{"component": "clause", "props": {"groups": [{"samples": [{"hash": "kAfGsxeeZxy", "uri": "/contracts/kAfGsxeeZxy#survey-design", "label": "Not Applicable", "score": 24.8042430878, "published": true}, {"hash": "ao0VBEGxYbG", "uri": "/contracts/ao0VBEGxYbG#survey-design", "label": "Not Applicable", "score": 24.8042430878, "published": true}, {"hash": "9v68jcb0BE1", "uri": "/contracts/9v68jcb0BE1#survey-design", "label": "Research Study", "score": 24.8042430878, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "data-collection", "type": "clause", "offset": [82, 97]}, {"key": "demographic-data", "type": "clause", "offset": [148, 164]}, {"key": "in-practice", "type": "definition", "offset": [250, 261]}, {"key": "private-practice", "type": "clause", "offset": [296, 312]}, {"key": "practice-location", "type": "definition", "offset": [321, 338]}, {"key": "the-children", "type": "clause", "offset": [408, 420]}, {"key": "research-team", "type": "clause", "offset": [570, 583]}, {"key": "review-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [652, 661]}, {"key": "the-survey", "type": "clause", "offset": [673, 683]}, {"key": "patient-population", "type": "clause", "offset": [1182, 1200]}, {"key": "the-assumption", "type": "clause", "offset": [1237, 1251]}, {"key": "knowledge-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [1286, 1298]}, {"key": "with-the-field", "type": "definition", "offset": [1333, 1347]}, {"key": "be-prepared", "type": "clause", "offset": [1352, 1363]}, {"key": "new-patients", "type": "definition", "offset": [1387, 1399]}, {"key": "pediatric-patients", "type": "definition", "offset": [1413, 1431]}, {"key": "adult-care", "type": "clause", "offset": [1446, 1456]}, {"key": "changes-in", "type": "definition", "offset": [1758, 1768]}, {"key": "table-1", "type": "clause", "offset": [1870, 1877]}, {"key": "the-relevant", "type": "clause", "offset": [1979, 1991]}, {"key": "agree-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [2233, 2241]}, {"key": "strongly-disagree", "type": "clause", "offset": [2242, 2259]}, {"key": "the-study", "type": "definition", "offset": [2374, 2383]}, {"key": "eligible-respondents", "type": "clause", "offset": [2421, 2441]}, {"key": "descriptive-data", "type": "definition", "offset": [2497, 2513]}, {"key": "other-questions", "type": "clause", "offset": [2718, 2733]}, {"key": "sample-size", "type": "definition", "offset": [2789, 2800]}, {"key": "the-risk", "type": "definition", "offset": [2857, 2865]}, {"key": "positive-response", "type": "definition", "offset": [2934, 2951]}, {"key": "reporting-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [2979, 2991]}, {"key": "the-percentage", "type": "definition", "offset": [3015, 3029]}, {"key": "in-favor-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [3121, 3132]}, {"key": "level-of-support", "type": "definition", "offset": [3164, 3180]}, {"key": "clinical-practice-guideline", "type": "definition", "offset": [3187, 3214]}, {"key": "associated-with", "type": "definition", "offset": [3218, 3233]}, {"key": "type-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [3287, 3294]}, {"key": "patient-experience", "type": "clause", "offset": [3327, 3345]}, {"key": "margin-of-error", "type": "definition", "offset": [3554, 3569]}, {"key": "average-margin", "type": "definition", "offset": [3587, 3601]}, {"key": "supplementary-information", "type": "definition", "offset": [3644, 3669]}, {"key": "of-agreement", "type": "clause", "offset": [3770, 3782]}, {"key": "type-1", "type": "clause", "offset": [3922, 3928]}, {"key": "overall-agreement", "type": "definition", "offset": [3998, 4015]}, {"key": "total-number-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [4209, 4224]}, {"key": "guidelines-for", "type": "clause", "offset": [4225, 4239]}, {"key": "a-p", "type": "clause", "offset": [5087, 5090]}, {"key": "content-analysis", "type": "definition", "offset": [5191, 5207]}, {"key": "eligibility-screening", "type": "definition", "offset": [5355, 5376]}, {"key": "an-additional", "type": "clause", "offset": [5381, 5394]}, {"key": "potentially-eligible", "type": "definition", "offset": [5522, 5542]}, {"key": "in-table-2", "type": "clause", "offset": [5710, 5720]}, {"key": "the-us", "type": "clause", "offset": [5881, 5888]}, {"key": "number-of-respondents", "type": "clause", "offset": [5937, 5958]}, {"key": "new-york", "type": "clause", "offset": [5964, 5972]}, {"key": "clinical-care", "type": "definition", "offset": [6080, 6093]}, {"key": "affiliated-with", "type": "definition", "offset": [6144, 6159]}, {"key": "the-majority", "type": "clause", "offset": [6216, 6228]}, {"key": "for-non", "type": "clause", "offset": [6293, 6300]}, {"key": "research-studies", "type": "clause", "offset": [6311, 6327]}, {"key": "similar-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [6425, 6435]}, {"key": "geographic-distribution", "type": "clause", "offset": [6440, 6463]}, {"key": "in-clinical-trials", "type": "clause", "offset": [6526, 6544]}, {"key": "annual-report", "type": "definition", "offset": [6671, 6684]}, {"key": "table-3", "type": "clause", "offset": [6784, 6791]}, {"key": "percentage-points", "type": "definition", "offset": [7157, 7174]}, {"key": "with-the-exception-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [7177, 7198]}, {"key": "guideline-documents", "type": "definition", "offset": [7385, 7404]}, {"key": "less-than-half", "type": "clause", "offset": [7883, 7897]}, {"key": "figure-1", "type": "definition", "offset": [8044, 8052]}, {"key": "supplementary-table", "type": "definition", "offset": [8122, 8141]}, {"key": "preference-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [8259, 8272]}, {"key": "radiation-exposure", "type": "clause", "offset": [8323, 8341]}, {"key": "blood-pressure", "type": "definition", "offset": [8356, 8370]}, {"key": "signs-and", "type": "clause", "offset": [8401, 8410]}, {"key": "breast-cancer-screening", "type": "clause", "offset": [8677, 8700]}, {"key": "family-planning", "type": "definition", "offset": [8723, 8738]}, {"key": "figure-2", "type": "clause", "offset": [8961, 8969]}, {"key": "frequency-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [9402, 9414]}, {"key": "all-patients", "type": "definition", "offset": [9430, 9442]}, {"key": "genetic-testing", "type": "clause", "offset": [9846, 9861]}, {"key": "statistically-significant-differences", "type": "clause", "offset": [10182, 