Views, obstacles, and uncertainties around the inclusion of children and young people's time in economic evaluations: Findings from an international survey of health economists.

People's time is a limited resource and, in economic evaluations that adopt a societal perspective, it is important that it is valued and accounted for. Yet, in economic evaluations of interventions for children and young people (CYP), attempts to take into account the opportunity cost of their time are rare. To understand why this is the case, we need to first understand what views health economists hold in relation to CYP time, and what challenges they face in incorporating this in their evaluations. We planned and carried out an international survey of health economists. We used a combination of approaches to identify potential survey respondents (the survey's sampling frame), we developed a questionnaire that sought to capture respondents' views and practice through close- and open-ended questions, we piloted the questionnaire through a series of cognitive interviews, and we e-mailed unique links to the final version of the questionnaire to 1956 individuals in the sampling frame. We analysed data using quantitative (descriptive and inferential statistics) and qualitative (thematic analysis) methods. We received 274 complete responses. Most respondents (87%) believe CYP time should be considered for inclusion in economic evaluations conducted from a societal perspective. However, they identify a number of obstacles to doing so, most prominently uncertainties around appropriate practice (e.g., when CYP's time should or should not be included in calculations), methodological gaps (e.g., what value to attach to CYP's time), and practical difficulties in measuring displaced time in CYP. Reporting on their own practice, most respondents found it challenging to consider CYP time in their studies, and stressed the need for clear guidance on when, and further research on how, to appropriately account for CYP's time in economic evaluations. We offer our views on how to move the topic forwards and make suggestions further research.

A Patient Outcomes-Driven Feedback Platform for Emergency Medicine Clinicians: Human-Centered Design and Usability Evaluation of Linking Outcomes Of Patients (LOOP).

BACKGROUND: The availability of patient outcomes-based feedback is limited in episodic care environments such as the emergency department. Emergency medicine (EM) clinicians set care trajectories for a majority of hospitalized patients and provide definitive care to an even larger number of those discharged into the community. EM clinicians are often unaware of the short- and long-term health outcomes of patients and how their actions may have contributed. Despite large volumes of patients and data, outcomes-driven learning that targets individual clinician experiences is meager. Integrated electronic health record (EHR) systems provide opportunity, but they do not have readily available functionality intended for outcomes-based learning. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to unlock insights from routinely collected EHR data through the development of an individualizable patient outcomes feedback platform for EM clinicians. Here, we describe the iterative development of this platform, Linking Outcomes Of Patients (LOOP), under a human-centered design framework, including structured feedback obtained from its use. METHODS: This multimodal study consisting of human-centered design studios, surveys (24 physicians), interviews (11 physicians), and a LOOP application usability evaluation (12 EM physicians for ≥30 minutes each) was performed between August 2019 and February 2021. The study spanned 3 phases: (1) conceptual development under a human-centered design framework, (2) LOOP technical platform development, and (3) usability evaluation comparing pre- and post-LOOP feedback gathering practices in the EHR. RESULTS: An initial human-centered design studio and EM clinician surveys revealed common themes of disconnect between EM clinicians and their patients after the encounter. Fundamental postencounter outcomes of death (15/24, 63% respondents identified as useful), escalation of care (20/24, 83%), and return to ED (16/24, 67%) were determined high yield for demonstrating proof-of-concept in our LOOP application. The studio aided the design and development of LOOP, which integrated physicians throughout the design and content iteration. A final LOOP prototype enabled usability evaluation and iterative refinement prior to launch. Usability evaluation compared to status quo (ie, pre-LOOP) feedback gathering practices demonstrated a shift across all outcomes from "not easy" to "very easy" to obtain and from "not confident" to "very confident" in estimating outcomes after using LOOP. On a scale from 0 (unlikely) to 10 (most likely), the users were very likely (9.5) to recommend LOOP to a colleague. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the potential for human-centered design of a patient outcomes-driven feedback platform for individual EM providers. We have outlined a framework for working alongside clinicians with a multidisciplined team to develop and test a tool that augments their clinical experience and enables closed-loop learning.

Online pragmatic interpretations of scalar adjectives are affected by perceived speaker reliability.

Linguistic communication requires understanding of words in relation to their context. Among various aspects of context, one that has received relatively little attention until recently is the speakers themselves. We asked whether comprehenders' online language comprehension is affected by the perceived reliability with which a speaker formulates pragmatically well-formed utterances. In two eye-tracking experiments, we conceptually replicated and extended a seminal work by Grodner and Sedivy (2011). A between-participant manipulation was used to control reliability with which a speaker follows implicit pragmatic conventions (e.g., using a scalar adjective in accordance with contextual contrast). Experiment 1 replicated Grodner and Sedivy's finding that contrastive inference in response to scalar adjectives was suspended when both the spoken input and the instructions provided evidence of the speaker's (un)reliability: For speech from the reliable speaker, comprehenders exhibited the early fixations attributable to a contextually-situated, contrastive interpretation of a scalar adjective. In contrast, for speech from the unreliable speaker, comprehenders did not exhibit such early fixations. Experiment 2 provided novel evidence of the reliability effect in the absence of explicit instructions. In both experiments, the effects emerged in the earliest expected time window given the stimuli sentence structure. The results suggest that real-time interpretations of spoken language are optimized in the context of a speaker identity, characteristics of which are extrapolated across utterances.