This applied research project aims to generate a better understanding of the effects of heatwaves on vulnerable population groups in the municipality of The Hague, and suggests ways in which the municipality can help such groups to cope with these heatwaves. The research was performed as a cooperation between The Hague University of Applied Sciences (THUAS), the International Institute of Social Studies (ISS, Erasmus University Rotterdam) and the International Centre for Frugal Innovation (ICFI, Leiden-Delft-Erasmus Universities). Heatwaves constitute an important yet often overlooked part of climate change and their impacts qualify as disasters. According to the World Disasters Report 2020, the three heatwaves affecting Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and the UK in the summer of 2019 caused 3,453 deaths.1 2020 was a new record year for the Netherlands because it was the first time that a heatwave included five days in a row during which the temperature reached 35 degrees or more. In addition, 40 degrees was measured for the first time, and periods of tropical days and nights are generally getting longer. Most importantly, this trend is accelerating faster than the climate change models are predicting.2 In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic is compounding the effect of heatwaves, as vulnerable individuals may be reluctant to seek cool spaces out of fear of infection. Already in 2006, the Netherlands ranked near the top of the global disaster index due to the number of excess deaths that could be attributed to the heatwave. In the same year, the EU published the first climate strategy in which heat is recognised as a priority. In 2008, the Netherlands developed its first national heat plan.4 The municipality of The Hague has a municipal climate adaptation strategy and has developed a draft local heat plan in the summer of 2021, which was published in February 2022 . This research was not meant to be and was not set up as an evaluation of the current heat plan, which has not yet been activated. At the level of municipalities and cities, the concept of urban resilience is key. It refers to “the capacity of individuals, communities, institutions, businesses, and systems within a city to survive, adapt, and grow no matter what kinds of chronic stresses and acute shocks they experience”. Heatwaves clearly constitute acute shocks which are rapidly developing into chronic stresses. In turn, heatwaves also exacerbate the chronic stresses that are already there, i.e. existing chronic stresses also lead to greater impact of a heatwave. In other words, there are negative interaction effects. Addressing these effects requires overcoming the silo approach to urban governance, in which different municipal departments as well as other stakeholders (such as the Red Cross, housing corporations, tenants’ associations, care organisations, entrepreneurs etc.) each address different parts of the problem, rather than doing so in an integrated and inclusive manner. The dataset for this study is archived in DANS Easy: https://doi.org/10.17026/dans-xeb-h8uk
MULTIFILE
CC-BY-NC-NDSTUDY DESIGN:prospective cohort study.OBJECTIVE:To analyze responsiveness and minimal clinically important change (MCIC) of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) minimal dataset for chronic low back pain (CLBP).SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:The NIH minimal dataset is a 40-item questionnaire developed to increase use of standardized definitions and measures for CLBP. Longitudinal validity of the total minimal dataset and the subscale Impact Stratification are unknown.METHODS:Total outcome scores on the NIH minimal dataset, Dutch Language Version, were calculated ranging from 0-100 points with higher scores representing worse functioning. Responsiveness and MCIC were determined with an anchor based method, calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve (AUC) and by determining the optimal cut-off point. Smallest detectable change (SDC) was calculated as a parameter of measurement error.RESULTS:In total 223 patients with CLBP were included. Mean total score on the NIH minimal dataset was 44 ± 14 points at baseline. The total outcome score was responsive to change with an AUC of 0.84. MCIC was 14 points with a sensitivity of 72% and specificity 82%, and SDC was 23 points. Mean total score on Impact Stratification (scale 8-50) was 34.4 ± 7.4 points at baseline, with an AUC of 0.91, an MCIC of 7.5 with a sensitivity 96% of and specificity of 78%, and an SDC of 14 points.CONCLUSION:The longitudinal validity of the NIH minimal dataset is adequate. An improvement of 14 points in total outcome score and 7.5 points in Impact Stratification can be interpreted as clinically important in individual patients. However, MCIC depends on baseline values and the method that is chosen to determine the optimal cut-off point. Furthermore, measurement error is larger than the MCIC. This means that individual change scores should be interpreted with caution.LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:4This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal
MULTIFILE
Reporting of research findings is often selective. This threatens the validity of the published body of knowledge if the decision to report depends on the nature of the results. The evidence derived from studies on causes and mechanisms underlying selective reporting may help to avoid or reduce reporting bias. Such research should be guided by a theoretical framework of possible causal pathways that lead to reporting bias. We build upon a classification of determinants of selective reporting that we recently developed in a systematic review of the topic. The resulting theoretical framework features four clusters of causes. There are two clusters of necessary causes: (A) motivations (e.g. a preference for particular findings) and (B) means (e.g. a flexible study design). These two combined represent a sufficient cause for reporting bias to occur. The framework also features two clusters of component causes: (C) conflicts and balancing of interests referring to the individual or the team, and (D) pressures from science and society. The component causes may modify the effect of the necessary causes or may lead to reporting bias mediated through the necessary causes. Our theoretical framework is meant to inspire further research and to create awareness among researchers and end-users of research about reporting bias and its causes.