10219]}, {"key": "based-on", "type": "definition", "offset": [10254, 10262]}, {"key": "categories-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [11049, 11062]}, {"key": "sources-of-disagreement", "type": "clause", "offset": [11097, 11120]}, {"key": "in-general", "type": "clause", "offset": [11140, 11150]}, {"key": "order-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [11215, 11223]}, {"key": "timing-of-services", "type": "clause", "offset": [11261, 11279]}, {"key": "the-provider", "type": "definition", "offset": [11430, 11442]}, {"key": "scope-of-practice", "type": "clause", "offset": [11445, 11462]}], "snippet": "This cross-sectional survey was administered online using REDCap, a secure online data collection platform.12 Respondents were asked to self-report demographic data and practice characteristics [i.e. gender, race, ethnicity, medical specialty, years in practice, practice type (academic practice/private practice/other), practice location (urban/suburban/rural), involvement in NF research, affiliation with the Children\u2019s Tumor Foundation NF Clinic Network, and whether their practice currently included pediatric and adult NF1, NF2, and schwannomatosis patients.] The research team identified six relevant NF guideline publications3-8 via literature review to include in the survey (as French guidelines from \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 et al. (2020) were published after this survey was administered). All respondents were asked to identify whether they were previously aware, unaware, or unsure about each publication [which were identified by first author, title, journal, publication year, PubMed ID and primary topic area (i.e. pediatric NF1)]. Respondents were asked about their awareness of all six NF guideline publications, even if their practice did not currently include the specific NF patient population addressed by the publication, under the assumption that clinicians should have broad knowledge of these resources to remain current with the field, to be prepared to coordinate care for new patients, and to help pediatric patients transition to adult care. One author (JTJ) extracted 40 individual guidelines from five guideline publications4-8 for assessment of guideline agreement (as pediatric NF1 guidelines from \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 et al. (2019) were published after this section of the survey was finalized). Guidelines were largely extracted verbatim, with minor changes in wording to combine nearly identical guidelines from multiple publications or to improve grammar (see Table 1 for full list of guidelines). All guidelines were assessed by two authors (JTJ and VLM) to determine the relevant patient population addressed (i.e. pediatric or adult; NF1, NF2, or schwannomatosis). Respondents were asked to rate their agreement with each individual guideline relevant to their practice population using a 5-point Likert scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree, with neutral as the midpoint). Respondents could also optionally provide free-text comments about any guideline. The study size was determined by the number of eligible respondents who completed at least one guideline agreement rating. Descriptive data on all variables are reported as frequencies and percentages. Only questions assessing study eligibility and determining the subpopulations of NF included in each clinicians\u2019 practice were mandatory; all other questions were optional, and percentages are reported out of the sample size of non-missing responses unless otherwise noted. Due to the risk of acquiescence bias (the tendency for survey respondents to select positive response options)13, we focused our reporting of guideline agreement on the percentage of respondents who selected \u201cstrongly agree\u201d, thus actively indicating a strong preference in favor of each guideline. As clinicians\u2019 level of support for a clinical practice guideline is associated with their adherence to guidelines is practice14,15, this type of top-box analysis (used often in patient experience surveys)16-18 may best predict clinicians\u2019 real-world behavior. We calculated the 95% confidence interval for the percentage of respondents who strongly agreed with each guideline using standard formulas for margin of error of a proportion; average margin of error across all guidelines was 12.7% (Supplementary Information). We examined whether clinician demographics or practice characteristics were correlated with level of agreement with NF clinical guidelines. Given the large number of individual guidelines and respondent subgroups of interest (and concomitant risk of Type 1 error from performing multiple comparisons), we assessed clinicians\u2019 overall agreement with all clinical guidelines relevant to their own practice populations. To do this, we calculated the proportion of guidelines to which each clinician \u2018strongly agreed\u2019 as a proportion of the total number of guidelines for which they completed ratings. This proportion could range from 0 (does not strongly agree with any guidelines) to 1 (strongly agrees with all guidelines). This proportion was compared across respondent subgroups used t-tests or ANOVA as appropriate. Two NF1 guidelines publications were endorsed by U.S. medical societies \u2013 \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 et al. guidelines for pediatric NF1 published by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and endorsed by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics3 (ACMG) and \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 et al. guidelines for adult NF1 published by ACMG4. To better understand guideline dissemination patterns, we assessed whether clinicians in these professions (pediatrics and medical genetics, respectively) were more likely to report being aware of guideline publications than clinicians in other specialties using \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2019\u2587 exact test. A p-value of \u22640.05 was considered statistically significant for all tests. Finally, we used qualitative content analysis to summarize respondent\u2019s free-text comments.19 Eighty-two U.S. based clinicians accessed the survey; twelve did not complete any questions beyond eligibility screening and an additional seven did not complete any guideline agreement