In this presentation we presented the results of expert meetings. The aim was to identify which features in sport- and health-related apps contribute to effectiveness of apps. A nominal group technique was used.
DOCUMENT
This report presents the highlights of the 7th European Meeting on Molecular Diagnostics held in Scheveningen, The Hague, The Netherlands, 12-14 October 2011. The areas covered included molecular diagnostics applications in medical microbiology, virology, pathology, hemato-oncology,clinical genetics and forensics. Novel real-time amplification approaches, novel diagnostic applications and new technologies, such as next-generation sequencing, PCR lectrospray-ionization TOF mass spectrometry and techniques based on the detection of proteins or other molecules, were discussed. Furthermore, diagnostic companies presented their future visions for molecular diagnostics in human healthcare.
DOCUMENT
Background: A large number of people participate in individual or unorganized sports on a recreational level. Furthermore, many participants drop out because of injury or lowered motivation. Potentially, physical activity–related apps could motivate people during sport participation and help them to follow and maintain a healthy active lifestyle. It remains unclear what the quality of running, cycling, and walking apps is and how it can be assessed. Quality of these apps was defined as having a positive influence on participation in recreational sports. This information will show which features need to be assessed when rating physical activity–related app quality. Objective: The aim of this study was to identify expert perception on which features are important for the effectiveness of physical activity–related apps for participation in individual, recreational sports. Methods: Data were gathered via an expert panel approach using the nominal group technique. Two expert panels were organized to identify and rank app features relevant for sport participation. Experts were researchers or professionals in the field of industrial design and information technology (technology expert panel) and in the field of behavior change, health, and human movement sciences who had affinity with physical activity–related apps (health science expert panel). Of the 24 experts who were approached, 11 (46%) agreed to participate. Each panel session consisted of three consultation rounds. The 10 most important features per expert were collected. We calculated the frequency of the top 10 features and the mean importance score per feature (0-100). The sessions were taped and transcribed verbatim; a thematic analysis was conducted on the qualitative data. Results: In the technology expert panel, applied feedback and feedforward (91.3) and fun (91.3) were found most important (scale 0-100). Together with flexibility and look and feel, these features were mentioned most often (all n=4 [number of experts]; importance scores=41.3 and 43.8, respectively). The experts in the health science expert panels a and b found instructional feedback (95.0), motivating or challenging (95.0), peer rating and use (92.0), motivating feedback (91.3), and monitoring or statistics (91.0) most important. Most often ranked features were monitoring or statistics, motivating feedback, works good technically, tailoring starting point, fun, usability anticipating or context awareness, and privacy (all n=3-4 [number of experts]; importance scores=16.7-95.0). The qualitative analysis resulted in four overarching themes: (1) combination behavior change, technical, and design features needed; (2) extended feedback and tailoring is advised; (3) theoretical or evidence base as standard; and (4) entry requirements related to app use. Conclusions: The results show that a variety of features, including design, technical, and behavior change, are considered important for the effectiveness of physical activity–related apps by experts from different fields of expertise. These insights may assist in the development of an improved app rating scale.
