Introduction: Standardization of voice outcomes indicators (VOIs) is an important issue when it comes to evaluating and comparing surgical treatments for Unilateral Vocal Fold Paralysis (UVFP). In... Show moreIntroduction: Standardization of voice outcomes indicators (VOIs) is an important issue when it comes to evaluating and comparing surgical treatments for Unilateral Vocal Fold Paralysis (UVFP). In a recent review, 11 VOIs were found to represent 80% of the VOIs cited in the literature. A survey was launched among the European laryngologists to acquire surgeons' opinions on the above mentioned preselected VOIs.Material and method: The electronic survey took place between November and December 2016. Three general questions were asked about surgeon's practice setting(s) and experience. The eleven next questions concerned (a) surgeon's VOIs preference and (b) their estimates of post-operative target values, they would consider being satisfactory.Results: The response rate was 16% (50 surveys). The majority of responders worked in tertiary hospitals (50%), had 15 years of experience with UVFP and performed on average 20 UVFP related procedures a year. The VOIs that were favored by the responding surgeons were, in decreasing order of importance, Voice handicap Index (VHI-30), Maximum Phonation Time (MPT), GRBAS-I, Mean Airflow Rate (MeAF), Jitter and Shimmer. There was an excellent consensus on post-operative VOI target values between survey's results and the literature data, except for three VOIs that showed somewhat divergent tendencies (absolute VHI-30, Jitter and Shimmer).Conclusions: Three VOIs are favored by surgeons: VHI-30, MPT and GRBAS-I. Jitter and Shimmer, although very frequently reported and statistically valid in the literature, come last concerning surgeon's choice as VOI for UVFP treatment assessment. (C) 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved. Show less
How does question design regarding non-substantive response options affect survey outcomes? This research question, and specifically the effect of using non-substantive response options – the Don’t... Show moreHow does question design regarding non-substantive response options affect survey outcomes? This research question, and specifically the effect of using non-substantive response options – the Don’t Know option, filter question and follow-up question – on item nonresponse and the substantive overall distribution of opinions was examined by conducting three experiments with three Dutch internet panels (the LISS panel, the EenVandaag Opiniepanel and Team Vier’s internet panel). The effect of offering a non-substantive response option is that item nonresponse changes, but not the resulting picture of public opinion in terms of majorities or pluralities. The effect of a non-substantive response option for substantively different issues was expected to vary per the relation to a major political dimension (resulting in less item nonresponse) or to foreign policy issues (resulting in more nonresponse). The results were mixed; more research is needed to differentiate between question content. The follow-up question, which differentiates between permissive and directive opinions, resulted in about two-third of the respondents expressing a directive opinion, which was more than expected. The main recommendation is to start including the most basic non-substantive response option, the explicit Don’t Know option, as a response category for opinion questions. Show less
Borm, C.D.J.M.; Werkmann, M.; Visser, F.; Peball, M.; Putz, D.; Seppi, K.; ... ; Vries, N.M. de 2019
The BOADICEA breast cancer (BC) risk assessment model and its associated Web Application v3 (BWA) tool are being extended to incorporate additional genetic and non-genetic BC risk factors. From an... Show moreThe BOADICEA breast cancer (BC) risk assessment model and its associated Web Application v3 (BWA) tool are being extended to incorporate additional genetic and non-genetic BC risk factors. From an online survey through the BOADICEA website and UK, Dutch, French and Swedish national genetic societies, we explored the relationships between the usage frequencies of the BWA and six other common BC risk assessment tools and respondents' perceived importance of BC risk factors. Respondents (N=443) varied in age, country and clinical seniority but comprised mainly genetics health professionals (82%) and BWA users (93%). Oncology professionals perceived reproductive, hormonal (exogenous) and lifestyle BC risk factors as more important in BC risk assessment compared to genetics professionals (p values <0.05 to 0.0001). BWA was used more frequently by respondents who gave high weight to breast tumour pathology and low weight to personal BC history as BC risk factors. BWA use was positively related to the weight given to hormonal BC risk factors. The importance attributed to lifestyle and BMI BC risk factors was not associated with the use of BWA or any of the other tools. Next version of the BWA encompassing additional BC risk factors will facilitate more comprehensive BC risk assessment in genetics and oncology practice. Show less