questions, resulting in a final analytic sample of 63 people [63/358 (17.6%) of potentially eligible respondents, 63/82 (76.8%) of eligible respondents who accessed the survey]. Clinician demographics, practice characteristics, and type of NF specialization are shown in Table 2. Clinicians represented >8 medical or surgical specialties, with one-third (n=21) of respondents in neurology or neuro-oncology. Clinicians were located across the U.S., representing 26 U.S. states with the greatest number of respondents from New York, California, Florida, Massachusetts, and Minnesota (respectively). Most respondents (n=50, 79.4%) provided clinical care as part of a specialized neurofibromatosis clinic affiliated with the Children\u2019s Tumor Foundation NF Clinic Network20 and the majority were involved in NF research (n=39 for clinical trials and n=47 for non-treatment research studies such as tumor banks, natural history studies or questionnaire-based research). These results are similar to the geographic distribution and proportion of NF Clinic Network clinics who were involved in clinical trials at this time [31/56 (55.4%) of clinics compared to 61.9% of survey respondents, per Children\u2019s Tumor Foundation internal 2019 annual report]. Clinicians self-reported their awareness of publications containing NF clinical care guidelines (Table 3). The percentage of respondents who were aware of each guideline set ranged from 53.2% (for schwannomatosis guidelines within \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 et al. 2017) to 79.4% (for pediatric NF1 guidelines published by \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 et al. 2007). Among only those respondents who reported currently seeing the relevant patient population, awareness was only marginally increased (by 1.1 to 5.1 percentage points), with the exception of adult NF2 guidelines by \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 et al. 2005, in which awareness increased 11.6 percentage points to 65.7% of respondents. Overall, 26-36% of respondents were unaware of recently published guideline documents (2017-2019). Medical geneticists were significantly more likely to report awareness of adult NF1 guidelines endorsed by the ACMG than clinicians of other specialties (100% of medical geneticists vs. 56.1% of other specialists, p=0.0008). Pediatricians and medical geneticists were also more likely to report awareness of pediatric NF1 guidelines endorsed by the AAP and the ACMG (87.0% of pediatricians and medical geneticists vs. 55.6% of other specialists, p=0.021). Overall, less than half of survey respondents had strong agreement with 16/40 (40%) of NF guidelines. Clinicians\u2019 level of agreement with NF1 guidelines are presented in Figure 1; number of respondents and 95% confidence intervals are available in supplementary table 1. Level of strong agreement with individual guidelines ranged from 17% to 83%. Strong agreement was highest for the preference of MRIs over CT scans to reduce exposure to ionizing radiation exposure (83%); annual blood pressure checks (80%); education about signs and symptoms of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (76%); and annual check-ins on development and school progress for pediatric patients (76%). For 9/26 (34.6%) of NF1 guidelines, less than half of respondents selected \u2018strongly agree\u2019. These guidelines addressed breast cancer screening, counseling regarding family planning, vitamin D supplementation, evaluation of hypertension, pregnancy management, assessment of glomus tumors, and use of whole-body MRI. Clinicians\u2019 level of agreement with NF2 and schwannomatosis guidelines are presented in Figure 2; number of respondents and 95% confidence intervals are available in supplementary table 1. Level of strong agreement with individual NF2 guidelines ranged from 36% to 73%. Strong agreement was highest for receiving care at specialized NF clinics (73%) and for receiving care annually at an NF clinic (72%). For 4/11 (36.4%) of NF2 guidelines, less than half or respondents selected \u2018strongly agree\u2019. These guidelines addressed the frequency of spinal MRIs in all patients and the timing of brain MRIs for pediatric patients. Agreement was noticeably lower for pediatric imaging recommendations including the provision to start surveillance at age 10 when compared to identical adult guidelines (absolute difference of 15.4 percentage points for brain MRIs and 9.3 percentage points for spinal MRIs). Level of strong agreement with three schwannomatosis guidelines addressing genetic testing for younger patients with potential schwannomatosis and the timing of brain and spine MRIs (including age at baseline scan and frequency of imaging) ranged from 27-38%. The median proportion of guidelines with which each clinician strongly agreed was 0.55 (range, 0-1; 25th-75th percentile, 0.35 to 0.73). There were no statistically significant differences in guideline agreement proportion based on clinicians\u2019 gender, race, specialty, years in practice, practice type, practice location, participation in the NF Clinic Network, involvement in NF treatment trials, or involvement in non-treatment NF research. Medical geneticists were no more likely to than other specialists to strongly agree with adult NF1 guidelines endorsed by the ACMG (agreement index 0.52 vs. 0.53, p=0.89). As guidelines were not systematically extracted from the pediatric NF1 guidelines endorsed by the AAP and ACMG, a parallel test of pediatricians\u2019 agreement with these guidelines was not performed. Twenty optional free-text comments regarding NF guidelines were collected from eleven survey respondents. While there were insufficient comments to robustly explain disagreement with individual guidelines, categories of comments may illuminate potential sources of disagreement with NF guidelines in general. Comments were categorized into five main groups, in descending order of frequency: 1) disagreement about the timing of services recommended by a guideline; 2) disagreement that a guideline should apply to the entire population equally; 3) perception that guidelines were not in the provider\u2019s scope of practice; 4) confusion about the way a guideline was worded; and 5) suggested addition to a guideline.", "size": 4, "hash": "271b2322cf78c03ef48c9ba598044491", "id": 