There are substantial differences between models of the economic impacts of tourism. Not only do the nature and precision of results vary, but data demands, complexity and underlying assumptions also differ. Often, it is not clear whether the models chosen are appropriate for the specific situation to which they are applied. The goal of this article is to provide an overview and evaluation of criteria for the selection of economic impact models. A literature review produced 52 potential criteria, subdivided into 10 groups. Based on an analysis of experts' opinions, the perceived importance of each criterion was determined and a set of essential criteria created. To illustrate the usage of these essential criteria, five models (export base, Keynesian, ad hoc, input-output and computable general equilibrium) were evaluated and compared based on their performance on these criteria. This paper builds on the existing literature by showing that it is possible to make a more informed choice among economic impact models of tourism.
LINK
While sustainability of transport projects is of increasing importance, the concept of sustainability can be understood in many different ways by the stakeholders that are involved in or affected by mobility projects. In this paper, we compare the outcomes of the assessment of sustainability of projects through a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) and the appraisal of stakeholder preferences through the multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (MAMCA). Evaluating projects with both tools and comparing the outcomes can provide insight into the stakeholder support of sustainable solutions and the sustainability of alternatives preferred by stakeholders. The sustainability of projects is assessed through 16 criteria grouped under the three pillars of sustainability. They were selected by in-depth review of 16 case studies of mobility projects, 18 transport evaluation schemes and the ranking of potential criteria by 214 stakeholders in North-West Europe. These criteria were weighted by 93 representatives of decision makers in the mobility domain. Stakeholder preferences were appraised through the criteria identified for each stakeholder group. We illustrate the framework by evaluating alternative solutions to improve cycling connections between the towns of Tilburg and Waalwijk in the Netherlands. The results of the comparison show that stakeholder preferences are biased towards one or two of the sustainability pillars (economy, environment, society) in three ways: through the selection of the criteria by the stakeholders, the weights of each criterion by each stakeholder group and differences in the final ranking of alternatives between the stakeholder groups and the MCA.
MULTIFILE
The concept of immersion has been widely used for the design and evaluation of user experiences. Augmented, virtual and mixed-reality environments have further sparked the discussion of immersive user experiences and underlying requirements. However, a clear definition and agreement on design criteria of immersive experiences remains debated, creating challenges to advancing our understanding of immersive experiences and how these can be designed. Based on a multidisciplinary Delphi approach, this study provides a uniform definition of immersive experiences and identifies key criteria for the design and staging thereof. Thematic analysis revealed five key themes – transition into/out of the environment, in-experience user control, environment design, user context relatedness, and user openness and motivation, that emphasise the coherency in the user-environment interaction in the immersive experience. The study proposes an immersive experience framework as a guideline for industry practitioners, outlining key design criteria for four distinct facilitators of immersive experiences–systems, spatial, empathic/social, and narrative/sequential immersion. Further research is proposed using the immersive experience framework to investigate the hierarchy of user senses to optimise experiences that blend physical and digital environments and to study triggered, desired and undesired effects on user attitude and behaviour.
