Search

Background: Models to predict disease course and long-term outcome based on clinical characteristics at disease onset may guide early treatment strategies in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Before a prediction model can be recommended for use in clinical practice, it needs to be validated in a different cohort than the one used for building the model. The aim of the current study was to validate the predictive performance of the Canadian prediction model developed by Guzman et al. and the Nordic model derived from Rypdal et al. to predict severe disease course and non-achievement of remission in Nordic patients with JIA. Methods: The Canadian and Nordic multivariable logistic regression models were evaluated in the Nordic JIA cohort for prediction of non-achievement of remission, and the data-driven outcome denoted severe disease course. A total of 440 patients in the Nordic cohort with a baseline visit and an 8-year visit were included. The Canadian prediction model was first externally validated exactly as published. Both the Nordic and Canadian models were subsequently evaluated with repeated fine-tuning of model coefficients in training sets and testing in disjoint validation sets. The predictive performances of the models were assessed with receiver operating characteristic curves and C-indices. A model with a C-index above 0.7 was considered useful for clinical prediction. Results: The Canadian prediction model had excellent predictive ability and was comparable in performance to the Nordic model in predicting severe disease course in the Nordic JIA cohort. The Canadian model yielded a C-index of 0.85 (IQR 0.83-0.87) for prediction of severe disease course and a C-index of 0.66 (0.63-0.68) for prediction of non-achievement of remission when applied directly. The median C-indices after fine-tuning were 0.85 (0.80-0.89) and 0.69 (0.65-0.73), respectively. Internal validation of the Nordic model for prediction of severe disease course resulted in a median C

Background: Models to predict disease course and long-term outcome based on clinical characteristics at disease onset may guide early treatment strategies in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Before a prediction model can be recommended for use in clinical practice, it needs to be validated in a different cohort than the one used for building the model. The aim of the current study was to validate the predictive performance of the Canadian prediction model developed by Guzman et al. and the Nordic model derived from Rypdal et al. to predict severe disease course and non-achievement of remission in Nordic patients with JIA. Methods: The Canadian and Nordic multivariable logistic regression models were evaluated in the Nordic JIA cohort for prediction of non-achievement of remission, and the data-driven outcome denoted severe disease course. A total of 440 patients in the Nordic cohort with a baseline visit and an 8-year visit were included. The Canadian prediction model was first externally validated exactly as published. Both the Nordic and Canadian models were subsequently evaluated with repeated fine-tuning of model coefficients in training sets and testing in disjoint validation sets. The predictive performances of the models were assessed with receiver operating characteristic curves and C-indices. A model with a C-index above 0.7 was considered useful for clinical prediction. Results: The Canadian prediction model had excellent predictive ability and was comparable in performance to the Nordic model in predicting severe disease course in the Nordic JIA cohort. The Canadian model yielded a C-index of 0.85 (IQR 0.83-0.87) for prediction of severe disease course and a C-index of 0.66 (0.63-0.68) for prediction of non-achievement of remission when applied directly. The median C-indices after fine-tuning were 0.85 (0.80-0.89) and 0.69 (0.65-0.73), respectively. Internal validation of the Nordic model for prediction of severe disease course resulted in a median C

Background: Models to predict disease course and long-term outcome based on clinical characteristics at disease onset may guide early treatment strategies in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Before a prediction model can be recommended for use in clinical practice, it needs to be validated in a different cohort than the one used for building the model. The aim of the current study was to validate the predictive performance of the Canadian prediction model developed by Guzman et al. and the Nordic model derived from Rypdal et al. to predict severe disease course and non-achievement of remission in Nordic patients with JIA. Methods: The Canadian and Nordic multivariable logistic regression models were evaluated in the Nordic JIA cohort for prediction of non-achievement of remission, and the data-driven outcome denoted severe disease course. A total of 440 patients in the Nordic cohort with a baseline visit and an 8-year visit were included. The Canadian prediction model was first externally validated exactly as published. Both the Nordic and Canadian models were subsequently evaluated with repeated fine-tuning of model coefficients in training sets and testing in disjoint validation sets. The predictive performances of the models were assessed with receiver operating characteristic curves and C-indices. A model with a C-index above 0.7 was considered useful for clinical prediction. Results: The Canadian prediction model had excellent predictive ability and was comparable in performance to the Nordic model in predicting severe disease course in the Nordic JIA cohort. The Canadian model yielded a C-index of 0.85 (IQR 0.83-0.87) for prediction of severe disease course and a C-index of 0.66 (0.63-0.68) for prediction of non-achievement of remission when applied directly. The median C-indices after fine-tuning were 0.85 (0.80-0.89) and 0.69 (0.65-0.73), respectively. Internal validation of the Nordic model for prediction of severe disease course resulted in a median C