1}, {"samples": [{"hash": "luQpCDuEmJw", "uri": "/contracts/luQpCDuEmJw#survey-design", "label": "Professional Services", "score": 21.2490997314, "published": true}, {"hash": "ffWAR0N0Bg0", "uri": "/contracts/ffWAR0N0Bg0#survey-design", "label": "Professional Services", "score": 21.2490997314, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "the-survey", "type": "clause", "offset": [75, 85]}, {"key": "context-of-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [100, 114]}, {"key": "requirements-for-the-project", "type": "clause", "offset": [120, 148]}, {"key": "the-principal", "type": "clause", "offset": [169, 182]}, {"key": "trip-generation", "type": "definition", "offset": [214, 229]}, {"key": "project-data", "type": "definition", "offset": [246, 258]}, {"key": "sampling-plans", "type": "clause", "offset": [300, 314]}, {"key": "take-into-account", "type": "definition", "offset": [325, 342]}, {"key": "regional-planning", "type": "clause", "offset": [394, 411]}, {"key": "will-work", "type": "clause", "offset": [433, 442]}, {"key": "data-collected", "type": "clause", "offset": [552, 566]}, {"key": "the-response", "type": "clause", "offset": [571, 583]}, {"key": "survey-questionnaire", "type": "clause", "offset": [604, 624]}, {"key": "data-entry", "type": "definition", "offset": [805, 815]}, {"key": "functions-to-be-performed", "type": "clause", "offset": [816, 841]}, {"key": "local-context", "type": "clause", "offset": [911, 924]}, {"key": "the-following-specifications", "type": "clause", "offset": [962, 990]}, {"key": "representative-sample", "type": "definition", "offset": [1063, 1084]}, {"key": "and-purpose", "type": "clause", "offset": [1210, 1221]}, {"key": "all-trips", "type": "clause", "offset": [1227, 1236]}, {"key": "members-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [1250, 1260]}, {"key": "household-information", "type": "clause", "offset": [1293, 1314]}, {"key": "participates-in", "type": "definition", "offset": [1409, 1424]}, {"key": "a-day", "type": "definition", "offset": [1613, 1618]}], "snippet": "As part of this task, the ETC Institute team will conduct an assessment of the survey design in the context of the data requirements for the project. The reliability of the principal travel model statistics (e.g., trip generation rates) is a key project data requirement. The assessment of different sampling plans will also take into account the needs of data being collected to support other regional planning needs. ETC Institute will work with WAMPO staff in assessing the anticipated impact that different designs will have on the accuracy of the data collected and the response rate. The household survey questionnaire and travel diary will be structured and worded to allow participants to answer the questions easily. The survey will be formatted in a manner that allows for coding, checking, and data entry functions to be performed easily. Survey procedures and materials will be crafted to \"fit\" the local context. The survey will be designed to meet the following specifications: \uf0d8 Survey Type: The survey will be designed to collect trip data from a representative sample of households in the WAMPO region and in any defined sub-area. This will include data on the number, mode, length, duration, and purpose, for all trips taken by all members of participating households. Basic household information, as well as demographic and socioeconomic data will also be collected for each household that participates in the survey. The survey will be conducted for one 24-hour period on an average, non-holiday weekday when local K-12 schools and colleges are in session. The survey will not be conducted on a day with unseasonable weather that affects normal driving habits of residents.", "size": 2, "hash": "bf74c76298b726fc97d4fc6a8867faf4", "id": 2}, {"samples": [{"hash": "lFlLU5juFKt", "uri": "/contracts/lFlLU5juFKt#survey-design", "label": "Grant Agreement", "score": 22.2553043365, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "the-survey", "type": "clause", "offset": [28, 38]}, {"key": "annex-1", "type": "clause", "offset": [54, 61]}, {"key": "presented-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [93, 105]}, {"key": "details-of-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [130, 144]}, {"key": "ease-of-use", "type": "clause", "offset": [223, 234]}, {"key": "early-exit", "type": "definition", "offset": [286, 296]}, {"key": "beginning-of-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [382, 398]}, {"key": "response-process", "type": "clause", "offset": [446, 462]}, {"key": "cultural-heritage", "type": "clause", "offset": [574, 591]}, {"key": "an-appropriate", "type": "clause", "offset": [757, 771]}, {"key": "relating-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [957, 968]}, {"key": "additional-information", "type": "clause", "offset": [1255, 1277]}, {"key": "personal-knowledge", "type": "clause", "offset": [1284, 1302]}, {"key": "contact-information", "type": "clause", "offset": [1402, 1421]}, {"key": "future-participation", "type": "clause", "offset": [1426, 1446]}, {"key": "survey-questions", "type": "clause", "offset": [1522, 1538]}, {"key": "data-collected", "type": "clause", "offset": [1574, 1588]}, {"key": "purpose-of-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [1983, 1997]}, {"key": "user-requirements", "type": "clause", "offset": [2015, 2032]}, {"key": "select-one", "type": "clause", "offset": [2129, 2139]}, {"key": "demographic-information", "type": "definition", "offset": [2153, 2176]}, {"key": "descriptive-information", "type": "clause", "offset": [2187, 2210]}, {"key": "user-profiles", "type": "clause", "offset": [2365, 2378]}, {"key": "student-status", "type": "clause", "offset": [2460, 2474]}, {"key": "types-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [2522, 2530]}, {"key": "education-level", "type": "clause", "offset": [2720, 2735]}, {"key": "subject-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [2749, 2759]}, {"key": "employment-status", "type": "definition", "offset": [2829, 2846]}, {"key": "job-title", "type": "definition", "offset": [2900, 2909]}, {"key": "industry-sectors", "type": "definition", "offset": [2975, 2991]}, {"key": "please-list", "type": "clause", "offset": [3059, 3070]}, {"key": "using-the-internet", "type": "clause", "offset": [3152, 3170]}, {"key": "in-person", "type": "clause", "offset": [3315, 