LINK
In the Netherlands, palliative care is provided by generalist healthcare professionals (HCPs) if possible and by palliative care specialists if necessary. However, it still needs to be clarifed what specialist expertise entails, what specialized care consists of, and which training or work experience is needed to become a palliative care special‑ist. In addition to generalists and specialists, ‘experts’ in palliative care are recognized within the nursing and medical professions, but it is unclear how these three roles relate. This study aims to explore how HCPs working in palliative care describe themselves in terms of generalist, specialist, and expert and how this self-description is related to their work experience and education. Methods A cross-sectional open online survey with both pre-structured and open-ended questions among HCPs who provide palliative care. Analyses were done using descriptive statistics and by deductive thematic coding of open-ended questions. Results Eight hundred ffty-four HCPs flled out the survey; 74% received additional training, and 79% had more than fve years of working experience in palliative care. Based on working experience, 17% describe themselves as a generalist, 34% as a specialist, and 44% as an expert. Almost three out of four HCPs attributed their level of expertise on both their education and their working experience. Self-described specialists/experts had more working experience in palliative care, often had additional training, attended to more patients with palliative care needs, and were more often physicians as compared to generalists. A deductive analysis of the open questions revealed the similarities and dis‑ tinctions between the roles of a specialist and an expert. Seventy-six percent of the respondents mentioned the impor‑tance of having both specialists and experts and wished more clarity about what defnes a specialist or an expert, how to become one, and when you need them. In practice, both roles were used interchangeably. Competencies for the specialist/expert role consist of consulting, leadership, and understanding the importance of collaboration. Conclusions Although the grounds on which HCPs describe themselves as generalist, specialist, or experts difer, HCPs who describe themselves as specialists or experts mostly do so based on both their post-graduate education and their work experience. HCPs fnd it important to have specialists and experts in palliative care in addition to gen‑eralists and indicate more clarity about (the requirements for) these three roles is needed.
DOCUMENT
Teacher education enables students to grow from ‘novice’ into ‘starting expert’ teachers. In this study, students’ textual peer feedback on video recordings of their teaching practice was analysed to determine the growth of their expertise in relation to blended curriculum design. The degree to which curriculum and literature influenced their feedback was assessed by semantic network analysis of prominent words from the literature that was studied, as well as the lexical richness andsemantic cohesion of students’ peer feedback and reflections. The lexical richness and the semantic cohesion increased significantly by the end of the semester. This means that students incorporated new vocabulary and maintained semantic consistency while using the new words. Regarding the semantic network analysis, we found stronger connections between the topics being discussed by the students at the end of the semester. Active use of video and peer feedback enhances students’ activeknowledge base, thus furthering effective teaching.
DOCUMENT
The European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) and the European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO) launched the Sarcopenic Obesity Global Leadership Initiative (SOGLI) to reach expert consensus on a definition and diagnostic criteria for Sarcopenic Obesity (SO). The present paper describes the proceeding of the Sarcopenic Obesity Global Leadership Initiative (SOGLI) meeting that was held on November 25th and 26th, 2022 in Rome, Italy. This consortium involved the participation of 50 researchers from different geographic regions and countries. The document outlines an agenda advocated by the SOGLI expert panel regarding the pathophysiology, screening, diagnosis, staging and treatment of SO that needs to be prioritized for future research in the field.
DOCUMENT
On May 16th 2007 CESRT, Hogeschool Zuyd, took the initiative to organise an expert meeting on the subject of “Supervision in de Bachelor and the Master Social Work in Europe”. A group of supervision experts spent a whole day brainstorming and discussing supervision as a teaching method for practical training and professional development, “the state of the art” in Europe, and recent developments in the field. The expert meeting lead to the launching of a network for supervisors involved in Bachelor and Master (BaMa) Social Work programmes in Europe. The prime objective of the network is to exchange experiences and knowledge and furthermore to contribute to the development of supervision theory and practice in the BaMa Social Work. This report examines the reasoning and motivation on the subject. It provides a summary of the main themes, perspectives and a list of participants.
DOCUMENT
This dissertation concerns the adaptive ability by which workers meet new expertise needs throughout their careers. We aimed to increase our understanding of this adaptive ability through a series of four studies building upon the concept of flexpertise (Van der Heijden, 1998, 2000). These studies were designed to advance theorizing, specifically in scholarly research on expertise and expert performance (Ericsson et al., 2006) and sustainable careers (Van der Heijden & De Vos, 2015), and to increase our understanding of how flexpertise may be fostered among workers across expertise domains and working contexts.In this introduction chapter, we outline the key theoretical concepts regarding the flexpertise phenomenon that we will use throughout this dissertation, a description of the knowledge gap in the scholarly literature, and our research focus. This is followed by a summary of this PhD project that outlines the overall research objective, the research questions and research methods that we deployed, as well as an overview of the four flexpertise studies conducted (see Table 1.1). The subsequent chapters include the four (submitted) scientific publications on this matter. We conclude by reflecting on the theoretical, methodological and practical value of our research, and on the limitations of our research approach. We finish with recommendations for future research, ethical considerations on the usage of the flexpertise concept in labor market debates, and a personal reflection on this PhD program.Before explaining the key concept of flexpertise and related core concepts, we first outline what we mean by new expertise needs. These needs shaped the background of the four studies conducted.