Background: Models to predict disease course and long-term outcome based on clinical characteristics at disease onset may guide early treatment strategies in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Before a prediction model can be recommended for use in clinical practice, it needs to be validated in a different cohort than the one used for building the model. The aim of the current study was to validate the predictive performance of the Canadian prediction model developed by Guzman et al. and the Nordic model derived from Rypdal et al. to predict severe disease course and non-achievement of remission in Nordic patients with JIA. Methods: The Canadian and Nordic multivariable logistic regression models were evaluated in the Nordic JIA cohort for prediction of non-achievement of remission, and the data-driven outcome denoted severe disease course. A total of 440 patients in the Nordic cohort with a baseline visit and an 8-year visit were included. The Canadian prediction model was first externally validated exactly as published. Both the Nordic and Canadian models were subsequently evaluated with repeated fine-tuning of model coefficients in training sets and testing in disjoint validation sets. The predictive performances of the models were assessed with receiver operating characteristic curves and C-indices. A model with a C-index above 0.7 was considered useful for clinical prediction. Results: The Canadian prediction model had excellent predictive ability and was comparable in performance to the Nordic model in predicting severe disease course in the Nordic JIA cohort. The Canadian model yielded a C-index of 0.85 (IQR 0.83-0.87) for prediction of severe disease course and a C-index of 0.66 (0.63-0.68) for prediction of non-achievement of remission when applied directly. The median C-indices after fine-tuning were 0.85 (0.80-0.89) and 0.69 (0.65-0.73), respectively. Internal validation of the Nordic model for prediction of severe disease course resulted in a median C

Background: Models to predict disease course and long-term outcome based on clinical characteristics at disease onset may guide early treatment strategies in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Before a prediction model can be recommended for use in clinical practice, it needs to be validated in a different cohort than the one used for building the model. The aim of the current study was to validate the predictive performance of the Canadian prediction model developed by Guzman et al. and the Nordic model derived from Rypdal et al. to predict severe disease course and non-achievement of remission in Nordic patients with JIA. Methods: The Canadian and Nordic multivariable logistic regression models were evaluated in the Nordic JIA cohort for prediction of non-achievement of remission, and the data-driven outcome denoted severe disease course. A total of 440 patients in the Nordic cohort with a baseline visit and an 8-year visit were included. The Canadian prediction model was first externally validated exactly as published. Both the Nordic and Canadian models were subsequently evaluated with repeated fine-tuning of model coefficients in training sets and testing in disjoint validation sets. The predictive performances of the models were assessed with receiver operating characteristic curves and C-indices. A model with a C-index above 0.7 was considered useful for clinical prediction. Results: The Canadian prediction model had excellent predictive ability and was comparable in performance to the Nordic model in predicting severe disease course in the Nordic JIA cohort. The Canadian model yielded a C-index of 0.85 (IQR 0.83-0.87) for prediction of severe disease course and a C-index of 0.66 (0.63-0.68) for prediction of non-achievement of remission when applied directly. The median C-indices after fine-tuning were 0.85 (0.80-0.89) and 0.69 (0.65-0.73), respectively. Internal validation of the Nordic model for prediction of severe disease course resulted in a median C

Background: To characterize the existing national and multi-national registries and cohort studies in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and identify differences as well as areas of potential future collaboration. Methods: We surveyed investigators from North America, Europe, and Australia about existing JIA cohort studies and registries. We excluded cross-sectional studies. We captured information about study design, duration, location, inclusion criteria, data elements and collection methods. Results: We received survey results from 18 studies, including 11 national and 7 multi-national studies representing 37 countries in total. Study designs included inception cohorts, prevalent disease cohorts, and new treatment cohorts (several of which contribute to pharmacosurveillance activities). Despite numerous differences, the data elements collected across the studies was quite similar, with most studies collecting at least 5 of the 6 American College of Rheumatology core set variables and the data needed to calculate the 3-variable clinical juvenile disease activity score. Most studies were collecting medication initiation and discontinuation dates and were attempting to capture serious adverse events. Conclusion: There is a wide-range of large, ongoing JIA registries and cohort studies around the world. Our survey results indicate significant potential for future collaborative work using data from different studies and both combined and comparative analyses.