MULTIFILE
Background: Chronic constipation is common in people with intellectual disabilities, and seems to be highly prevalent in people with severe or profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (SPIMD). However, there is no current widely accepted definition for the constipation experienced by these individuals. Aim: This Delphi study aims to compile a list of operationalized criteria and symptoms of constipation in people with SPIMD based on practical experiences of and consensus between experts supporting them. Methods: A two-round Delphi study with an intermediate evaluation and analyses was conducted. Parents and relatives of persons with SPIMD and support professionals were included. The panel answered statements and open questions about symptoms and criteria of constipation. They were also requested to provide their opinion about classifying criteria and symptoms into domains. Answers to statements were analysed separately after both rounds with regard to consensus rate and displayed qualitatively; answers to open questions were analysed deductively. Results: In the first Delphi round (n = 47), consensus was achieved on criteria within the domains 'Defecation’ and 'Physical features', that were assigned to broader categories. Symptoms retrieved within the domain ‘Behavioural/Emotional’ were brought back to the panel as statements. After the second Delphi round (n = 38), consensus was reached on questions about domains, and for eight criteria (domain ‘Defecation’ n = 5; domain ‘Physical features n = 3). Within the domain ‘Behavioural/Emotional’, consensus was achieved for five symptoms. Criteria and symptoms with consensus >70% were considered ‘generic’ and
DOCUMENT
Introduction: In March 2014, the New South Wales (NSW) Government (Australia) announced the NSW Integrated Care Strategy. In response, a family-centred, population-based, integrated care initiative for vulnerable families and their children in Sydney, Australia was developed. The initiative was called Healthy Homes and Neighbourhoods. A realist translational social epidemiology programme of research and collaborative design is at the foundation of its evaluation. Theory and Method: The UK Medical Research Council (MRC) Framework for evaluating complex health interventions was adapted. This has four components, namely 1) development, 2) feasibility/piloting, 3) evaluation and 4) implementation. We adapted the Framework to include: critical realist, theory driven, and continuous improvement approaches. The modified Framework underpins this research and evaluation protocol for Healthy Homes and Neighbourhoods. Discussion: The NSW Health Monitoring and Evaluation Framework did not make provisions for assessment of the programme layers of context, or the effect of programme mechanism at each level. We therefore developed a multilevel approach that uses mixed-method research to examine not only outcomes, but also what is working for whom and why.
LINK
While traditional crime rates are decreasing, cybercrime is on the rise. As a result, the criminal justice system is increasingly dealing with criminals committing cyber-dependent crimes. However, to date there are no effective interventions to prevent recidivism in this type of offenders. Dutch authorities have developed an intervention program, called Hack_Right. Hack_Right is an alternative criminal justice program for young first-offenders of cyber-dependent crimes. In order to prevent recidivism, this program places participants in organizations where they are taught about ethical hacking, complete (technical) assignments and reflect on their offense. In this study, we have evaluated the Hack_Right program and the pilot interventions carried out thus far. By examining the program theory (program evaluation) and implementation of the intervention (process evaluation), the study adds to the scarce literature about cybercrime interventions. During the study, two qualitative research methods have been applied: 1) document analysis and 2) interviews with intervention developers, imposers, implementers and participants. In addition to the observation that the scientific basis for linking specific criminogenic factors to cybercriminals is still fragile, the article concludes that the theoretical base and program integrity of Hack_Right need to be further developed in order to adhere to principles of effective interventions.
DOCUMENT
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) aims to provide insights into the inner workings and the outputs of AI systems. Recently, there’s been growing recognition that explainability is inherently human-centric, tied to how people perceive explanations. Despite this, there is no consensus in the research community on whether user evaluation is crucial in XAI, and if so, what exactly needs to be evaluated and how. This systematic literature review addresses this gap by providing a detailed overview of the current state of affairs in human-centered XAI evaluation. We reviewed 73 papers across various domains where XAI was evaluated with users. These studies assessed what makes an explanation “good” from a user’s perspective, i.e., what makes an explanation meaningful to a user of an AI system. We identified 30 components of meaningful explanations that were evaluated in the reviewed papers and categorized them into a taxonomy of human-centered XAI evaluation, based on: (a) the contextualized quality of the explanation, (b) the contribution of the explanation to human-AI interaction, and (c) the contribution of the explanation to human- AI performance. Our analysis also revealed a lack of standardization in the methodologies applied in XAI user studies, with only 19 of the 73 papers applying an evaluation framework used by at least one other study in the sample. These inconsistencies hinder cross-study comparisons and broader insights. Our findings contribute to understanding what makes explanations meaningful to users and how to measure this, guiding the XAI community toward a more unified approach in human-centered explainability.
