Stakeholder pressure and innovation capacity of SMEs in the COVID-19 pandemic: Mediating and multigroup analysis.

During environmental crises, it has always been particularly interesting to investigate how companies, specifically small- and mid-sized enterprises (SMEs), find solutions to survive and learn how to act in adverse situations. We conducted our study during the current coronavirus pandemic to analyse how stakeholder pressure affects both the innovation capabilities of SMEs and their firm performance. On the one hand, we examine whether the market and financial performance are better in the presence of less stakeholder pressure. On the other hand, we analyse whether SMEs implement internal mechanisms that enhance their innovation capacity to solve external problems caused by greater stakeholder pressure, which in turn affects firm performance. Our main findings show that during the pandemic, stakeholder pressure is related to the innovative capacity of SMEs; therefore, the higher the pressure, the more important the innovative response of SMEs. However, with higher pressure, the company's performance would be directly reduced in the short term, as the conditions set would be more unfavourable. Innovation capacity also plays a mediating role in preventing poor business performance because of increased stakeholder pressure. Owing to the importance of the chief executive officer (CEO) in SMEs, we test, through multigroup analysis, the differences based on the CEO's educational level. For example, commitment to innovation in SMEs may be more important for managers with higher education. Finally, our findings show how managers can learn to face new challenges in unfavourable environments.

Impact of age- and gender-specific cut-off values for the fecal immunochemical test for hemoglobin in colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: There is no information on the impact of age and gender on the diagnostic yield of different positivity thresholds for the fecal immunochemical test for hemoglobin (FIT). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of this test at distinct positivity cut-offs in a population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program. METHODS: CRC detection rate (DR), and analysis of resources were evaluated retrospectively, at different cut-offs of FIT (20, 25, 30, 35 and 40µg Hb/g) respect to a reference value (15µg Hb/g), according to age and gender, in a screening population of 10,611 participants of the ColonPrev study (Quintero. NEJM 2013). RESULTS: At the reference cut-off value, 36 CRC and 252 advanced adenomas (AA) were diagnosed. Increasing the cut-off in women ≤60 years decreases colonoscopies performed by 44.5% without modifying the CRC (DR). Same CRC DR was observed in men ≤60 years and women >60 years increasing cut-off at 25-30µg Hb/g. In men >60 years, all increases in the cut-off affected the CRC DR, especially when the cut-off was increased from 35 to 40µg Hb/g (CRC miss rate 25%). CONCLUSIONS: To improve the performance of FIT in CRC screening programs, FIT cut-offs could be individualized by age and gender.

Rate of detection of advanced neoplasms in proximal colon by simulated sigmoidoscopy vs fecal immunochemical tests.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We compared the ability of biennial fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and one-time sigmoidoscopy to detect colon side-specific advanced neoplasms in a population-based, multicenter, nationwide, randomized controlled trial. METHODS: We identified asymptomatic men and women, 50-69 years old, through community health registries and randomly assigned them to groups that received a single colonoscopy examination or biennial FIT. Sigmoidoscopy yield was simulated from results obtained from the colonoscopy group, according to the criteria proposed in the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Trial for colonoscopy referral. Patients who underwent FIT and were found to have ≥75 ng hemoglobin/mL were referred for colonoscopy. Data were analyzed from 5059 subjects in the colonoscopy group and 10,507 in the FIT group. The main outcome was rate of detection of any advanced neoplasm proximal to the splenic flexure. RESULTS: Advanced neoplasms were detected in 317 subjects (6.3%) in the sigmoidoscopy simulation group compared with 288 (2.7%) in the FIT group (odds ratio for sigmoidoscopy, 2.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.93-2.70; P = .0001). Sigmoidoscopy also detected advanced distal neoplasia in a higher percentage of patients than FIT (odds ratio, 2.61; 95% confidence interval, 2.20-3.10; P = .0001). The methods did not differ significantly in identifying patients with advanced proximal neoplasms (odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.76; P = .44). This was probably due to the lower performance of both strategies in detecting patients with proximal lesions (sigmoidoscopy detected these in 19.1% of patients and FIT in 14.9% of patients) vs distal ones (sigmoidoscopy detected these in 86.8% of patients and FIT in 33.5% of patients). Sigmoidoscopy, but not FIT, detected proximal lesions in lower percentages of women (especially those 50-59 years old) than men. CONCLUSIONS: Sigmoidoscopy and FIT have similar limitations in detecting advanced proximal neoplasms, which depend on patients' characteristics; sigmoidoscopy underperforms for women 50-59 years old. Screening strategies should be designed on the basis of target population to increase effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00906997.

