text:
The History of AT&T Technology
By Scott Frank
Additional Assets
Swipe right to view media items.
Scott Frank - President & CEO – AT&T Intellectual Property
In 1876, Alexander Graham Bell rushed to the patent office to claim his invention of the telephone. Before that, the only way to have a conversation with someone in real-time was in person. Now, it's hard to imagine a world where technology isn't driving our communications. This invention led to the creation of AT&T.
Say you learn about a new technology that's coming out this year. That technology started off as an idea or concept long before it becomes a prototype. Then the potential for a prototype is brought about by design and engineering. The idea or concept goes through many stages before finally hitting the market.
If our AT&T scientists work hard for months to develop the actual new technology, think of our intellectual property groups as "future tellers" working years ahead to predict technology needs for a more connected world.
Check out when key technology breakthroughs actually happened.
1926 – Sound Motion Pictures
AT&T brought sound to Hollywood in the 1920s with the invention of Sound Motion Pictures. By creating a way to synchronize sound and picture, actors' voices matched up with their moving lips! In 1926, Warner Brothers premiered Don Juan, the first full length film with a synchronized sound track of music and audio effects.
1929 – Broadband Coaxial Cable
Similar to our current-day need to switch to a software-defined network to handle massive mobile video traffic, 1920s AT&T engineers recognized the open wire and cable in use at the time couldn't carry the high frequencies needed for the broadband systems of the future. Enter the broadband coaxial cable, the first broadband media. It made higher-capacity long distance circuits possible. But it also led to intercity transmission of moving images, which paved the way for television.
1947 – The Transistor
The transistor is an indispensable component of most devices we use today. It made the marriage of computers, devices and communication possible. It's light-weight, tiny and doesn't overheat – like its precursor the vacuum tube. The transistor, and the eventual creation of integrated circuits that contained millions of transistors, served as the foundation of modern electronics. Without this invention we would still have phones in our cars, but your phone would weigh around 80 pounds!
1954 – The Solar Cell
The first practical solar battery, consisting of an array of several strips of silicon (each about the size of a razor blade), could only convert 6% of the sunlight into useful energy. Just a few years later, solar cells of this design powered AT&T's Telstar 1, the first active communications satellite launched by NASA.
1969 – Unix
AT&T Bell Telephone Laboratories researchers devised the UNIX computer-operating system in 1969. Just 2 years later, UNIX became the first truly portable computer operating system, designed to work on a wide range of computers. In the 1980s, UNIX and its variants became the most widely used operating system underlying the internet. Today, UNIX and its descendants continue to be the backbone of the internet, running on devices ranging from smartphones to supercomputers.
1972 – Automatic Switching for Mobile Communications
One of the first inventions that allowed us to stay connected on the go is Automatic Switching for Mobile Communications. The technology lets your cellphone automatically transfer from one tower to another as you're driving down the road.
1988 – TAT-8
TAT-8 was the first fiber-optic cable that stretched across an ocean and had a capacity of 40,000 calls. That's 10x more capacity than its thicker and heavier precursor, which used the older copper coaxial cable technology. AT&T, British Telecom and France Télécom led the consortium that built TAT-8, which spanned a seabed distance of 5,846 km between North America and Europe.
1995 – Machine Learning
We pioneered a new breed of machine learning algorithms, including Support Vector Machines and AdaBoost. These algorithms are the heart and soul of all machine-learning research worldwide. Today, you'll find these as large-margin classifiers for natural language processing and data mining.
2001 – Natural Voices
We released AT&T Natural Voices, an advanced text-to-speech (TTS) engine providing human-like speech in a variety of voices and languages. Our work surrounding the properties and analysis of human speech dates as far back as 1936, when a scientist at AT&T Bell Laboratories invented the world's first electronic speech synthesizer. It required an operator with a keyboard and foot pedals!
2012 – NetBond
We launched AT&T NetBond®, a service that taps software-defined networking technologies so businesses can bring the cloud within their VPN network. The benefits? They can avoid exposure to the public internet and mitigate security and performance risks. AT&T NetBond exists because of Research's patented IRSCP (Intelligent Routing Services Control Point), an early SDN technology.
2013 – ECOMP
ECOMP is the engine that powers our software-centric network. A system like ECOMP allows us to build our next generation cloud-based network in a vendor agnostic way, giving us great flexibility for deploying network function virtualization in our new software defined network. And it lets us rapidly on-board new services that our customers want. ECOMP is one of the most challenging, complex and sophisticated software projects in AT&T's history.
After taking a trip down memory lane, think about the technology you use the most and why it's important to you.
AT&T has a rich history of delivering keystone technologies – all made possible by the work of inventors with a keen eye for identifying opportunities and acting quickly.
Scott Frank President & CEO – AT&T Intellectual Property
We're calling it: 2020 will be an epic year for the edge
AT&T is doubling down on edge computing and 5G technology for increased business security and reduced latency.
Technology Helps Battle the Opioid Crisis
Cutting-edge healthcare solutions using AT&T connectivity address the growing concerns of the opioid crisis and bring pain relief to many.
New Year, New Ways for AT&T Customers to Connect
New year, new ways for AT&T customers to connect.


