Recent developments in digital technology and consumer culture have created new opportunities for retail and brand event concepts which create value by offering more than solely marketing or transactions, but rather a place where passion is shared. This chapter will define the concept of ‘fashion space’ and consumer experience, and delves into strategies for creating experiences that both align with a brand’s ethos and identity and build brand communities. It will provide insight on creating strong shared brand experiences that integrate physical and digital spaces, AR and VR. These insights can be used for consumer spaces but also for media and buyer events, runway shows, test labs and showrooms. Since its launch in 2007, international fashion brand COS has focused on creating fashion spaces that build and reinforce a COS fashion community. COS retail stores with their extraordinary architecture, both traditional and contemporary, contribute stories and facilitate intense brand experiences. Moreover, COS’ dedication to share the artistic inspirations of its people led to collaborating on interactive and multi-sensory installations which allow consumers to affectively connect to the brand’s personality and values. Thus, the brand was able to establish itself firmly in the lifestyle of its customers, facilitating and developing their aesthetics and values. This is an Accepted Manuscript of a book chapter published by Routledge/CRC Press in "Communicating Fashion Brands. Theoretical and Practical Perspectives" on 03-03-2020, available online: https://www.routledge.com/Communicating-Fashion-Brands-Theoretical-and-Practical-Perspectives/Huggard-Cope/p/book/9781138613560. LinkedIn: https://nl.linkedin.com/in/overdiek12345
MULTIFILE
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of a proactive primary care program on the daily functioning of older people in primary care. DESIGN: Single-blind, three-arm, cluster-randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. SETTING: Primary care setting, 39 general practices in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling people aged 60 and older (N = 3,092). INTERVENTIONS: A frailty screening intervention using routine electronic medical record data to identify older people at risk of adverse events followed by usual care from a general practitioner; after the screening intervention, a nurse-led care program consisting of a comprehensive geriatric assessment, evidence-based care planning, care coordination, and follow-up; usual care. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome was daily functioning measured using the Katz-15 (6 activities of daily living (ADLs), 8 instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), one mobility item (range 0–15)); higher scores indicat greater dependence. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, primary care consultations, hospital admissions, emergency department visits, nursing home admissions, and mortality. RESULTS: The participants in both intervention arms had less decline in daily functioning than those in the usual care arm at 12 months (mean Katz-15 score: screening arm, 1.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.77–1.97; screening and nurse-led care arm, 1.88, 95% CI = 1.80–1.96; control group, 2.03, 95% CI = 1.9 –2.13; P = .03). No differences in quality of life were observed. CONCLUSION: Participants in both intervention groups had less decline than those in the control group at 1-year follow-up. Despite the statistically significant effect, the clinical relevance is uncertain at this point because of the small differences. Greater customizing of the intervention combined with prolonged follow-up may lead to more robust results.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Cardiac Care Bridge (CCB) nurse-led transitional care program in older (≥70 years) cardiac patients compared to usual care.MethodsThe intervention group (n = 153) received the CCB program consisting of case management, disease management and home-based cardiac rehabilitation in the transition from hospital to home on top of usual care and was compared with the usual care group (n = 153). Outcomes included a composite measure of first all-cause unplanned hospital readmission or mortality, Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) and societal costs within six months follow-up. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. Statistical uncertainty surrounding Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) was estimated by using bootstrapped seemingly unrelated regression.ResultsNo significant between group differences in the composite outcome of readmission or mortality nor in societal costs were observed. QALYs were statistically significantly lower in the intervention group, mean difference -0.03 (95% CI: -0.07; -0.02). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that the maximum probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 0.31 at a Willingness To Pay (WTP) of €0,00 and 0.14 at a WTP of €50,000 per composite outcome prevented and 0.32 and 0.21, respectively per QALY gained.ConclusionThe CCB program was on average more expensive and less effective compared to usual care, indicating that the CCB program is dominated by usual care. Therefore, the CCB program cannot be considered cost-effective compared to usual care.
MULTIFILE