3324]}, {"key": "evaluation-activities", "type": "clause", "offset": [3730, 3751]}, {"key": "knowledge-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [3784, 3796]}, {"key": "participate-in", "type": "definition", "offset": [3916, 3930]}, {"key": "web-sites", "type": "definition", "offset": [4073, 4082]}, {"key": "heritage-information", "type": "clause", "offset": [4268, 4288]}, {"key": "for-information", "type": "clause", "offset": [4343, 4358]}, {"key": "type-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [4439, 4446]}, {"key": "last-year", "type": "clause", "offset": [4581, 4590]}, {"key": "the-design", "type": "clause", "offset": [4616, 4626]}, {"key": "information-needs", "type": "clause", "offset": [4775, 4792]}, {"key": "information-resources", "type": "clause", "offset": [5061, 5082]}, {"key": "essential-information", "type": "clause", "offset": [5215, 5236]}], "snippet": "An uncompleted pro-forma of the survey can be seen in Annex 1, showing how each question was presented to participants, with full details of the categories and scales used for responses. Questions are ordered to facilitate ease of use of the survey, and to allow for the possibility of early exit. Questions 1-11 are straightforward demographic questions, and are positioned at the beginning of the survey to quickly settle participants into the response process. Q11 is about internet experience and transitions to the next set, Questions 12-20, which ask about the use of cultural heritage collections online. Several of these questions are presented in a matrix format, requesting either differentiated responses by work, study and leisure activities or an appropriate 5-point Likert Scale for attitudinal responses. Questions 21-24 then probe deeper, and are somewhat more complex, requiring some free text qualitative responses or a degree of judgment relating to the participant\u201fs experience of more complex information tasks. Questions 25-29 are more straightforward again, and transition to less critical information (for the PATHS project) relating to engagement with cultural heritage institutions in the physical real world context, along with additional information about personal knowledge and engagement with relevant leisure activities. Questions 30-31 round-up the survey by requesting contact information for future participation in PATHS user research. The table that follows provides a full list of the survey questions, grouped by the four main areas of data collected: \uf0b7 Personal and lifestyle characteristics \uf0b7 Cultural participation and knowledge \uf0b7 Information behaviour in cultural heritage \uf0b7 Complex information task It should be noted that questions are not entirely sequential through the four categories; rather they have been grouped as they have been used for analysis purposes. Information is given about the style and format of each question, and the purpose of the questions in the user requirements work, and the PATHS project as a whole. Personal & Lifestyle Characteristics Q1 Gender Nominal, select one \uf0b7 To collect demographic information and other descriptive information about potential PATHS users Q2 Age Group Ordinal, select one Q3 Which country do you live in currently? Nominal, select one, mandatory \uf0b7 To contribute to user profiles \uf0b7 To identify differences in activity by domain and role Q4 What is your current student status? Nominal, select one Q5 Which of the following types of education have you completed? Nominal / ordinal, select many \uf0b7 To identify potential differences in activity by relevant generic characteristics Q6 If you have studied at higher or further education level, what is the subject of your current or last course? Open, free text Q7 What is your current employment status? Nominal, select one Q8 What is your current or last job title? Open, free text Q9 Have you ever worked in any of the following industry sectors? Nominal, select many Q10 If you have worked in an education role, please list your area(s) of subject expertise Open, free text Q11 How experienced are you in using the internet? Ordinal, select one Cultural Participation and Knowledge Q25 Have you ever visited any of the following types of cultural heritage institution in person? Nominal, select many \uf0b7 To enrich the user domain and role- specific user profiles Q26 How many times have you visited cultural heritage institutions in person during the last 12 months? Ordinal, select one \uf0b7 To understand the broader context of cultural participation \uf0b7 To identify users\u201f lifestyle and domain knowledge characteristics \uf0b7 To inform the targeting of users for future user requirements and evaluation activities Q28 How would you describe your knowledge of the following? Ordinal, matrix of 6 categories, each rated on a 5-point Likert Scale from Poor to Excellent Q29 Do you participate in any of the following leisure interests or hobbies? Nominal, select many Information Behaviour in Cultural Heritage Q12 Have you ever used the web sites of any of the following types of cultural heritage institution? Nominal, matrix of 6 categories, each with 4 options, select many \uf0b7 To understand the broader context of online cultural heritage information Q13 Have you ever used any of the following web sites for information about cultural heritage? Nominal, select many \uf0b7 To inform decisions about which type of content and links may be of interest to PATHS users Q14 List any other cultural heritage web sites that you can remember using in the last year Open, free text \uf0b7 To aid the design of tasks for future user experiments Q15 What are your main reasons for using cultural heritage web sites? Nominal, select many \uf0b7 To understand the information needs and preferences of PATHS users Q16 What types of cultural heritage information do you look for online? Nominal, matrix of 12 categories, each with 4 options, select many \uf0b7 To aid the design of tasks for future user experiments Q17 How useful do you find the following information resources when you use cultural heritage web sites? Ordinal, matrix of 12 categories, each rated on a 5-point Likert Scale from Not Needed to Essential Information Behaviour in Q18 I use cultural heritage collections for... Nominal, matrix of 7 categories \uf0b7 To understand the information behaviour Cultural (tasks), each with 4 of online cultural Heritage options heritage