text:
JMIR Formative Research
Year: Select... 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Development and Evaluation of Research Methods, Instruments and Tools (172) Evaluation and Research Methodology for mHealth (156) Mobile Health (mhealth) (1843) mHealth for Data Collection and Research (654)
Published on 11.8.2022 in Vol 6 , No 8 (2022) :August
Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/37303, first published March 04, 2022 .
Validation of the Mobile App Version of the EQ-5D-5L Quality of Life Questionnaire Against the Gold Standard Paper-Based Version: Randomized Crossover Study
Regina J M Kamstra 1 ; André Boorsma 1 ; Tanja Krone 2 ; Robin M van Stokkum 2 ; Hannah M Eggink 1 ; Ton Peters 3 ; Wilrike J Pasman 1
Regina J M Kamstra1, MSc ;
André Boorsma1, PhD ;
Tanja Krone2, PhD ;
Robin M van Stokkum2, MSc ;
Hannah M Eggink1, PhD ;
Ton Peters3, MSc ;
Wilrike J Pasman1, PhD
1Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Zeist, Netherlands
2Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Utrecht, Netherlands
3Janssen-Cilag B V, Breda, Netherlands
Regina J M Kamstra, MSc
Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO)
Utrechtseweg 48
Zeist, 3704 HE
Phone: 31 611873786
Email: kristel.kamstra@tno.nl
Background: Study participants and patients often perceive (long) questionnaires as burdensome. In addition, paper-based questionnaires are prone to errors such as (unintentionally) skipping questions or filling in a wrong type of answer. Such errors can be prevented with the emergence of mobile questionnaire apps.
Objective: This study aimed to validate an innovative way to measure the quality of life using a mobile app based on the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. This validation study compared the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire requested by a mobile app with the gold standard paper-based version of the EQ-5D-5L.
Methods: This was a randomized, crossover, and open study. The main criteria for participation were participants should be aged ≥18 years, healthy at their own discretion, in possession of a smartphone with at least Android version 4.1 or higher or iOS version 9 or higher, digitally skilled in downloading the mobile app, and able to read and answer questionnaires in Dutch. Participants were recruited by a market research company that divided them into 2 groups balanced for age, gender, and education. Each participant received a digital version of the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire via a mobile app and the EQ-5D-5L paper-based questionnaire by postal mail. In the mobile app, participants received, for 5 consecutive days, 1 question in the morning and 1 question in the afternoon; as such, all questions were asked twice (at time point 1 [App T1] and time point 2 [App T2]). The primary outcomes were the correlations between the answers (scores) of each EQ-5D-5L question answered via the mobile app compared with the paper-based questionnaire to assess convergent validity.
Results: A total of 255 participants (healthy at their own discretion), 117 (45.9%) men and 138 (54.1%) women in the age range of 18 to 64 years, completed the study. To ensure randomization, the measured demographics were checked and compared between groups. To compare the results of the electronic and paper-based questionnaires, polychoric correlation analysis was performed. All questions showed a high correlation (0.64-0.92; P<.001) between the paper-based and the mobile app–based questions at App T1 and App T2. The scores and their variance remained similar over the questionnaires, indicating no clear difference in the answer tendency. In addition, the correlation between the 2 app-based questionnaires was high (>0.73; P<.001), illustrating a high test-retest reliability, indicating it to be a reliable replacement for the paper-based questionnaire.
Conclusions: This study indicates that the mobile app is a valid tool for measuring the quality of life and is as reliable as the paper-based version of the EQ-5D-5L, while reducing the response burden.
JMIR Form Res 2022;6(8):e37303
quality of life assessment; EQ-5D-5L questionnaire; mobile app; test-retest reliability; mobile phone
Questionnaires are increasingly used to determine the health-related quality of life and specifically the care needs of patients; for example, as part of patient-reported outcomes [1]. Although questionnaires are perceived as an easy and noninvasive tool by researchers, study participants and patients often perceive filling out long or repeated questionnaires as burdensome. Although quality of life is often used as an outcome measure in studies, not all questionnaires used are suitable for long-term monitoring of a patient to be able to measure the course of health status over time [2,3]. Long-term monitoring of a patient's quality of life is important for health care evaluation and may provide better insight into the actual value of interventions [4,5]. Therefore, there is a need to provide easy-to-use, patient-friendly, and valid health questionnaires. This study investigated the possibility of measuring health status in a simple and valid way using a mobile app developed by Q1.6 (Q1.6 mobile app). Using this mobile app, the response burden for participants was reduced by presenting 1 question at a time instead of requesting the complete questionnaire all at once.
Conducting paper-based questionnaires in studies is prone to errors, such as unintended skipping of questions or selecting multiple answers when 1 answer is expected [6]. In addition, data from paper-based questionnaires must be manually processed, which is time consuming, before analyses can be performed and manual entry can lead to data entry errors. With the emergence of apps for questionnaires that can be completed on smartphones, such inaccuracies can be prevented [7].
The use of smartphones and electronic devices has increased in our daily lives and in health care settings. Studies have shown that the use of smartphone app in intervention studies, for example, for self-monitoring, has become more accepted over time [8]. The use of eHealth services can lead to increased self-management of health complications [8,9]. Various patient-reported outcome measures can be queried using electronic devices [1]. The use of electronic devices is an advantage for both the individual patient and the researcher or physician: questionnaires can be answered at a convenient moment for the patient, which saves researchers' or physicians' and patients' time [10]. Flexible completion could increase the frequency with which a patient is willing to complete a smartphone-based questionnaire. In addition, because of the completion of the questionnaire on the web, the data are immediately available, are stored, and can easily be compared with previously completed questionnaires. Therefore, a patient can be monitored effortlessly by the physician or researcher, and the patient does not have to make separate appointments with the physician or researcher. From a data perspective, the benefits of completing questionnaires via a smartphone app include easy to retrieve data, reliable data, and prevention of data loss due to backup systems [11]. Before a mobile questionnaire app can be deployed in a clinical setting, it is essential that this new method is validated against the traditional method [12].
In this study, a validation of a new mobile method of the well-known EQ-5D-5L questionnaire, a short questionnaire in which the quality of life of a person was examined, was performed. A comparison of the gold standard, a traditional paper version of the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire, with a digitized, mobile measurement method of (subjective) health-related quality of life via a mobile app was examined. The EQ-5D-5L questionnaire is available in various modes of administration, including smartphones [13]. Several studies have used the electronic version of the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire and indicated the electronic version valid and reliable [10,14-16]. However, the Q1.6 mobile app of the EQ-5D-5L is designed to reduce the response burden of questionnaires by presenting a single question at a time and only querying 2 questions a day rather than the whole questionnaire at once. To validate the method, the EQ-5D-5L version of the EQ-5D Health Status Questionnaire was used. This is a standardized measure of the health-related quality of life questionnaire developed by the EuroQol group [17]. EQ-5D is the most widely used tool for obtaining health outcomes from a patient's perspective [18].
In this validation study, a comparison using correlation analysis was made between the mobile app version of the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire and the gold standard paper-based version of the EQ-5D-5L. To avoid possible bias due to time of the day (morning and afternoon), the questions in the mobile app were provided twice, referred to as time point 1 (App T1) and time point 2 (App T2), in a randomized order and differing in moment of the day (morning and afternoon).
Health-related quality of life measurement instruments must be both valid and reliable [19]. The validity of a questionnaire pertains to the degree to which the measurement reflects a construct of interest. Specifically, convergent validity is the degree to which a new scale is related to other pre-existing measures of the same construct [20]. Convergent validity between the paper, which is a pre-existing measure, and the mobile version of the EQ-5D-5L will be assessed through correlation analyses. Reliability is the consistency that the instrument measures, with test-retest reliability evaluating the consistency between 2 time points. Test-retest reliability assumes that no alterations emerge between measurements when the test is repeated and is the main aspect of reliability considered in this study [21].
Correlation analysis is the most commonly used method in validation and test-retest reliability studies and is the preferred method for this study [22]. Polychoric correlation was used for all EQ-5D-5L questions, except for the visual analog scale (VAS), because this construct uses a 5-point Likert scale [23]. Likert scales are ordinal scores, characterized by the assumption that the intervals between the scores are not equal (eg, the difference between categories 1 and 2 may not be as large as the difference between categories 2 and 3), with a limited number of possible scores. These polychoric correlations are the preferred correlational methods [24].