Background: To characterize the existing national and multi-national registries and cohort studies in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and identify differences as well as areas of potential future collaboration. Methods: We surveyed investigators from North America, Europe, and Australia about existing JIA cohort studies and registries. We excluded cross-sectional studies. We captured information about study design, duration, location, inclusion criteria, data elements and collection methods. Results: We received survey results from 18 studies, including 11 national and 7 multi-national studies representing 37 countries in total. Study designs included inception cohorts, prevalent disease cohorts, and new treatment cohorts (several of which contribute to pharmacosurveillance activities). Despite numerous differences, the data elements collected across the studies was quite similar, with most studies collecting at least 5 of the 6 American College of Rheumatology core set variables and the data needed to calculate the 3-variable clinical juvenile disease activity score. Most studies were collecting medication initiation and discontinuation dates and were attempting to capture serious adverse events. Conclusion: There is a wide-range of large, ongoing JIA registries and cohort studies around the world. Our survey results indicate significant potential for future collaborative work using data from different studies and both combined and comparative analyses.

Background: To characterize the existing national and multi-national registries and cohort studies in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and identify differences as well as areas of potential future collaboration. Methods: We surveyed investigators from North America, Europe, and Australia about existing JIA cohort studies and registries. We excluded cross-sectional studies. We captured information about study design, duration, location, inclusion criteria, data elements and collection methods. Results: We received survey results from 18 studies, including 11 national and 7 multi-national studies representing 37 countries in total. Study designs included inception cohorts, prevalent disease cohorts, and new treatment cohorts (several of which contribute to pharmacosurveillance activities). Despite numerous differences, the data elements collected across the studies was quite similar, with most studies collecting at least 5 of the 6 American College of Rheumatology core set variables and the data needed to calculate the 3-variable clinical juvenile disease activity score. Most studies were collecting medication initiation and discontinuation dates and were attempting to capture serious adverse events. Conclusion: There is a wide-range of large, ongoing JIA registries and cohort studies around the world. Our survey results indicate significant potential for future collaborative work using data from different studies and both combined and comparative analyses.

Background: To characterize the existing national and multi-national registries and cohort studies in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and identify differences as well as areas of potential future collaboration. Methods: We surveyed investigators from North America, Europe, and Australia about existing JIA cohort studies and registries. We excluded cross-sectional studies. We captured information about study design, duration, location, inclusion criteria, data elements and collection methods. Results: We received survey results from 18 studies, including 11 national and 7 multi-national studies representing 37 countries in total. Study designs included inception cohorts, prevalent disease cohorts, and new treatment cohorts (several of which contribute to pharmacosurveillance activities). Despite numerous differences, the data elements collected across the studies was quite similar, with most studies collecting at least 5 of the 6 American College of Rheumatology core set variables and the data needed to calculate the 3-variable clinical juvenile disease activity score. Most studies were collecting medication initiation and discontinuation dates and were attempting to capture serious adverse events. Conclusion: There is a wide-range of large, ongoing JIA registries and cohort studies around the world. Our survey results indicate significant potential for future collaborative work using data from different studies and both combined and comparative analyses.

Background: To characterize the existing national and multi-national registries and cohort studies in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and identify differences as well as areas of potential future collaboration. Methods: We surveyed investigators from North America, Europe, and Australia about existing JIA cohort studies and registries. We excluded cross-sectional studies. We captured information about study design, duration, location, inclusion criteria, data elements and collection methods. Results: We received survey results from 18 studies, including 11 national and 7 multi-national studies representing 37 countries in total. Study designs included inception cohorts, prevalent disease cohorts, and new treatment cohorts (several of which contribute to pharmacosurveillance activities). Despite numerous differences, the data elements collected across the studies was quite similar, with most studies collecting at least 5 of the 6 American College of Rheumatology core set variables and the data needed to calculate the 3-variable clinical juvenile disease activity score. Most studies were collecting medication initiation and discontinuation dates and were attempting to capture serious adverse events. Conclusion: There is a wide-range of large, ongoing JIA registries and cohort studies around the world. Our survey results indicate significant potential for future collaborative work using data from different studies and both combined and comparative analyses.