users Q19 When looking for cultural Ordinal, matrix of \uf0b7 To identify potential differences in cognitive style of online cultural heritage users", "size": 1, "hash": "65f4b2bb9dfd47d11f81ab33de1a336a", "id": 3}, {"samples": [{"hash": "hV1xhZszICt", "uri": "/contracts/hV1xhZszICt#survey-design", "label": "Grant Agreement", "score": 30.335439682, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "the-context", "type": "clause", "offset": [39, 50]}, {"key": "value-chain", "type": "clause", "offset": [60, 71]}, {"key": "pertaining-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [142, 155]}, {"key": "specific-requirements", "type": "definition", "offset": [161, 182]}, {"key": "technical-requirements", "type": "definition", "offset": [227, 249]}, {"key": "in-order-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [260, 271]}, {"key": "user-group", "type": "definition", "offset": [305, 315]}, {"key": "the-interview", "type": "clause", "offset": [401, 414]}, {"key": "based-on", "type": "definition", "offset": [429, 437]}, {"key": "more-information", "type": "definition", "offset": [494, 510]}, {"key": "to-receive", "type": "definition", "offset": [609, 619]}, {"key": "the-user", "type": "definition", "offset": [659, 667]}, {"key": "healthcare-personnel", "type": "definition", "offset": [821, 841]}, {"key": "psychosocial-interventions", "type": "definition", "offset": [916, 942]}, {"key": "quality-of-life", "type": "definition", "offset": [1042, 1057]}, {"key": "specific-version", "type": "definition", "offset": [1124, 1140]}, {"key": "structure-of-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [1175, 1191]}, {"key": "the-concept", "type": "clause", "offset": [1454, 1465]}, {"key": "the-value", "type": "clause", "offset": [1606, 1615]}, {"key": "more-specifically", "type": "clause", "offset": [1923, 1940]}, {"key": "user-categories", "type": "clause", "offset": [2052, 2067]}, {"key": "the-participants", "type": "definition", "offset": [2099, 2115]}, {"key": "family-members", "type": "clause", "offset": [2139, 2153]}, {"key": "healthcare-professionals", "type": "definition", "offset": [2202, 2226]}, {"key": "an-overview", "type": "clause", "offset": [2268, 2279]}, {"key": "table-3", "type": "clause", "offset": [2316, 2323]}, {"key": "health-and", "type": "clause", "offset": [2337, 2347]}, {"key": "service-providers", "type": "definition", "offset": [2355, 2372]}, {"key": "patient-patient", "type": "definition", "offset": [2693, 2708]}], "snippet": "A questionnaire, primarily prepared in the context of T1.1 \u2018Value Chain Definition and Stakehold- ers Identification\u2019 with specific additions pertaining to tool-specific requirements by T1.2 Usage Scenarios, User, Functional & Technical Requirements, was used in order to identify user expec- tations and user group specific interactions with the tool to be produced in the context of BOUNCE project. The interview was conducted based on open-ended questions allowing inter- viewees to include more information, such as feelings, attitudes and understanding of the sub- ject and thus enabling the researchers to receive more useful, contextual feedback. From the user scenarios and requirements perspective, the aim of this survey was twofold: first, to identify what is needed from a new decision-support tool, enabling healthcare personnel to assess the resilience levels of the patient and the potential need for psychosocial interventions by monitoring the patients adaptation to illness (e.g., treatment adherence, physical functioning, quality of life, emotional well-being); second, to explore the potential use of a specific version of this tool by the patients. The structure of the questionnaires was the following with each subsection representing a major topic. The questionnaires can be found in D1.1 entitled \u2018BOUNCE Value Chain\u2019. During the treat- ment/illness - Questions re- lated to the re- search project Resilience - To better define the concept of resilience - To identify potential gaps in resilience assessment -To identify how good/poor resilince is expressed Benefits - To explore the value and to clarify the aims of the tool to be produced. Activities - Same as above - To explore the patients\u2019willingness to answer questionnaires during the treatments Closing - To bring to light potential topics evading the questionnaire NHG and the clinical partners outside Finland conducted the interviews. More specifically, a total of twelve (12) interviews were conducted in Finland and Italy from various representatives of the end user categories. More specifically five (5) of the participants were patients or their family members, while seven (7) of them were current or former healthcare professionals (oncologists, psychologists and nurses). An overview of the interviewees is presented in Table 3. Finland (8) Health and social service providers Oncologist Female - Specialist in oncology HUS Cancer Centre Health and social service providers BC nurse Female - BC nurse HUS Cancer Centre Health and social service providers Nurse Female - Nurse HUS Cancer Centre Health and social service providers Nurse Female - Development ager man- Western Can- cer Centre, TYKS Patient Patient Female 59 Expert/Specialist - Patient Patient Female 58 Import assistant - Family Husband Male 59 Management con- sultant - Family Sister Female 57 - -", "size": 1, "hash": "c2242032a95393e578d26918c0614740", "id": 4}, {"samples": [{"hash": "jVpSifWRfRj", "uri": "/contracts/jVpSifWRfRj#survey-design", "label": "Contract", "score": 19.873374939, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "data-gaps", "type": "clause", "offset": [39, 48]}, {"key": "previous-investigations", "type": "clause", "offset": [64, 87]}, {"key": "information-required", "type": "clause", "offset": [108, 128]}, {"key": "risk-assessments", "type": "clause", "offset": [153, 169]}, {"key": "site-cleanup", "type": "clause", "offset": [180, 192]}, {"key": "full-survey", "type": "definition", "offset": [210, 221]}, {"key": "section-5", "type": "clause", "offset": [248, 257]}, {"key": "the-nature", "type": "clause", "offset": [415, 425]}, {"key": "distribution-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [439, 454]}, {"key": "sample-locations", "type": "clause", "offset": [515, 531]}, {"key": "the-site", "type": "clause", "offset": [691, 699]}, {"key": "no-data", "type": "definition", "offset": [706, 