Owing to the longitudinal nature of the study, it was important to ensure that the differences we found were owing to differences in assessment methods and not owing to differences over time. As such, the correlation was checked between the average mobile app score (mean of both time points) and the paper score, between App T1 and the paper score, between App T2 and the paper score, and also between the 2 time points in the mobile app to study the longitudinal correlation or the test-retest validity.
The main objective of this study was to validate an innovative way to measure perceived health using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire requested via the mobile app. In the validation study, a comparison using correlation analysis was made between the mobile app version of the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire and the gold standard a paper-based version of the EQ-5D-5L, in a large group of people.
In the next section, we will discuss our methods, including our study design and the statistical analyses used, followed by the results obtained by these statistical analyses and a discussion of what these results mean for the validation of the digitized Q1.6 version of the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire.
Participant recruitment and data collection (questionnaires) were conducted by the research bureau MSI Advanced Customer Insights (MSI-ACI Europe BV). The participants were provided with a participant information sheet. Participants willing to participate sent in their signed and completed informed consent form digitally. To obtain a representative sample of the Dutch population, participants were selected to approximate the population distribution of age, gender, education, and place of residence. Of the 661 interested participants, 350 (52.9%) were eligible, and 261 (39.5%) eventually participated in the study. Participants were declared eligible when they met the following inclusion criteria: aged ≥18 years, healthy at their own discretion, in possession of a smartphone with at least Android version 4.1 or higher or iOS version 9 or higher, digitally skilled enough to download the mobile app, and able to read and answer questionnaires in Dutch. Participants who completed the study received an incentive (digital bol.com store voucher) of €10 (US $12).
The study plan was approved by the Internal Review Board of TNO (Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research) on February 12, 2021 (number 2021-009). The study was conducted in accordance with the current assembly (64th) of the Declaration of Helsinki (Brazil, October 2008), which was updated by the WMA (World Medical Association) General Assembly in 2013. The study was conducted in March 2021 and completed in 4 weeks.
This was a randomized, crossover, and open study. Eligible participants (n=261) were assigned to groups 1 or 2. A total of 50.9% (133/261) of participants were assigned to group 1. The participants in group 1 first received a paper-based questionnaire. They were given a maximum of 1 week to complete the questionnaire on paper and return it by postal mail. Thereafter, the participants were informed by email to start with the mobile app. A total of 49% (128/261) of participants were placed in group 2. Participants in group 2 first completed the mobile app questionnaire, followed by the paper-based questionnaire, which was sent by postal mail. Of the 261 participants, 255 (97.7%) participants completed both the paper-based version of the EQ-5D-5L and the mobile app version. A schematic overview of the study design is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Study design. The figure shows the order of paper-based version and the mobile app questionnaires for groups 1 and 2. With exception of a visual analog scale score, questions of the EQ-5D-5L were asked twice via the mobile app. A single question was requested once in the morning and once in the afternoon on 5 consecutive days. MSI-ACI: MSI Advanced Customer Insights; T1: time point 1 (app question answered first time); T2: time point 2 (same app question answered second time).
The EQ-5D Paper-Based Questionnaire
The EQ-5D is a standardized measure of health-related quality of life questionnaire developed by EuroQol. The EQ-5D is the most widely used tool for obtaining quality of life from a patient's perspective [18]. The EQ-5D is a descriptive instrument that focuses on five dimensions of health: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain or discomfort, and anxiety or depression. Two versions of the EQ-5D are available: EQ-5D-5L (the 5-level version, each domain consisting of 5 levels; "1=no problems, 2=slight problems, 3=moderate problems, 4=severe problems, and 5=extreme problems") and EQ-5D-3L (the 3-level version, each domain consisting of 3 levels; "1=no problems, 2=some problems, and 3=extreme problems"). Lower scores indicate better quality of life. The EQ-5D-5L questionnaire was used in this study. The second part of the paper-based questionnaire comprises a standard vertical 20-cm line representing a scale from 0 to 100, also known as the VAS. The respondents are asked to score their current health status on the scale and write the corresponding number in an adjacent box. A higher VAS score represents a better perceived health status.
The Q1.6 Mobile Phone App
The company Q1.6 developed a mobile app that prompts a participant to answer a short question about their health twice a day. For this study, the EQ-5D-5L was configured in the Q1.6 app (Multimedia Appendix 1). The participants were notified to download the mobile app to their personal mobile phones. For 5 consecutive days, the participants received notifications for 2 EQ-5D-5L questions per day. A single question was posed once in the morning and once in the afternoon. The EQ-5D-5L questions were randomized to be presented in the morning or afternoon to increase generalizability. On the fifth day, the participants also had to complete the VAS score. In total, all questions were asked twice spread over 5 consecutive days, with the exception of the VAS score, which was asked only once. Notifications prompting the participant to answer a question were sent to the participants' smartphones between 8 AM and 10:30 PM and closed automatically. Participants in possession of an iPhone received a notification every consecutive hour until the question was answered. On Android, questions were prompted when a user unlocked their phone until the question was answered.
Subjective evaluation of the mobile app was requested via an evaluation questionnaire in the mobile app to gain insight into the usability of the mobile app.
The number of participants needed in the study was based on a power calculation assuming a correlation of 0.7 with an α of .05 and a power of 0.90. To allow for the fact that any correlation is inherent in health measurements in general, no test against finding no correlation was performed, but the estimation of power was made to distinguish between the expected correlation of 0.7 and a more general correlation of 0.5, which may be found in any 2 health-related questionnaires. On the basis of G*power calculation [25], we required 200 participants to validate the mobile app questionnaire using these parameters.
Descriptive variables were compared between the 2 experimental groups (ie, group 1: first paper-based EQ-5D-5L questionnaire or group 2: first mobile app questionnaire) to check whether randomization had achieved a good spread of baseline variables across the groups in the study. Participants missing >1 question in the mobile app (5, 1.9%) were removed from the analysis to have as many completed questionnaires as possible for validation (approximately 200 completed on paper and via the mobile app).
To compare the paper- and app-based questionnaires, polychoric correlation analyses were used for all EQ-5D-5L questions, except for the VAS scale, as the questions were answered using a 5-point Likert scale [23]. For these calculations, the package Lavaan (version 0.6-9) in R (designed by Robert Gentleman and Ross Ihaka and developed by the R Core Team) was used [26]. Pearson correlation was estimated for the VAS. For the main outcome, that is, the correlation between paper and the mobile app, the average score over 2 days in the mobile app was correlated with the observed score from the paper version. The answers given the first time a question appeared in the mobile app were combined at time point 1 (App T1); the answers provided during the second time were combined at time point 2 (App T2). In addition, the correlations between the observed score on paper and App T1, and the observed score on paper and App T2 were calculated, as presented in Multimedia Appendix 2.
To study the longitudinal correlation or test-retest reliability, we examined the test-retest correlation of the 2 time points using the mobile app (App T1 vs App T2) and the validity assessment (paper vs digital [the mobile app]) through the polychoric correlation. With similar correlation coefficients (eg, within a few points of each other), we can assume that both methods measure the same. Furthermore, paired t tests (2-tailed) were used to check whether participants consistently scored higher or lower on paper or on the mobile app (Multimedia Appendix 3).
Data are presented as mean (SD). A P value of <.05 was considered statistically significant. Correlation values of 0.0 to 0.3 indicate weak agreement, 0.3 to 0.5 indicate mediocre agreement, 0.5 to 0.7 indicate strong agreement, and >0.7 indicate very strong agreement [27]. Box plots are presented for descriptive analyses of the usability of the mobile app.
Descriptive Results of Study Participants
A final data sample of 255 participants (117 males—group 1: 54, 43%; group 2: 63, 49% and 138 females—group 1: 73, 57%; group 2: 65, 51%), with an age of ≥18 years and no more than one observation missing, were included in the analysis. Although there was no maximum age set for inclusion of participants, the maximum age of respondents was 64 years. In total, 56.5% (144/255) of the participants were highly educated and had obtained at least a bachelor's degree. The demographic data of the participants are presented in Table 1. Characteristics are listed in total and per condition (group 1: paper first; group 2: mobile app first). The distribution of the demographic characteristics between the groups was consistent. Group 2 appeared to have slightly more people aged >50 years (52/128, 40.6% vs 35/127, 27.6% in group 1) and people living in the eastern part of the Netherlands (39/128, 30.5%) than in group 1 (24/127, 18.9%).
