In a recent official statement, Google highlighted the negative effects of fake reviews on review websites and specifically requested companies not to buy and users not to accept payments to provide fake reviews (Google, 2019). Also, governmental authorities started acting against organisations that show to have a high number of fake reviews on their apps (DigitalTrends, 2018; Gov UK, 2020; ACM, 2017). However, while the phenomenon of fake reviews is well-known in industries as online journalism and business and travel portals, it remains a difficult challenge in software engineering (Martens & Maalej, 2019). Fake reviews threaten the reputation of an organisation and lead to a disvalued source to determine the public opinion about brands. Negative fake reviews can lead to confusion for customers and a loss of sales. Positive fake reviews might also lead to wrong insights about real users’ needs and requirements. Although fake reviews have been studied for a while now, there are only a limited number of spam detection models available for companies to protect their corporate reputation. Especially in times with the coronavirus, organisations need to put extra focus on online presence and limit the amount of negative input that affects their competitive position which can even lead to business loss. Given state-of-the-art derived features that can be engineered from review texts, a spam detector based on supervised machine learning is derived in an experiment that performs quite well on the well-known Amazon Mechanical Turk dataset.
MULTIFILE
MULTIFILE
BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that an increase in baccalaureate-educated registered nurses (BRNs) leads to better quality of care in hospitals. For geriatric long-term care facilities such as nursing homes, this relationship is less clear. Most studies assessing the relationship between nurse staffing and quality of care in long-term care facilities are US-based, and only a few have focused on the unique contribution of registered nurses. In this study, we focus on BRNs, as they are expected to serve as role models and change agents, while little is known about their unique contribution to quality of care in long-term care facilities. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study among 282 wards and 6,145 residents from 95 Dutch long-term care facilities. The relationship between the presence of BRNs in wards and quality of care was assessed, controlling for background characteristics, i.e. ward size, and residents' age, gender, length of stay, comorbidities, and care dependency status. Multilevel logistic regression analyses, using a generalized estimating equation approach, were performed. RESULTS: 57% of the wards employed BRNs. In these wards, the BRNs delivered on average 4.8 min of care per resident per day. Among residents living in somatic wards that employed BRNs, the probability of experiencing a fall (odds ratio 1.44; 95% CI 1.06-1.96) and receiving antipsychotic drugs (odds ratio 2.15; 95% CI 1.66-2.78) was higher, whereas the probability of having an indwelling urinary catheter was lower (odds ratio 0.70; 95% CI 0.53-0.91). Among residents living in psychogeriatric wards that employed BRNs, the probability of experiencing a medication incident was lower (odds ratio 0.68; 95% CI 0.49-0.95). For residents from both ward types, the probability of suffering from nosocomial pressure ulcers did not significantly differ for residents in wards employing BRNs. CONCLUSIONS: In wards that employed BRNs, their mean amount of time spent per resident was low, while quality of care on most wards was acceptable. No consistent evidence was found for a relationship between the presence of BRNs in wards and quality of care outcomes, controlling for background characteristics. Future studies should consider the mediating and moderating role of staffing-related work processes and ward environment characteristics on quality of care.
The reclaiming of street spaces for pedestrians during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as on Witte de Withstraat in Rotterdam, appears to have multiple benefits: It allows people to escape the potentially infected indoor air, limits accessibility for cars and reduces emissions. Before ordering their coffee or food, people may want to check one of the many wind and weather apps, such as windy.com: These apps display the air quality at any given time, including, for example, the amount of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a gas responsible for an increasing number of health issues, particularly respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Ships and heavy industry in the nearby Port of Rotterdam, Europe’s largest seaport, exacerbate air pollution in the region. Not surprisingly, in 2020 Rotterdam was ranked as one of the unhealthiest cities in the Netherlands, according to research on the health of cities conducted by Arcadis. Reducing air pollution is a key target for the Port Authority and the City of Rotterdam. Missing, however, is widespread awareness among citizens about how air pollution links to socio-spatial development, and thus to the future of the port city cluster of Rotterdam. To encourage awareness and counter the problem of "out of sight - out of mind," filmmaker Entrop&DeZwartFIlms together with ONSTV/NostalgieNet, and Rotterdam Veldakademie, are collaborating with historians of the built environment and computer science and public health from TU Delft and Erasmus University working on a spatial data platform to visualize air pollution dynamics and socio-economic datasets in the Rotterdam region. Following discussion of findings with key stakeholders, we will make a pilot TV-documentary. The documentary, discussed first with Rotterdam citizens, will set the stage for more documentaries on European and international cities, focusing on the health effects—positive and negative—of living and working near ports in the past, present, and future.