713]}, {"key": "the-lands", "type": "clause", "offset": [823, 832]}, {"key": "the-pond", "type": "clause", "offset": [849, 857]}, {"key": "future-actions", "type": "clause", "offset": [1136, 1150]}, {"key": "the-data", "type": "clause", "offset": [1197, 1205]}, {"key": "existing-data", "type": "clause", "offset": [1261, 1274]}, {"key": "section-41", "type": "clause", "offset": [1327, 1338]}, {"key": "in-accordance-with", "type": "clause", "offset": [1373, 1391]}, {"key": "applicable-sections", "type": "clause", "offset": [1392, 1411]}, {"key": "work-plan", "type": "definition", "offset": [1469, 1478]}, {"key": "superfund-site", "type": "definition", "offset": [1496, 1510]}, {"key": "laboratory-analyses", "type": "clause", "offset": [1530, 1549]}, {"key": "in-performance", "type": "clause", "offset": [1570, 1584]}, {"key": "the-majority", "type": "clause", "offset": [1653, 1665]}, {"key": "data-required", "type": "clause", "offset": [1673, 1686]}, {"key": "by-paragon", "type": "clause", "offset": [1905, 1915]}, {"key": "appendix-b", "type": "clause", "offset": [1951, 1961]}], "snippet": "This investigation is designed to fill data gaps remaining from previous investigations and to complete the information required to perform radiological risk assessments to derive site cleanup guidelines. This full Survey Design is detailed in SAP Section 5. During planning for this survey, it was noted that previous investigations did not include several tasks necessary to gain a comprehensive understanding of the nature, extent, and distribution of site radiological contaminants. These include: \uf0b7 Systematic sample locations: previous radiological data points appear to have been either random or biased, as there was no discernable systematic pattern to their locations. \uf0b7 Survey of the site pond: no data points from previous investigations were found in the site pond (at the north end of the site), or in any of the lands to the north of the pond. \uf0b7 Data from the lowest extents of the landfill: no documentation was discovered that provided evidence that previous investigation fully penetrated the landfill. Because comprehensive data is needed to accurately assess radiological risk, and subsequently make decisions as to future actions at the site, this survey was designed to fill the data gaps listed above, as well as to supplement and update existing data. Each task included in this project is discussed in Section 4.1. GWS activities will be conducted in accordance with applicable sections of the document entitled Gamma Walkover and Civil Survey Work Plan, Shpack Landfill Superfund Site (\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 1999). No laboratory analyses will be carried out in performance of this task. The soil-sampling portion of this survey will provide the majority of the data required to fill the data gaps. Soil samples, as well as shallow groundwater samples from the monitoring \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587, will be analyzed for concentration of U-234, U-235, and U-238 at Paragon as described below. SOPs and methods used by Paragon for these analyses are included in Appendix B to the SAP.\n6.1 Ra-226 Analysis\n6.2 U-238 Analysis\n6.3 U-234 Analysis\n6.4 U-235 Analysis", "size": 1, "hash": "711cbac835f66138b263b66ffd5b87e6", "id": 5}, {"samples": [{"hash": "78TvaqpKG7b", "uri": "/contracts/78TvaqpKG7b#survey-design", "label": "Clinical Study", "score": 22.3059539795, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "descriptive-analysis", "type": "clause", "offset": [30, 50]}, {"key": "approved-by", "type": "clause", "offset": [60, 71]}, {"key": "board-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [97, 105]}, {"key": "the-survey", "type": "clause", "offset": [273, 283]}, {"key": "demographic-data", "type": "clause", "offset": [305, 321]}, {"key": "physical-examinations", "type": "clause", "offset": [349, 370]}, {"key": "the-cases", "type": "clause", "offset": [395, 404]}, {"key": "computed-tomography", "type": "definition", "offset": [714, 733]}, {"key": "magnetic-resonance-imaging", "type": "definition", "offset": [743, 769]}, {"key": "the-concept", "type": "clause", "offset": [909, 920]}, {"key": "of-agreement", "type": "clause", "offset": [983, 995]}, {"key": "a-half", "type": "clause", "offset": [1053, 1059]}, {"key": "an-example", "type": "clause", "offset": [1126, 1136]}, {"key": "given-that", "type": "definition", "offset": [1345, 1355]}, {"key": "the-participants", "type": "definition", "offset": [1404, 1420]}, {"key": "objectives-of-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [1439, 1456]}, {"key": "initial-survey", "type": "clause", "offset": [1516, 1530]}], "snippet": "This study was a survey-based descriptive analysis that was approved by the Institutional Review Board of our hospital. Thirty cervical myeloradiculopathy patients in- cluding cases of spondylosis and OPLL that required sur- \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 were recruited from the same institute for the survey which included basic demographic data, descriptions of symptoms, physical examinations, and radiographic data. The cases showing more than 10 degrees of cervical ky- phosis or considerable neck pain (visual analog scale \u22653) were excluded in this survey. Plain radiographs contained cervical spine anteroposterior, lateral views, and dynamic lateral views. Sagittal and axial images of each level from C2 to T1 were captured using computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The first survey included questions about (1) the most preferable surgical method and (2) the suitable decompression levels. The\n1. The concept of \u201cacceptable agreement\u201d was introduced to assess the degree of agreement in the level selection for LP [8]. If the difference was a half level or less, the degree of agreement was considered acceptable. An example for the acceptable agreement is described in Fig. 2. The dome LP was considered as a half level. Three experienced spine surgeons who had their own practice for more than 10 years conducted the first survey. Given that all of the surgeons worked at other institutes, the participants were blind to the objectives of the survey. The second survey was conducted 6 months after the initial survey but its fo- cus was slightly different to the first survey. The surgeons were