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the participants (N=255) who completed the study in total and the representation in the group.
Parameter Participants, n (%) Group 1 (paper first), n (%) Group 2 (mobile app first), n (%)
Man 117 (45.9) 54 (42.5) 63 (49.2)
Woman 138 (54.1) 73 (57.4) 65 (50.7)
18-34 88 (34.5) 48 (37.8) 40 (31.3)
Educationa
Low 10 (3.9) 4 (3.1) 6 (4.7)
Middle 101 (39.6) 46 (36.2) 55 (43)
High 144 (56.5) 77 (60.6) 67 (52.3)
Regionb
Cities 27 (10.6) 15 (11.8) 12 (9.4)
North 25 (9.8) 11 (8.7) 14 (10.9)
East 63 (24.7) 24 (18.9) 39 (30.5)
South 56 (22) 26 (20.5) 30 (23.4)
West 84 (32.9) 51 (40.2) 33 (25.8)
aParticipants who only attended primary education, prevocational secondary education (VMBO or LBO) were defined as less educated. Participants with a secondary school (preparatory vocational secondary education [mavo], senior general secondary education [havo], or university preparatory education [vwo]) or senior secondary vocational education and training (MBO) degree were defined as middle educated. Participants with at least a bachelor's degree in higher professional or university education were categorized as having a higher education.
bParticipants were recruited from all over the Netherlands. An overview of participants living near big cities and region of the Netherlands is presented.
Descriptive Results by Domain
The average scores of the different variables on paper, App T1 (first time question in the mobile app) and App T2 (second time question in the mobile app) are presented in Table 2. With the exception of the VAS score (range 0-100), a lower score indicates a better quality of life (range 1-5). As can be seen, the group generally considers themselves healthy and scores between 1 and 2 on the five domains (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain or discomfort, and anxiety or depression) across the different media (paper vs the mobile app). The mean VAS score for paper administration was 77.7 (SD 14.3), and the mean VAS score for the mobile app was 78.7 (SD 15.8). The scores and their variability remained similar over the questionnaires, indicating no clear difference in the answer tendency. Within self-care, a very low variance and overall, a low score were observed (paper average 1.1, SD 0.4; mobile app average 1.1, SD 0.3). Multimedia Appendix 3 presents 2-tailed t tests pertaining to the difference in responses on the paper and mobile app versions.
Table 2. Average score per EQ-5D-5L question.
Variable Paper, mean (SD) App, mean (SD) App T1a, mean (SD) App T2b, mean (SD)
Visual analog scale score 77.705 (14.324) N/Ac N/A 78.697 (15.751)
Anxiety or depression 1.596 (0.845) 1.542 (0.782) 1.556 (0.798) 1.522 (0.832)
Pain or discomfort 1.659 (0.831) 1.587 (0.716) 1.616 (0.780) 1.578 (0.767)
Usual activities 1.467 (0.730) 1.437 (0.713) 1.410 (0.747) 1.451 (0.735)
Self-care 1.110 (0.439) 1.086 (0.332) 1.078 (0.335) 1.093 (0.354)
Mobility 1.247 (0.619) 1.247 (0.558) 1.235 (0.579) 1.240 (0.556)
aApp time point 1 (App T1) was the first time the question was answered.
bApp time point 2 (App T2) was the second time that the same question was answered.
cN/A: not applicable (via the mobile app, each question of the EQ-5D-5L, with the exception of the visual analog scale score, was requested twice).
The Mobile App—Retest Results
The EQ-5D-5L questions in the mobile app were answered twice. Correlations between App T1 and App T2 were high (range 0.73-0.9; P<.001; Table 3), with the highest correlation observed for self-care and the lowest for anxiety or depression and mobility. This indicates high test-retest reliability across all domains. Compared with the correlations between methods (Table 4), the differences were small (range 0.19-0.02). The CIs overlapped with a notable correlation with self-care. However, this may be because of the very low variance within self-care (Table 2), causing a small difference in answers and generating a disproportionally large influence.
Table 3. Polychoric correlations between app time point 1 (App T1) and time point 2 (App T2).
App T1 vs App T2 Correlation SE z score P value Range (lower-upper)
Anxiety or depression 0.729 0.029 24.838 <.001 0.671-0.786
Pain or discomfort 0.744 0.028 26.640 <.001 0.689-0.799
Usual activities 0.786 0.024 32.855 <.001 0.739-0.833
Self-care 0.897 0.012 73.058 <.001 0.873-0.921
Mobility 0.730 0.029 24.906 <.001 0.672-0.787
Table 4. Polychoric correlations between EQ-5D-5L paper and EQ-5D-5L mobile app (average App T1 and App T2) version.
Digital variable versus paper Correlation SE z score P value Range (lower-upper)
VASa_digital 0.636 0.030 20.876 <.001 0.576-0.696
Anxiety or depression 0.791 0.122 6.496 <.001 0.553-1.030
Pain or discomfort 0.824 0.121 6.783 <.001 0.586-1.062
Usual activities 0.812 0.122 6.657 <.001 0.573-1.052
Self-care 0.880 0.124 7.083 <.001 0.636-1.123
Mobility 0.915 0.121 7.545 <.001 0.677-1.152
aVAS: visual analog scale.
Correlations Paper-Based EQ-5D-5L Questionnaire Versus the Mobile App
Table 4 displays the results of the polychoric correlations, showing high relations between the different scores on paper and in the mobile app (average App T1 and App T2) across the 5 domains (>0.79). It is difficult to set a cutoff value based on a variety of assumptions and indicators. However, as all correlations between the paper and digital questions are above 0.79, they indicate a very strong validity for repeated questions about anxiety or depression, pain or discomfort, usual activities, mobility, and self-care. Mobility showed the strongest correlation (0.92; P<.001). In addition, the correlations of the EQ-5D domains paper versus app were in the same range as the test-retest reliability results. The estimated correlation of the VAS scores was lower (0.64; P<.001) compared with the questions on the 5 domains (>0.79; P<.001).
The polychoric correlations between paper and App T1 and between paper and App T2 are presented in the Multimedia Appendix 2. Lower correlations were observed between paper and App T1 (>0.64) and paper and App T2 (>0.65), compared with the correlations between paper and the average score of the mobile app (>0.79) and compared with the correlations between App T1 and App T2. Using paired 2-tailed t tests, no significant differences between the average mobile app score and the observed paper score were found (Multimedia Appendix 3) or between App T1 and App T2 (Multimedia Appendix 4). Consistently higher or lower scoring of paper compared with the mobile app was also not observed. A strong agreement between the paper and the mobile app was observed (>0.64), with no structurally higher scores on paper or the mobile app.
The slight difference in correlation strength between the correlations between App T1 and App T2 (Table 3) and the correlations found between paper and the mobile app (Table 4) may be because of the effect of time (between the 2 moments of answering in the mobile app) and not the difference in media (paper vs the mobile app). This is because the perceived quality of life changes slightly over the course of a day and between days, even in a healthy population [28].
Subjective Evaluation of the Mobile App
A short evaluation questionnaire was requested via the app to gain insight into its usability. Figure 2 shows the usability on three aspects: "the app provides a good representation of how I feel," "it is no burden to answer this questionnaire quarterly," and "the app is more user-friendly than the paper-based questionnaire." The scores ranged from 1 to 7, with a higher score indicating that the participants strongly agreed with the statement.
Figure 2. Usability of the mobile app, where a higher score indicates higher agreement with the question posed, the questions being, "The app provides a good representation of how I feel," "It is no burden to answer this questionnaire quarterly," and "The app is more user-friendly than the paper-based questionnaire.".
Most (197/261, 75.5%) participants indicated that the mobile app provided a good representation of how they felt. Furthermore, the participants perceived no burden to answer this questionnaire quarterly via the mobile app. In addition, the mobile app was perceived as more user-friendly than the paper-based questionnaire. However, some (42/261, 16.1%) participants mentioned in their free-text comments that user-friendliness could be improved in some ways. For example, a couple of participants mentioned that the notification or icon of the mobile app always remained at the top left on their phone screen, which was experienced as unpleasant.
This study aimed to validate an innovative way to measure health-related quality of life using a mobile app based on the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire that may replace the paper version of the questionnaire. The mobile app prompts a participant to answer a single question of the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire twice a day, once in the morning and once in the afternoon. In total, all questions were asked twice, spread over 5 consecutive days. This study was designed to compare the scoring in the mobile app to the gold standard paper-based version of the EQ-5D-5L.
This study showed high correlations, of over 0.79 (P<.001), for all 5 questions between the paper-based EQ-5D-5L questionnaire and the mobile app questionnaire (averaged App T1 and App T2). When comparing the paper-based version separately with the 2 time points App T1 and App T2 (Multimedia Appendix 2), the correlations were slightly lower. Depending on the domain (eg, mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain or discomfort, and anxiety or depression), the correlations between the paper-based version and App T1 or App T2 were higher. For all domains, the correlation of the mean of both entries was higher than that for one entry, regardless of whether it is App T1 or App T2. Averaging the 2 scores may have eliminated some variability, potentially increasing the correlation. Nevertheless, because of the high correlations for App T1 (>0.64) and App T2 (>0.65), completing the questionnaire once via the mobile app seems to be sufficient, considering its high retest reliability. In addition, no significant differences between the paper score and the mobile app were observed, indicating that the scores were not structurally higher for either paper or the mobile app. Regarding test-retest reliability, high correlations were found between the App T1 and App T2 scores (>0.73). Both the high correlation between the paper version and the mobile app questionnaire, along with the high correlation of the in-between comparison of the mobile app time points (App T1 vs App T2), make the new mobile version of the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire a reliable replacement for the paper-based method.
