Study Characteristics Sample Clauses

Study Characteristics. Any request for a Member Region Economic Study should focus on evaluating high-level metrics depicting various possible future scenarios of expanding the power system and quantifying the advantages and disadvantages associated with each scenario. A Member Region Economic Study will not assess the performance of individual assets. A Member Region Economic Study will be documented in a stand-alone report that is separate from the Regional Transmission Plan. Requests for a Member Region Economic Study shall be submitted and considered as follows:

Study Characteristics. Web Based Screening The paper based M-CHAT-R/F is a validated screening tool, where the web-based modality is not currently validated (▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2016). When the M-CHAT was revised in 2014 and combined with the follow-up interview, sensitivity decreased, specificity increased, and PPV increased (Robins et al., 2014). The literature review was not conducted to determine the validity of the M-CHAT-R/F, which has been proven, but to determine if implementing the M- CHAT-R/F with technological assistance would further enhance screening efficiency. Following the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommendation to screen all children for ASD at their 18 and 24-month well child visits, specialized professionals could not keep up with the increased demand (Wise, Little, Holliman, Wise, & Wang, 2010). The increased demand was not only due to the increase in ASD prevalence, but also due to the number of children being referred for further evaluation following overly sensitive screening (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2015). In order to improve the accuracy of children referred for further evaluation and to reach the number of children needing services, consensus was reached through review that enhancements need to be made to the current processes (Wise et al., 2010).

Study Characteristics. Study characteristics are reported in table 1. The majority of the studies employed a cross-sectional design (N= 12). Three studies utilised a prospective cohort study design (Brugnera et al., 2019; ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2012; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2010). Two studies did not report the length of time between baseline data collection and follow-up, but only described it as pre- and post-treatment (▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2012; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2010). In the other study (Brugnera et al., 2019), the length of time between baseline data collection and follow-up was 12 months. One study (▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇, 2020) employed an ecological momentary assessment (EMA), which assessed participants repeatedly in their natural environment in real time. The majority of studies included a control group of healthy participants (i.e. not having a diagnosis of ED) (N= 11).

Study Characteristics. Studies that met inclusion criteria and their individual characteristics, including location of study, and the population involved, are listed in Tables 1 and 2. For both groups (cancer care and cancer screening) of data, study subjects are defined as FtMs, MtFs, gender queer and gender non-confirming individuals, healthcare providers, and transgender health advocates. Fifteen studies were done in the United States (most, but not all, were conducted in large, urban cities) and one study was done in Canada. The 9 studies on cancer screening in transgender individuals are summarized in Table 1. Seven of these studies used qualitative methods. Of those, three used focus groups; one with transgender health advocates, and another two with medical providers. Four qualitative studies used in-person and phone interviews of transgender patients. Other studies used quantitative methods; three studies used online surveys that targeted transgender individuals and three used retrospective chart review of patient data (one of these studies also looked retrospectively at the subjective data directly taken from patient charts completed by providers). The majority, 6 out of 9, studies focused on cervical cancer screening. One looked at breast cancer screening, one looked at both breast and cervical cancer screening, and one remaining study looked at anal cancer screening. Seven studies published from 2008 through 2016 examined barriers to and facilitators of cancer care in transgender people (Table 2). Two of those studies used qualitative methods; both based on in-person interviews (one study was an interview with a single transgender patient). Five studies used quantitative methods; one study used interview data of transgender cancer patients from the Cancer’s Margins project, which studies the experiences of transgender people with cancer, in Canada, three studies used internet questionnaires, administered one to OB/GYN providers, oncology practitioners and cancer patients, and one study used retrospective review of survey data from the LIVESTRONG dataset (a national survey of cancer survivors in the United States, which included a subset of transgender patients).

Study Characteristics. Study characteristics are summarized in Table 2 (Appendix 2). Five were randomized controlled interventions2, six were feasibility, acceptability studies and six were observational studies. In total, 558 participants with a diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorders and a mean age ranging from 20 to 48 years participated in the 17 studies. 13 studies included individuals with schizophrenia or schizo-affective disorder, one study 2 For clarity, randomized controlled trials are defined as trials with a randomized control group and pre and post outcome measures; Feasibility or acceptability studies are defined as studies that assess the usability, feasibility, and acceptability of an intervention and may have a case control group or single group design; Observational studies are studies where the researcher observes and records behaviour in a systematic way without manipulating variables, e.g. experience sampling methods (▇▇▇▇ et al., 2010). included individuals with first episode psychosis, one study included individuals with a dual diagnosis of schizophrenia and substance misuse and two studies included individuals with non-affective psychosis.

Study Characteristics. A total of 2,871 participants were included, and study sample sizes ranged from one to 370 (Mean = 111) with 17 studies including both men and women. Sixteen studies were conducted in forensic mental health services and nine in non-forensic mental health services, across nine countries: UK (n = 8), Netherlands (n = 5), USA (n = 4), Canada (n = 2), Sweden (n = 2), Australia (n = 1), Norway (n = 1), Germany (n = 1), and Ireland (n = 1). Additional study characteristics are presented in Table 2. Figure 3 PRISMA flow diagram of study selection Table 2 Study characteristics Study Country Sample Characteristics Clinical Characteristics Method of Assessing Dynamic Risk Factors Aggressive Outcome Quality Assessment (0-9) Forensic Mental Health Services (n = 16) Abidin (2013) et al. Men = 94 (94%) Women = 6 (6%) Mean Age = 40.45 SD = 12.8 Range = 21.1 - 69.3 Psychosis = 85 (85%) Affective Disorder = 12 (12%) Intellectual Disability = 3 (3%) Structured Risk Assessment Physical aggression towards others and autoaggression, assessed through routine incident reporting forms, daily nurse management logs, and statutory forms for seclusion and restraint 6 Ireland ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2016) et al. Netherlands Men = 69 (100%) Mean Age = 37.9 SD = 7.9 Affective Disorder = 5 (7.2%) Personality Disorder = 69 (100%) Substance-use Disorders = 53 (76.8%) Developmental Disorder = 15 (21.7%) Other = 6 (8.7%) No Diagnosis = 10 (14.5%) Emotional Stroop, Signal Detection Task, Graded Emotion Recognition Task Physical and verbal aggression towards others, and property aggression, assessed using the Modified Overt Aggression Scale 6 ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ (2019) et al. Netherlands Men = 68 (68%) Women = 32 (32%) Mean Age = 32.01 SD = 9.02 Range = 18-57 Intellectual Disability = 100 (100%) Passive Remote Monitoring Device Physical and verbal aggression towards others, autoaggression, and property aggression, assessed using the Modified Overt Aggression Scale+ 8 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2004) UK Men = 44 (100%) Mean Age = 44 Range = 19-65 Psychosis = 24 (54.5%) Affective Disorder = 3 (6.8%) Personality Disorder = 11 (25%) Comorbid Psychosis/Personality Disorder = 6 (13.6%) Structured Risk Assessment Physical and verbal aggression towards others, and property aggression, assessed using hospital incident reporting forms 6 ▇▇▇▇▇ et al. (2015) USA Men = 109 (31%) Women = 239 (69%) Age Not Specified Not Applicable (Staff Members) Staff Survey Physical aggression towards others, assessed using an unvalidated Likert Scale 8 Lin...

Study Characteristics. 15 3.1.3 Measurement of Social rank and related constructs 16