DOCUMENT
Which factors are important for effectiveness of sport- and health-related apps? Results of focus groups with experts.Dallinga, J, van der Werf, J , Janssen, M, Vos, S, Deutekom-Baart de la Faille, M.A huge amount of sport- and health-related smartphone applications (apps) is available in the app stores [1]. These apps are often used by individual recreational athletes participating in running, walking or cycling [2]. Exercise apps ideally should support athletes and encourage them to be physical active in a frequent and healthy way. In order to reach these goals, more insight into the value of different app features is necessary. With this knowledge the health enhancing effects of apps can be improved. Therefore the aim of this study was to identify which features in sport- and health-related apps are important for stimulating and maintaining physical activity. Two focus groups (n=4 & n=3) were organized to identify and rank app features relevant for increasing and maintaining physical activity. These groups were facilitated by two of the authors (JD and JvdW). A nominal group technique was used. Seven behavioral and sport scientists participated in the focus groups consisting of three consultation rounds. In the first round these experts were asked to individually list all factors that they found necessary for increasing and maintaining physical activity. After that, all factors were collected, explained and listed on a white board. In the second round the experts were asked to individually rank the ten most important features. Subsequently, these rankings were discussed groupwise. In the last round, the experts individually made a final ranking of the ten most important features. In addition, they were also asked to appoint a score to each feature (0-100), to indicate the importance.The participants in the focus groups generated 28 and 24 features respectively in round one. After combining these features and checking for duplicates, we reduced the number of features to 25. Factors with highest frequency in the top 10 most important factors were ‘usability’ (n=7), ‘monitoring’ (n=5), ‘fun’ (n=5), ‘anticipating/context awareness’ (n=5) and ‘motivational feedback’ (n=4). Factors with highest importance scores were ‘instructional feedback’ (95.0), ‘motivating/challenging’ (95.0), ‘monitoring’ (92.5), ‘peer rating and peer use’ (92.0) and ‘motivational feedback’ (91.3). In conclusion, based on opinions of behavioral and sport scientists several app features were extracted related to physical activity, with instructional feedback and features that motivate or challenge the athlete as most important. A smart and tailored app may need to be developed that can provide feedback and anticipate on the environment. A feature for monitoring and a fun element may need to be included as well. Interestingly, usability was mentioned by all experts, this seems to be a premise for effectiveness of the app. Based on the results of this study, currently available exercise app rating scales could be revised [3, 4].This research is cofinanced by ‘Regieorgaan SIA’, part of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and by the Dutch national program COMMIT.References[1] Yuan S, Ma W, Kanthawala S, Peng W. Keep Using My Health Apps: Discover Users' Perception of Health and Fitness Apps with the UTAUT2 Model. Telemed J E Health. 2015 Sep;21(9):735-41. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2014.0148.[2] Dallinga JM., Janssen M, van der Bie J, Nibbeling N, Krose B, Goudsmit J, Megens C, Baart de la Faille-Deutekom M en Vos S. De rol van innovatieve technologie in het stimuleren van sport en bewegen in de steden Amsterdam en Eindhoven. Vrijtijdstudies. 2016, 34 (2): 43-57.[3] Abraham C, Michie S. A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in interventions. Health Psychol. 2008 May;27(3):379-87. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.27.3.379.[4] Stoyanov SR, Hides L, Kavanagh DJ, Zelenko O, Tjondronegoro D, Mani M. Mobile app rating scale: a new tool for assessing the quality of health mobile apps. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015 Mar 11;3(1):e27. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.3422
DOCUMENT