A review [12] demonstrated the equivalence of electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome measures. Equivalence was observed in 43 studies. However, 2 studies did not find equivalence, and 10 studies had no clear conclusions. Furthermore, Jiang et al [16] criticized the web-based method in comparison with the face-to-face method. Therefore, validation of the new smartphone method compared with the gold standard is important before using the new method in a health care setting.
Belisario et al [7] compared the responses to questionnaires using a mobile app with other methods (eg, paper, laptop, and web based). No major differences in using the app or "other methods" were observed. This study used a threshold correlation of >0.6, which is in line with our results, and we found correlations of >0.64.
Mulhern et al [10] executed a comparable study with the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire requested on paper and via a mobile phone app. In this study, a higher response rate was observed for mobile phone questionnaires. However, their study used a parallel design; the participants completed only one administration method. In comparison, in this study, participants completed both the paper-based and mobile app versions of the EQ-5D-5L. This study design is recommended to have confirmative evidence for equivalence [29], because the same participants undergo both methods. In a study by Lundy et al [30], the EQ-5D-5L paper version was examined using different devices (handheld, tablet, interactive voice response, and web). They found substantial evidence supporting the measurement equivalence of the different modes of data collection (paper format and screen-based and phone-based formats of the EQ-5D-5L provided) [30]. Evidence that this is not the case for the current questionnaire was found in the study by Kim et al [31]. They showed high correlations for the International Prostate Symptom Score questionnaire requested via an app and on paper. Furthermore, Bellamy et al [32] found high correlations between a paper-based and mobile-based scores for osteoarthritis. Different studies [11,33,34] showed a similar response to a questionnaire requested via an app and a paper-based version. These results support the validity of the EQ-5D-5L mobile app questionnaire used in this study in healthy volunteers.
An attribute of the questionnaire itself in a healthy population, such as this, is the low variance. Most people answered that they did not have any daily issues on each of the Likert scale questions. Therefore, polychoric correlation was applied, because this method is more sensitive to ordinal data with low variance. The reliability and validity of the mobile app in unhealthy people should be tested in a follow-up study, because the variance in the domains may be higher, which could affect the correlations between the methods.
We found a lower correlation for the VAS score (0.62; P<.001) than for the 5 domain questions between the 2 methods. This may be because of the greater sensitivity to the daily differences in this score, as the scale runs from 0 to 100 instead of from 1 to 5 as the domain questions (continuous vs categorical data). However, most individuals (204/255, 80%) scored >70, leaving an effective score range of 70 to 100. This means that an individual who scores 74 today and 75 tomorrow has an increase, whereas an individual who scores 74 today and 72 tomorrow has a decrease in score, although both deviations may be a nonnoticable difference for the individual. When asked about categories, this would be the same category, and no deviations would be depicted.
Earlier studies showed a low yet positive correlation between consecutive measurement moments within persons for the EQ-5D VAS of 0.21 [35], indicating that a lagged correlation of 0.62 seems reasonable for a lagged relationship between individuals. In this study, there were several days between completing the questionnaire on paper and via the mobile app, which might have caused differences in the VAS scores.
Furthermore, the display length of the mobile device could affect the 0 to 100 scores differently compared with the paper length, resulting in more variation. However, other studies showed no effect of differences in device length on VAS scores; they were all similar even if the screen was half the size, meaning that the VAS itself may be a constant measure [36].
Strengths and Limitations
This study has some limitations. In this study, most (144/255, 56.5%) participants were highly educated, and only 4% (10/255) of the participants had a low education level. Therefore, it is not yet known whether this mobile app is usable for lower educated people and whether education level affects the validity of the paper-app comparison. Furthermore, the usability for older people is not known, because the maximum age in the study was 64 years. In addition, although the app-based questionnaire is relatively simple, it does not test which minimal digital skills are needed for the use of the mobile app. The participants in the study were digitally skilled (as part of the inclusion criteria) and indicated that the questionnaire app was user-friendly (Figure 2). In addition, the mobile app was only tested with people who stated to be healthy at their own discretion, which may have caused low variance in scores.
Most eHealth app studies have nonrepresentative populations [37,38]. This indicates that there may have been a selection bias during the recruitment of people for this type of study. Nicholl et al [37] also reported that participants were predominantly female, White, well educated, and middle aged, and thus the wider applicability of digital self-management interventions remains uncertain. This is important for the usability of the at-home tests. However, this may not be applicable to the general population.
Despite these limitations, a good representation of the population with sufficient spread of age, gender, and people living in the Netherlands was obtained. Furthermore, the number of participants was sufficient for validation (calculated necessary: 200; completed the study: 255). Another strength of this study was the testing period of the mobile app before the start of the study. Before the study began, the mobile app was optimized using feedback from the testers.
Only healthy participants were included in this study. It is recommended to test the app in distinct groups of patients to gain insight into whether the perception of quality of life in diseased people can be measured with the mobile app as well.
An app should be attractive through pictures and should not be textual. Positive feedback and rewarding also play key roles in eHealth interventions [39]. The long-term use of and compliance with mobile apps require special attention. Recommendations for the app can be provided by using an extensive usability questionnaire. AB testing, which allows for the comparison of different variations of the mobile app, may be used to improve mobile app usability. Aesthetics (attractiveness), utility (relevance), and usability play vital roles in eHealth.
In addition, the study population consisted mainly of highly educated individuals. It is recommended that the mobile app be tested in a low socioeconomic group of people too. It is also worthwhile to validate the mobile app for use by older people. Older people are often less comfortable using mobile apps, and information about quality of life may be even more relevant for this group [40]. Another recommendation is to determine the use of the mobile app in long-term monitoring; for example, as a follow-up tool during or after treatment [11,31,34].
In addition, there is another instrument for scoring perceived health, the health monitor. The health monitor is inspired by the self-anchoring scale, also known as Cantril Ladder, which uses 10 steps to stress one's health [41], combined with a short questionnaire. The health monitor is used to measure a person's perceived acceptance and control of their illness or well-being. Future research should investigate whether the health monitor is comparable with the EQ-5D and could be used as a future quality of life tool. Furthermore, the next level of nonobtrusive measurement of quality of life could be achieved by means of digital phenotyping. Digital phenotyping is the quantification of a particular human behavior using data from personal digital devices or wearables. In the near future, data such as proximity to other devices using Bluetooth, estimation of activity, or detection of voice could be applied as robust, continuous nonintrusive proxies of aspects of quality of life [42].
In this study, high correlations between the questionnaire requested via the mobile app and on paper were observed. This indicates that the mobile app is valid for use and is as reliable as the paper-based version of the EQ-5D-5L. With the widespread use of mobile phones, the mobile app is potentially valuable for perceiving a patient's health in a simple and valid way, as an alternative to the paper-based EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. The mobile app could reduce the current burden and errors with the use of questionnaires, such as skipping questions, giving more answers than required, and data entry errors. In addition, mobile app data will be immediately available and stored and can easily be compared with previously completed questionnaires. However, more research is required to establish the use of mobile apps for consecutive monitoring of various user groups.
This study was funded by Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies and independently executed by TNO (Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research). The authors would like to thank Ton Peters for his excellent cooperation, Filip Vissers of Q1.6 for developing the mobile app, Jaap de Graaf of MSI-ACI for his collaboration and recruitment of participants, and the study participants for their time and effort.
Multimedia Appendix 1
Example (in Dutch) of EQ-5D-5L question (mobility) programmed in the Q1.6 app.
PNG File , 124 KB
Polychoric correlations between EQ-5D-5L paper and EQ-5D-5L App T1 and App T2.
PNG File , 33 KB
Paired 2-tailed t test for mean difference in digital versus paper measurements.
Paired 2-tailed t test for mean difference in App T1 versus App T2.
Leidy NK, Vernon M. Perspectives on patient-reported outcomes : content validity and qualitative research in a changing clinical trial environment. Pharmacoeconomics 2008;26(5):363-370. [CrossRef] [Medline]
