniengruppen können wissenschaftlich fundierte und für die Versorgung relevante QI erwartet werden.
Recommendations of evidence- and formally consensus-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) represent a valuable source of quality indicators (QIs). Nevertheless, a standardized methodological procedure for developing QIs in the context of CPGs does not yet exist in Germany for all CPGs. For this reason, a methodological standard for the guideline-based development of QIs (QI Standard) was developed based on a structured consensus process involving multiple key stakeholders.
The proposed content of the QI Standard was derived from evidence, drawing upon results of reviews and qualitative studies, and considered German manuals for guideline-based QI development of two guideline programs. A multi-perspective consensus panel, broadly representing key stakeholders from the German healthcare system with expertise in CPGs and/or quality management, was nominated to vote on recommendations for guideline-based development of QIs. The iterative, structured consensus process included a two-stage online survey based on the Delphi method (“preliminary voting”) and a moderated final stakeholder conference where all those recommendations were definitely included in the QI Standard that received approval of more than 75 % (consensus criterion) of the consensus panel.
Based on the agreed QI Standard, the QI development process starts with a criteria-based selection of „potential” QIs which – in case of adoption – are published in CPGs as „preliminary” QIs and can achieve the status “final” after successful testing. The QI Standard is composed of a total of 30 recommendations, which are allocated to six areas: A) preparatory work steps for the guideline-based recommendation of QIs, B) QI development group and cooperation with the CPG group, C) development of potential QIs, D) critical appraisal of potential QIs, E) formal adoption and publication as well as F) piloting/testing of preliminary QIs and conversion into final QIs.
Before the QI Standard can be recommended for implementation in future CPGs, it should have been successfully tested in selected German CPG projects. In addition to methodological requirements for the QI development, it must be ensured that guideline groups have adequate resources for the implementation of the QI Standard.
By using the QI Standard, scientifically sound and healthcare-relevant QIs can be expected.