Risk of advanced proximal neoplasms according to distal colorectal findings: comparison of sigmoidoscopy-based strategies.

BACKGROUND: Screening for colorectal cancer with sigmoidoscopy benefits from the fact that distal findings predict the risk of advanced proximal neoplasms (APNs). This study was aimed at comparing the existing strategies of postsigmoidoscopy referral to colonoscopy in terms of accuracy and resources needed. METHODS: Asymptomatic individuals aged 50-69 years were eligible for a randomized controlled trial designed to compare colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test. Sigmoidoscopy yield was estimated from results obtained in the colonoscopy arm according to three sets of criteria of colonoscopy referral (from those proposed in the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy, Screening for COlon REctum [SCORE], and Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention [NORCCAP] trials). Advanced neoplasm detection rate, sensitivity, specificity, and number of individuals needed to refer for colonoscopy to detect one APN were calculated. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify distal findings associated with APN. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: APN was found in 255 of 5059 (5.0%) individuals. Fulfillment of UK (6.2%), SCORE (12.0%), and NORCCAP (17.9%) criteria varied statistically significantly (P < .001). The NORCCAP strategy obtained the highest sensitivity for APN detection (36.9%), and the UK approach reached the highest specificity (94.6%). The number of individuals needed to refer for colonoscopy to detect one APN was 6 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4 to 7), 8 (95% CI = 6 to 9), and 10 (95% CI = 8 to 12) when the UK, SCORE, and NORCCAP criteria were used, respectively. The logistic regression analysis identified distal adenoma ≥10 mm (odds ratio = 3.77; 95% CI = 2.52 to 5.65) as the strongest independent predictor of APN. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas the NORCCAP criteria achieved the highest sensitivity for APN detection, the UK recommendations benefited from the lowest number of individuals needed to refer for colonoscopy.

Colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in colorectal-cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) are accepted strategies for colorectal-cancer screening in the average-risk population. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled trial involving asymptomatic adults 50 to 69 years of age, we compared one-time colonoscopy in 26,703 subjects with FIT every 2 years in 26,599 subjects. The primary outcome was the rate of death from colorectal cancer at 10 years. This interim report describes rates of participation, diagnostic findings, and occurrence of major complications at completion of the baseline screening. Study outcomes were analyzed in both intention-to-screen and as-screened populations. RESULTS: The rate of participation was higher in the FIT group than in the colonoscopy group (34.2% vs. 24.6%, P<0.001). Colorectal cancer was found in 30 subjects (0.1%) in the colonoscopy group and 33 subjects (0.1%) in the FIT group (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 1.64; P=0.99). Advanced adenomas were detected in 514 subjects (1.9%) in the colonoscopy group and 231 subjects (0.9%) in the FIT group (odds ratio, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.97 to 2.69; P<0.001), and nonadvanced adenomas were detected in 1109 subjects (4.2%) in the colonoscopy group and 119 subjects (0.4%) in the FIT group (odds ratio, 9.80; 95% CI, 8.10 to 11.85; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Subjects in the FIT group were more likely to participate in screening than were those in the colonoscopy group. On the baseline screening examination, the numbers of subjects in whom colorectal cancer was detected were similar in the two study groups, but more adenomas were identified in the colonoscopy group. (Funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00906997.).