de Boer D, Bos N, Zuidgeest M, Beusmans P, Koopman L, van der Scheurs S. Ontwikkelingen in het meten en gebruiken van patiëntervaringen en patiëntgerapporteerde uitkomsten: van de huidige stand van zaken naar lessen voor de toekomst. Nivel.: Zorginstituut Nederland; 2018. URL: https://www.zorginstituutnederland.nl/binaries/zinl/documenten/rapport/2018/07/25/ontwikkelingen-in-het-meten-en-gebruiken-van-patientervaringen-en-patientgerapporteerde-uitkomsten/6937+Nivel_Ontwikkelingen+in+meten+en+gebruiken+pati%C3%ABntervaringen_20180724_+OPGEMAAKT.pdf [accessed 2021-11-22]
Desomer A, Van den Heede K, Triemstra M, Paget J, De Boer D, Kohn L, et al. Use of patient-reported outcome and experience measures in patient care and policy. Health Services Research (HSR). 2018. URL: https://kce.fgov.be/sites/default/files/2021-11/KCE_303C_Patient_reported_outcomes_Short_Report_0.pdf [accessed 2021-11-22]
Solans M, Pane S, Estrada MD, Serra-Sutton V, Berra S, Herdman M, et al. Health-related quality of life measurement in children and adolescents: a systematic review of generic and disease-specific instruments. Value Health 2008;11(4):742-764 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
El Achhab Y, Nejjari C, Chikri M, Lyoussi B. Disease-specific health-related quality of life instruments among adults diabetic: a systematic review. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2008 May;80(2):171-184. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Lee SJ, Kavanaugh A, Lenert L. Electronic and computer-generated patient questionnaires in standard care. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2007 Aug;21(4):637-647. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Marcano Belisario JS, Jamsek J, Huckvale K, O'Donoghue J, Morrison CP, Car J. Comparison of self-administered survey questionnaire responses collected using mobile apps versus other methods. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015 Jul 27;2015(7):MR000042 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Wang J, Cai C, Padhye N, Orlander P, Zare M. A behavioral lifestyle intervention enhanced with multiple-behavior self-monitoring using mobile and connected tools for underserved individuals with type 2 diabetes and comorbid overweight or obesity: pilot comparative effectiveness trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018 Apr 10;6(4):e92 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Kooiman T, de Groot M, Hoogenberg K, Krijnen WP, van der Schans CP, Kooy A. Self-tracking of physical activity in people with type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Comput Inform Nurs 2018 Jul;36(7):340-349. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Mulhern B, O'Gorman H, Rotherham N, Brazier J. Comparing the measurement equivalence of EQ-5D-5L across different modes of administration. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2015 Nov 26;13:191 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Jung M, Lee S, Kim J, Kim H, Ko B, Son BH, et al. A mobile technology for collecting patient-reported physical activity and distress outcomes: cross-sectional cohort study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020 May 04;8(5):e17320 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Campbell N, Ali F, Finlay AY, Salek SS. Equivalence of electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res 2015 Aug;24(8):1949-1961. [CrossRef] [Medline]
EQ-5D-5L available modes of administration — EQ-5D. EuroQol Research Foundation. URL: https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/eq-5d-5l-available-modes-of-administration/ [accessed 2021-11-22]
Lam CL, Tse ET, Wong CK, Lam JS, Chen SS, Bedford LE, et al. A pilot study on the validity and psychometric properties of the electronic EQ-5D-5L in routine clinical practice. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2021 Dec 18;19(1):266 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Hernandez G, Garin O, Dima AL, Pont A, Martí Pastor M, Alonso J, ASTRO-LAB Group. EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) validity in assessing the quality of life in adults with asthma: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res 2019 Jan 23;21(1):e10178 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Jiang R, Shaw J, Mühlbacher A, Lee TA, Walton S, Kohlmann T, et al. Comparison of online and face-to-face valuation of the EQ-5D-5L using composite time trade-off. Qual Life Res 2021 May;30(5):1433-1444 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
About EuroQol. EuroQol Research Foundation. 2022. URL: https://euroqol.org/euroqol/ [accessed 2022-05-20]
Devlin NJ, Brooks R. EQ-5D and the EuroQol group: past, present and future. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2017 Apr;15(2):127-137 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Shrout PE, Lane SP. Psychometrics. In: Mehl MR, Conner TS, editors. Handbook of Research Methods for Studying Daily Life. New York, NY, USA: The Guilford Press; 2012:302-320.
Krabbe P. The Measurement of Health and Health Status: Concepts, Methods and Applications from a Multidisciplinary Perspective. Cambridge, MA, USA: Academic Press; 2016.
Scholtes VA, Terwee CB, Poolman RW. What makes a measurement instrument valid and reliable? Injury 2011 Mar;42(3):236-240. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 3rd edition. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2003.
Olsson U. Maximum likelihood estimation of the polychoric correlation coefficient. Psychometrika 1979 Dec;44(4):443-460. [CrossRef]
Choi J, Peters M, Mueller RO. Correlational analysis of ordinal data: from Pearson's "r" to Bayesian polychoric correlation. Asia Pacific Educ Rev 2010 May 12;11(4):459-466. [CrossRef]
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 2009 Nov;41(4):1149-1160. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Rosseel Y. lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Soft 2012 May 24;48(2):1-36 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
Akoglu H. User's guide to correlation coefficients. Turk J Emerg Med 2018 Sep;18(3):91-93 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Ravens-Sieberer U, Erhart M, Wille N, Wetzel R, Nickel J, Bullinger M. Generic health-related quality-of-life assessment in children and adolescents: methodological considerations. Pharmacoeconomics 2006;24(12):1199-1220. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Coons SJ, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD, Lundy JJ, Sloan JA, Revicki DA, ISPOR ePRO Task Force. Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health 2009 Jun;12(4):419-429 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Lundy JJ, Coons SJ, Flood E, Patel MJ, ePRO Consortium. Agreement among paper and electronic modes of the EQ-5D-5L. Patient 2020 Aug;13(4):435-443 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Kim JH, Kwon SS, Shim SR, Sun HY, Ko YM, Chun DI, et al. Validation and reliability of a smartphone application for the International Prostate Symptom Score questionnaire: a randomized repeated measures crossover study. J Med Internet Res 2014 Feb 10;16(2):e38 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Bellamy N, Wilson C, Hendrikz J, Whitehouse SL, Patel B, Dennison S, EDC Study Group. Osteoarthritis Index delivered by mobile phone (m-WOMAC) is valid, reliable, and responsive. J Clin Epidemiol 2011 Feb;64(2):182-190. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Bush NE, Skopp N, Smolenski D, Crumpton R, Fairall J. Behavioral screening measures delivered with a smartphone app: psychometric properties and user preference. J Nerv Ment Dis 2013 Nov;201(11):991-995. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Garcia-Palacios A, Herrero R, Belmonte M, Castilla D, Guixeres J, Molinari G, et al. Ecological momentary assessment for chronic pain in fibromyalgia using a smartphone: a randomized crossover study. Eur J Pain 2014 Jul;18(6):862-872. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Parkin D, Rice N, Jacoby A, Doughty J. Use of a visual analogue scale in a daily patient diary: modelling cross-sectional time-series data on health-related quality of life. Soc Sci Med 2004 Jul;59(2):351-360. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Hollen PJ, Gralla RJ, Stewart JA, Meharchand JM, Wierzbicki R, Leighl N. Can a computerized format replace a paper form in PRO and HRQL evaluation? Psychometric testing of the computer-assisted LCSS instrument (eLCSS-QL). Support Care Cancer 2013 Jan;21(1):165-172. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Nicholl BI, Sandal LF, Stochkendahl MJ, McCallum M, Suresh N, Vasseljen O, et al. Digital support interventions for the self-management of low back pain: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2017 May 21;19(5):e179 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Pasman WJ, Boessen R, Donner Y, Clabbers N, Boorsma A. Effect of caffeine on attention and alertness measured in a home-setting, using Web-based cognition tests. JMIR Res Protoc 2017 Sep 07;6(9):e169 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Oinas-Kukkonen H, Harjumaa M. Persuasive Systems Design: key issues, process model, and system features. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 2009 May 1;24:28. [CrossRef]
Cosco TD, Firth J, Vahia I, Sixsmith A, Torous J. Mobilizing mHealth data collection in older adults: challenges and opportunities. JMIR Aging 2019 Mar 19;2(1):e10019 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Bloem S, Stalpers J. Subjective experienced health as a driver of health care behavior. SSRN J 2012 Jul 9 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
Huckvale K, Venkatesh S, Christensen H. Toward clinical digital phenotyping: a timely opportunity to consider purpose, quality, and safety. NPJ Digit Med 2019 Sep 6;2:88 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
VAS: visual analog scale
WMA: World Medical Association
Edited by A Mavragani; submitted 04.03.22; peer-reviewed by S Rostam Niakan Kalhori, P Knapp, R Marshall; comments to author 16.05.22; revised version received 03.06.22; accepted 20.06.22; published 11.08.22
©Regina J M Kamstra, André Boorsma, Tanja Krone, Robin M van Stokkum, Hannah M Eggink, Ton Peters, Wilrike J Pasman. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 11.08.2022.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Formative Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://formative.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
Kamstra RJM, Boorsma A, Krone T, van Stokkum RM, Eggink HM, Peters T, Pasman WJ
JMIR Formative Research ISSN 2561-326X