queried on the acceptability for LP as a treatment option and suitable decompression levels.", "size": 1, "hash": "2125ad6d7a054477cad9e8acdc0b1108", "id": 6}, {"samples": [{"hash": "5dFnEwiABAn", "uri": "/contracts/5dFnEwiABAn#survey-design", "label": "Personal Service Agreement", "score": 24.8124580383, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "day-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [12, 18]}, {"key": "each-calendar-year", "type": "definition", "offset": [35, 53]}, {"key": "the-contract-period", "type": "clause", "offset": [57, 76]}, {"key": "the-contractor-shall", "type": "clause", "offset": [78, 98]}, {"key": "part-c", "type": "definition", "offset": [202, 208]}, {"key": "serial-numbers", "type": "definition", "offset": [350, 364]}], "snippet": "By the last day of February during each calendar year of the contract period, the Contractor shall perform the following tasks:\ni. The Contractor shall update a combined single version of Connecticut\u2019s Part C English and Spanish Family Surveys (Impact on Families Scale only - English Front/Spanish Back).\nii. The Contractor shall ensure that unique serial numbers provided by OEC/B23 are overprinted onto the bottom left of both the front and back pages of the outgoing surveys.", "size": 1, "hash": "162dc1e0898c50e0f5dee0df80ac255d", "id": 7}, {"samples": [{"hash": "evpnaGp2QmB", "uri": "/contracts/evpnaGp2QmB#survey-design", "label": "Order Form", "score": 31.9220962524, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "stakeholder-interviews", "type": "clause", "offset": [0, 22]}, {"key": "employee-feedback", "type": "clause", "offset": [90, 107]}, {"key": "content-delivery", "type": "definition", "offset": [127, 143]}, {"key": "team-responsibilities", "type": "clause", "offset": [144, 165]}, {"key": "program-needs", "type": "clause", "offset": [466, 479]}], "snippet": "Stakeholder Interviews Facilitation of stakeholder interview to gather strategic input on employee feedback program and survey content Delivery Team Responsibilities Design and facilitate up to five onsite/virtual 30 to 60 minutes stakeholder interviews for additional input and content to support overall program or survey design. One interview protocol will be designed, interview notes will be summarized and used as input into survey design and other applicable program needs.", "size": 1, "hash": "061a813209c029439295f39063589ea6", "id": 8}, {"samples": [{"hash": "1iIe914PUXP", "uri": "/contracts/1iIe914PUXP#survey-design", "label": "Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository Submission Agreement", "score": 21.300403595, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "final-evaluation", "type": "definition", "offset": [47, 63]}, {"key": "coverage-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [104, 115]}, {"key": "program-activities", "type": "definition", "offset": [116, 134]}, {"key": "status-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [152, 161]}, {"key": "children-under", "type": "clause", "offset": [162, 176]}, {"key": "the-survey", "type": "clause", "offset": [182, 192]}, {"key": "based-on", "type": "definition", "offset": [207, 215]}, {"key": "world-health-organization", "type": "definition", "offset": [229, 254]}, {"key": "measurement-tools", "type": "clause", "offset": [309, 326]}], "snippet": "A cross-sectional survey was conducted for the final evaluation to measure IYCF knowledge and practice, coverage of program activities, and nutritional status of children under two. The survey used a design based on standardized World Health Organization (WHO) IYCF indictors and IYCF knowledge and practices measurement tools).", "size": 1, "hash": "f3f3222d0344fbd6e3188f66bfc54714", "id": 9}, {"samples": [{"hash": "eiwiFRY5bnG", "uri": "/contracts/eiwiFRY5bnG#survey-design", "label": "User Satisfaction Telephone Surveys Contract", "score": 24.5263519287, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "satisfaction-surveys", "type": "clause", "offset": [9, 29]}, {"key": "number-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [136, 145]}, {"key": "requirements-for", "type": "clause", "offset": [157, 173]}, {"key": "user-group", "type": "definition", "offset": [179, 189]}, {"key": "individual-basis", "type": "clause", "offset": [271, 287]}, {"key": "existing-surveys", "type": "definition", "offset": [327, 343]}, {"key": "standard-user", "type": "definition", "offset": [374, 387]}, {"key": "appendix-6", "type": "definition", "offset": [481, 491]}, {"key": "for-2012", "type": "clause", "offset": [556, 564]}, {"key": "only-one-user", "type": "clause", "offset": [591, 604]}, {"key": "future-years", "type": "clause", "offset": [678, 690]}, {"key": "the-current", "type": "clause", "offset": [715, 726]}], "snippet": "The User Satisfaction Surveys and ASB Satisfaction Surveys will be made up primarily of ACPO mandated and standardised questions with a number of additional requirements for each user group and specific to individual Force requirements (to be discussed with Forces on an individual basis). For 2011-12 each force would use pre-existing surveys. Appendices 1 and 2 shows the standard User Satisfaction and ASB Satisfaction scripts, however individual forces scripts are included in Appendix 6. The four forces would look to combine their individual surveys for 2012-13 and therefore run with only one user satisfaction survey. Forces may seek to collaborate on the ASB survey in future years Approximate timings for the current surveys are:", "size": 1, "hash": "5acb144cd6cb0587b2fc5dd56071337e", "id": 10}], "next_curs": "ClYSUGoVc35sYXdpbnNpZGVyY29udHJhY3RzcjILEhZDbGF1c2VTbmlwcGV0R3JvdXBfdjU2IhZzdXJ2ZXktZGVzaWduIzAwMDAwMDBhDKIBAmVuGAAgAA==", "clause": {"title": "Survey Design", "children": [], "parents": [["primary-data", "Primary Data"], ["contractor-responsibilities", "CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITIES"], ["customer-satisfaction-and-mopac-express-lane-use-survey", "Customer Satisfaction and MoPac Express Lane Use Survey"]], "size": 16, "id": "survey-design", "related": [["survey", "Survey", "Survey"], ["topographic-survey", "Topographic Survey", "Topographic Survey"], ["title-review", "Title Review", "Title Review"], ["surveys", "Surveys", "Surveys"], ["eu-survey", "EU SURVEY", "EU SURVEY"]], "related_snippets": [], "updated": "2025-07-24T06:49:03+00:00"}, "json": true, "cursor": ""}}