This study is an overview of published empirical research on the impact of leaders and leadership styles on employee stress and affective well-being. A computerized search and systematic review of nearly 30 years of empirical research was conducted. Forty-nine papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria, which include the requirements for papers to report empirical studies and to be published during the period 1980 to 2009 in English-language peer-reviewed journals. The studies were mostly cross-sectional (43/49 papers) and examined the impact of leaders’ stress (4 papers), leaders’ behaviours (e.g. support, consideration and empowerment) (30 papers) and specific leadership styles (20 papers) on employees’ stress and affective well-being. Three research questions were addressed. The review found some support for leader stress and affective well-being being associated with employee stress and affective well-being. Leader behaviours, the relationship between leaders and their employees and specific leadership styles were all associated with employee stress and affective well-being. It is recommended that future studies include more qualitative data, use standardise questionnaires and examine the processes linking leaders with employee stress. This may lead to effective interventions.

This study is an overview of published empirical research on the impact of leaders and leadership styles on employee stress and affective well-being. A computerized search and systematic review of nearly 30 years of empirical research was conducted. Forty-nine papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria, which include the requirements for papers to report empirical studies and to be published during the period 1980 to 2009 in English-language peer-reviewed journals. The studies were mostly cross-sectional (43/49 papers) and examined the impact of leaders’ stress (4 papers), leaders’ behaviours (e.g. support, consideration and empowerment) (30 papers) and specific leadership styles (20 papers) on employees’ stress and affective well-being. Three research questions were addressed. The review found some support for leader stress and affective well-being being associated with employee stress and affective well-being. Leader behaviours, the relationship between leaders and their employees and specific leadership styles were all associated with employee stress and affective well-being. It is recommended that future studies include more qualitative data, use standardise questionnaires and examine the processes linking leaders with employee stress. This may lead to effective interventions.

INTRODUCTION: The Work Disability Prevention (WDP) Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Strategic Training Program was developed in 2001 and is a unique program in the world. The main objective of this program is to help future researchers develop transdisciplinary knowledge, skills and attitudes regarding WDP. The purpose of this paper is to present a descriptive portrait of the program's performance over the past 5 years, as well as the trainees' and alumni's perspectives on the WDP CIHR Training Program. METHODS: Data on the program's performance were collected from documents in the program records. The trainees' opinions on the WDP training program were obtained through focus groups and telephone interviews. The data collected were compiled and divided into themes to summarize the qualitative findings pertaining to each question. RESULTS: From 2003 to 2007, five successive summer sessions have been offered, involving 44 high-caliber applicants from nine countries, 34 mentors and collaborators, 29 guest speakers and 15 stakeholders. Overall, trainees appreciated the networking, the opportunity to interact with people from different disciplines and countries, the openness, and the international perspective and uniqueness of the program. The least appreciated aspects concerned mainly the e-learning course, evaluations and information on optional courses. The coordination and logistics were judged appropriate and several topics were suggested to improve the program quality. CONCLUSION: In general, the program implementation went well, with good participation from mentors, speakers and stakeholders; the program was appreciated by the trainees and alumni. This paper underscores the importance of the international perspective, the transdisciplinarity and the scientific networking established through the program.

People's participation has been a problem in Mexican society since Colonial times (1521–1810). This has precluded the country from achieving real development. The concept of development subscribed in this dissertation is not so much associated with the acquisition of goods but with the capability and desire of doing more with whatever one has, to improve one's quality of life and that of others. This concept refers to a deeper internal conviction of continuous progress never achieving a final stage. No matter how limited in resources an individual may be, he or she can always make better his/her life condition and that of others, as long as the desire for improvement remains. Development, is not a condition or a state defined by the amount of wealth a person has. Development in this context is defined as the ability and desire to use what is available to continuously improve the quality of life. From a systemic view, any community is a purposeful system capable of collectively making decisions, capable of selecting both goals and means to approach an idealized future, capable of displaying will. Therefore, if a community is allowed to plan for itself it will be able to produce and implement plans that will continuously lead it to practice and enhance development, both individually and collectively. It is shown that participation of a social system in the design and implementation of their own future enhances development. A modified version of the Search Conference (SC), a powerful method of participative strategic planning, has been used in the intervention of three Mexican organizations. One is a provincial university, other is a rural community, and the third one is a university school. The new version of the SC is called Reflection and Design Conference (RDC) and is adapted to fit the Mexican organizational culture. The conclusion is that indeed participation enhances development. The RDC produces continuing participation, for how long?, it depends on both intern