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


LOS ANGELES (CBS) — Several sobriety checkpoints and DUI patrols are expected this St. Patrick's Day weekend and authorities want to remind revelers to use a designated sober driver.
Anaheim police Sgt. Bob Dunn says the department has joined the "The Avoid the 26" Orange County DUI Campaign, deploying additional officers on overtime this weekend.
"Police, sheriff and CHP officers will have a 'zero tolerance' response toward impaired drivers who fail to use a designated sober driver," Dunn said.
In Los Angeles, police will stage several sobriety checkpoints and have scheduled DUI patrols in an effort to reduce the number of people killed or injured in alcohol or drug related accidents.
"Whether you are meeting a few friends at the local pub or visiting your favorite Irish pub, if you plan on using alcohol, never drive while impaired — and never let your friends drive if you think they are impaired.
"Buzz driving is drunk driving," said Los Angeles police Lt. Ron Katona of the Traffic Coordination Section.
Meantime, police urge the public to report suspected drunk drivers by calling 911.


text:
The 2009–10 Liga Nacional de Básquet season was the 26th season of the top professional basketball league in Argentina. The regular season started on 7 October 2009. Peñarol won their second title, defeating Atenas in the finals.

Promotions and relegations
Torneo Nacional de Ascenso Champions from the previous season La Unión and runners-up Unión de Sunchales were promoted, occupying the berths left by Ben Hur and Monte Hermoso. Central Enterriano, also from the second-tier tournament, traded places with Independiente de Neuquén, who had to sell their berth due to financial difficulties.

Clubs

Regular season

First stage
The first stage took place between 7 October and 25 November 2009. Teams were divided into two zones. The top three teams from each zone plus the best fourth team overall and a wildcard competed in the Torneo Súper 8 that took place in December.

North Zone

South Zone

Torneo Súper 8
The sixth edition of Torneo Súper 8 took place on 17–20 December 2009 in the city of Mar del Plata. Peñarol won their second title, defeating Atenas in the Final.

Second stage
The second stage started on 27 November 2010. All 16 teams were ranked together. Each team carried over half of the points obtained in the first stage.

Playoffs

Championship playoffs
The Playoffs started on 31 March 2011 and ended on 25 May 2011. Peñarol defeated Atenas in the Finals.

Relegation playoffs
The relegation series began on 2 April. Central Entrerriano and Quilmes lost their respective series and were relegated to the Torneo Nacional de Ascenso.

Clubs in international competitions

Awards

Yearly Awards
Most Valuable Player: Leonardo Gutiérrez, Peñarol
All-Tournament Team:
 F Leonardo Gutiérrez, Peñarol
 F Juan Locatelli, Atenas
 C Román González, Quimsa
 G Juan Pablo Figueroa, Atenas
 G David Jackson, Libertad

References
LNB Media Guide 2016/2017, laliganacional.com.ar. Retrieved 16 May 2017.