MULTIFILE
Living labs are complex multi-stakeholder collaborations that often employ a usercentred and design-driven methodology to foster innovation. Conventional management tools fall short in evaluating them. However, some methods and tools dedicated to living labs' special characteristics and goals have already been developed. Most of them are still in their testing phase. Those tools are not easily accessible and can only be found in extensive research reports, which are difficult to dissect. Therefore, this paper reviews seven evaluation methods and tools specially developed for living labs. Each section of this paper is structured in the following manner: tool’s introduction (1), who uses the tool (2), and how it should be used (3). While the first set of tools, namely “ENoLL 20 Indicators”, “SISCODE Self-assessment”, and “SCIROCCO Exchange Tool” assess a living lab as an organisation and are diving deeper into the organisational activities and the complex context, the second set of methods and tools, “FormIT” and “Living Lab Markers”, evaluate living labs’ methodologies: the process they use to come to innovations. The paper's final section presents “CheRRIes Monitoring and Evaluation Tool” and “TALIA Indicator for Benchmarking Service for Regions”, which assess the regional impact made by living labs. As every living lab is different regarding its maturity (as an organisation and in its methodology) and the scope of impact it wants to make, the most crucial decision when evaluating is to determine the focus of the assessment. This overview allows for a first orientation on worked-out methods and on possible indicators to use. It also concludes that the existing tools are quite managerial in their method and aesthetics and calls for designers and social scientists to develop more playful, engaging and (possibly) learning-oriented tools to evaluate living labs in the future. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/overdiek12345/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/mari-genova-17a727196/?originalSubdomain=nl
DOCUMENT
Background: The Nurses in the Lead (NitL) programme consists of a systematic approach and training to 1) empower community nurses in implementing evidence, targeted at encouraging functional activities of older adults, and 2) train community nurses in enabling team members to change their practice. This article aims to describe the process evaluation of NitL. Methods: A mixed-methods formative process evaluation with a predominantly qualitative approach was conducted. Qualitative data were collected by interviews with community nurses (n = 7), focus groups with team members (n = 31), and reviewing seven implementation plans and 28 patient records. Quantitative data were collected among community nurses and team members (N = 90) using a questionnaire to assess barriers in encouraging functional activities and attendance lists. Data analysis was carried out through descriptive statistics and content analysis. Results: NitL was largely executed according to plan. Points of attention were the use and value of the background theory within the training, completion of implementation plans, and reporting in patient records by community nurses. Inhibiting factors for showing leadership and encouraging functional activities were a lack of time and a high complexity of care; facilitating factors were structure and clear communication within teams. Nurses considered the systematic approach useful and the training educational for their role. Most team members considered NitL practical and were satisfied with the coaching provided by community nurses. To optimise NitL, community nurses recommended providing the training first and extending the training. The team members recommended continuing clinical lessons, which were an implementation strategy from the community nurses. Conclusions: NitL was largely executed as planned, and appears worthy of further application in community care practice. However, adaptations are recommended to make NitL more promising in practice in empowering community nurse leadership in implementing evidence.
DOCUMENT
Standard SARS-CoV-2 testing protocols using nasopharyngeal/throat (NP/T) swabs are invasive and require trained medical staff for reliable sampling. In addition, it has been shown that PCR is more sensitive as compared to antigen-based tests. Here we describe the analytical and clinical evaluation of our in-house RNA extraction-free saliva-based molecular assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Analytical sensitivity of the test was equal to the sensitivity obtained in other Dutch diagnostic laboratories that process NP/T swabs. In this study, 955 individuals participated and provided NP/T swabs for routine molecular analysis (with RNA extraction) and saliva for comparison. Our RT-qPCR resulted in a sensitivity of 82,86% and a specificity of 98,94% compared to the gold standard. A false-negative ratio of 1,9% was found. The SARS-CoV-2 detection workflow described here enables easy, economical, and reliable saliva processing, useful for repeated testing of individuals.
LINK