Liga Nacional de Básquet seasons
Argentina

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve
Protected area in Victoria, Australia
IUCN category Ia (strict nature reserve)
Nearest town or city
37°50′S 145°29′E / 37.833°S 145.483°E / -37.833; 145.483Coordinates: 37°50′S 145°29′E / 37.833°S 145.483°E / -37.833; 145.483
590 hectares
Parks Victoria
Protected areas of Victoria
Established in 1965, the Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve is located 45 km east of Melbourne in the Upper Yarra Valley, near the towns of Yellingbo, Launching Place, Yarra Junction, Hoddles Creek, Cockatoo, Emerald, Monbulk and Seville.[1] Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve is a narrow riparian reserve with stream-frontage land along the Woori Yallock, Shepherd, Cockatoo, Macclesfield and Sheep Station Creeks.
The total reserve area at Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve is approximately 590 hectares comprising several separate areas principally along the local creek systems and is surrounded by privately owned properties.[2]
As an outstanding protected area for habitat and species protection, the reserve is managed by Parks Victoria which also manages adjoining freehold land along Cockatoo Creek, owned by the Victorian Trust for Nature, as if it were part of the reserve.[1]
Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve is the only place where all Victoria's state terrestrial emblems, helmeted honeyeater, Leadbeater's possum and pink heath, can be found in the one place.[3]
Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve has been assigned the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Category 1A (Strict nature reserve) for Protected Areas. Category 1A protected areas are managed primarily for science.[4]
'Yellingbo' means today in Woiwurrung language.[3]
2 Flora, fauna and vegetation
3 Environmental issues and threats
5 Benefits to biodiversity and the ecosystem
6 Access
In 1965, with increasing community concern about declining helmeted honeyeater numbers, and following recommendations from the Victorian Ornithological Research Group and the Bird Observers Club (now BirdLife Australia) some areas, including sections of public land along the Woori Yallock, Cockatoo and Sheep Station Creeks, were reserved as the Yellingbo State Wildlife Reserve by the Victorian Government for wildlife conservation. Subsequently, several adjoining areas were acquired by Government by purchase or donation, increasing the protected area. In 1994 the Victorian Land Conservation Council recommended that most of these, as well as some other areas, should be consolidated as the Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve. Since then, further small parcels of land have been added to the reserve.[5]
Flora, fauna and vegetation[edit]
Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve protects a diversity of flora and fauna including approximately 285 native flora species and 230 native vertebrate species.[4] Significant species include the Leadbeater's possum, helmeted honeyeater, Epacris impressa (heath), Eastern Mourning Skink Lissolepsis coventryi, Green Scentbark Eucalyptus fulgens, Powerful owl Ninox strenua, Growling grass frog Litoria raniformis.[6]
Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve protects areas of Sedge-rich Eucalyptus camphora Swamp Community, the only known occurrence and which is considered to be of national significance.[4] The vegetation of Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve is composed of the following recognisable communities: along Cockatoo Creek pure stands of Eucalyptus camphora exist with an understorey of mainly Carex and Cyperus species; at the edges there are dense shrublands of Leptospermum lanigerum or Melaleuca squarrosa; Eucalyptus camphora, Acacia melanoxylon, Eucalyptus ovata and Eucalyptus obliqua occur on drier terraces along Cockatoo Creek; Eucalyptus viminalis mainly exists along Sheepstation and Woori Yallock Creeks; Eucalyptus radiata, Eucalyptus obliqua and Eucalyptus ignorabilis exist mainly along drier slopes throughout the reserve in sclerophyll forest. The understorey tends to be sparse to patchily dense.[1]
Leadbeater's possum Gymnobelideus leadbeateri
A small geographically isolated population of Leadbeater's possum was discovered in lowland swamp forest at Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve in 1986. This population is the only known extant lowland population, occurring in habitat that is very different to that of the possum's core range in Victorian Central Highlands (montane ash forests). This adds to the conservation importance of the lowland population. The Leadbeater's possum, as the faunal emblem of Victoria, is an iconic Australian species. Since European colonisation the Leadbeater's possum population has suffered a widespread decline and has restricted distribution in its range due to a lack of mature trees with hollows that the possum requires for denning. The Leadbeater's possum is listed as 'Threatened' under the Victorian Flora and Flora and Guarantee Act 1988, and 'Endangered' under the Commonwealth Environment and Biodiversity Protection Act 1999.[7][8][9][10][11]
Helmeted honeyeater Lichenostomus melanops cassidix
The helmeted honeyeater was first discovered in 1867, and its range has greatly diminished since that date. Clearing of land in the Yarra Valley for agriculture and the draining of the Koo Wee Rup Swamp from the 1880s destroyed most of the habitat of the helmeted honeyeater. Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve provides habitat for the last wild population of Victoria's only endemic bird and its avifaunal emblem.[4][5][12][13][14] The helmeted honeyeater is critically endangered (IUCN 2001 criterion B2abii,iii,v), is listed as Threatened in Schedule 2 of Victoria's Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 and classified as Critically Endangered on the Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria – 2013.[15] It is listed as Endangered under the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.[16]
Environmental issues and threats[edit]
Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve is under considerable threat from such events as altered hydrology, declining native vegetation, pest animals and plant, and inappropriate fire regimes. Conservation management of the reserve is complex, with half of the original vegetation in patchy distribution.[17] Invasive weeds include blackberry, gorse, Spanish heath, ragwort and St John's wort, and introduced predators such as foxes, Fallow and Samba deer. A major threat to the helmeted honeyeater comes from another native bird, the bell miner (Manorina melanophrys).[2]
The Eucalyptus camphora and Eucalyptus ovata have been declining in health since the 1970s. The decline of health of the native vegetation in Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve is a complicated issue, a key contributor is likely the increased levels of nitrogen that encourage nitrate leaching and weed growth as the reserve is surrounded by intense agriculture.[18] Dieback may also be caused by changed stream flow through the swamp arising from a loss of floodplain, siltation and water-logging of some areas.[2]
The fragmented quality of Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve adds to the complexity of managing the reserve for conservation. Managers of surrounding private land have an important role in the conservation of biodiversity values of Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve, particularly for providing habitat corridors.[19] Small reserves such as Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve are important for preserving endemic species of certain taxa but they require intensive management and need to be carefully protected. Threats such as introduced predators or fire can disease can obliterate a species in a single reserve.[20][21][22][23] Zoos Victoria is pushing for sites other than Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve to be secured as a matter of urgency.[24]
The helmeted honeyeater is vulnerable to catastrophes such as fire, as fire will most likely cause severe damage to breeding territories. Availability of suitable breeding habitat limits the helmeted honeyeater's reproduction ability. Expansion of habitat and limiting the further loss and degradation of present habitat, and supplementary feeding are key actions for effective management of the species.[25] The current helmeted honeyeater population is recognised to have low genetic diversity which makes it vulnerable to inbreeding depression, and this lowers its ability to evolve to changing environments.[26]
The conservation of the endangered Leadbeater's possum is one of Australia's most controversial forestry issues.[27] Outside of Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve, one of the key threats to the possum is widespread clearfell logging, which significantly impacts on the quality of the habitat. Also clearfell logging results in fragmented habitat, long-term habitat loss, and an increased risk of fire. The cessation of clearfell logging and a major expansion of reserves are immediately needed to limit the risk of extinction of Leadbeater's possum.[28]
Management[edit]
Since the establishment of Yellingo Nature Conservation Reserve, there have been a number of management plans in place to manage the nature reserve, the helmeted honeyeater, and the lowland Leadbeater's possum including: Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve Management Plan (2004),[4] Helmeted honeyeater recovery plan : 1989–1993,[29] National Recovery Plan for the Helmeted Honeyeater (2008).[30]
Published in 2013, the Yellingbo Investigation Final Report prepared by the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council (VEAC)[19] outlined a number of recommendations for the response of the Victorian Government. The report states that the 'goal of saving the helmeted honeyeater and the lowland Leadbeater's possum can be achieved in the long-term through integrated management process. Traditional conservation approaches are not relevant to Yellingbo as a large amount of remnant vegetation is on private land. A collaborative approach to managing the reserve and surrounding area is vital for the success of these species'. The report included a range of recommendations aimed at improving management arrangements including establishing a consolidated Yellingbo Conservation Area, appointing a co-ordinating committee to promote co-operation and to phase out grazing from the area's stream frontages.[19] The Victorian government supported all of VEAC's recommendations in full or in principle, and the government and other lead agencies are implementing the accepted recommendations. Goals for implementation are improving the conservation of the biodiversity and ecological values, including the endangered helmeted honeyeater and the lowland Leadbeater's possum.[17][19][31]
In November 2015, the establishment of the Yellingbo Conservation Area Coordinating Committee was announced that will establish an Action Plan and co-ordinate partnerships to help achieve better environmental outcomes.[32] The Yellingbo Conservation Area Coordinating Committee will include a representative from key stakeholders: Melbourne Water, Parks Victoria, Cardinia Shire Council, Yarra Ranges Council, Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Zoos Victoria, Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority, and Trust for Nature.[19]
Friends of the Helmeted Honeyeater Inc
In 1965 the management of the helmeted honeyeater commenced at Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve. The population was 200 at that time and declined to a critical level in the 1980s. In 1989 the Victorian Government commenced a recovery program, a recovery team was established and the program was reviewed and updated in 2008 supported by the Victorian and Commonwealth governments.[29][30][33]
When the population of the helmeted honeyeater reached a critically low level of 50 birds in May 1989, there was public interest in saving the helmeted honeyeater and the Friends of the Helmeted Honeyeater Inc was formed. The Friends main aims are to protect existing habitat and plant future habitat for the helmeted honeyeater, to raise awareness about the plight of the helmeted honeyeater and to enlist broad community support for the recovery project. The Friends are active in the recovery effort, providing voluntary support and labour and restoration of habitat. The group has been instrumental in attracting political support.[6][34][35]
Friends of the Leadbeater's Possum Inc
Established on National Threatened Species Day, 7 September 2004, a group of volunteers established the Friends of Leadbeater's Possum Inc to give a voice to the Leadbeater's possum population. In addition to working towards achieving the proposed Great Forest National Park to provide security to Leadbeater's possum populations into the future, the group support projects at Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve.[36]
The Leadbeater's Possum Advisory Group
Established in 2013, the aim of the Leadbeater's Possum Advisory Group is to provide recommendations that support the recovery of the possum, while maintaining a sustainable timber industry. The Advisory Group is co-convened by Zoos Victoria and the Victorian Association of Forest Industries, with representation from VicForests, Parks Victoria, and the Leadbeater's Possum Recovery Team.[31]
Benefits to biodiversity and the ecosystem[edit]
Ultimately, the greatest benefit of the management of Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve has been saving the helmeted honeyeater and the lowland Leadbeater's possum populations from extinction. Over the last 40 years, volunteer labour has positively contributed to weed and pest control, revegetation, fencing and other targeted conservation actions. After decades of effort to save the helmeted honeyeater and Leadbeater's possum, many are concerned with a lack of progress. However, it is evident that without this effort the helmeted honeyeater species, and possibly others species, would have become extinct.[19]
As at May 2016, the wild population of helmeted honeyeater is about 200, and is on an upwards trend. This has been due to a number of changes in the recovery program over the last few years. These changes have included predator training for the captive-bred birds before release, and releasing at an older age (now released at 12-months of age) in four-year old revegetation. A greater understanding of the health of the ecology of the area, including soil testing, has had a positive impact on the habitat. The main issue affecting the helmeted honeyeater continues to be lack of habitat.[37][38]
An annual population monitoring of the last surviving lowland Leadbeater's possum population was completed in May 2015. The population was counted at 48 individuals made up of ten family groups. The numbers were considered stable in the previous 12-month period, following a population decline of 60% over previous decades. Fifteen groups have been lost since 2003 due to decline in the condition of the vegetation of the reserve.[39]
As part of its 'Fighting Extinction' program, Zoos Victoria manage captive-bred programs for the genetically-distinct lowland population of Leadbeater's possum, and the helmeted honeyeater. The Leadbeater's possum captive breeding program at Healesville Sanctuary commenced in May 2012, to prevent extinction of this population.[36][40] As at October 2015, 16 individuals were held as part of the breeding program. This captive population aims to provide insurance against the extinction of the last lowland populations at Yellingbo.[31] Since 1989, Zoos Victoria has been involved in the helmeted honeyeater recovery program. Their work has included supplementing wild populations through captive breeding, and providing opportunities for visitors to connect with this iconic bird. Zoos Victoria play an important role in conducting research to improve captive breeding success and help monitor the survival of helmeted honeyeaters after release.[41]
There has been progress in phasing out stream-side cattle grazing licences in the Yellingbo Conservation Area to improve the habitat for the Leadbeater's possum, the helmeted honeyeater, and other threatened species. This will continue to improve the biodiversity values of the area's waterways through better water quality and increased protection of native vegetation. Improvements to the condition of these riparian strips supports the required habitat for both the helmeted honeyeater and the Leadbeater's possum.[39] Partners continue to raise funds for purchase of adjacent land, a purchase of additional 3 hectares announced on 12 May 2016 by Trust for Nature.[42] Both the Friends of Leadbeater's Possum Inc and the Friends of the Helmeted Honeyeater Inc regularly undertake revegetation works.[6][36]
In the 2014–15 budget the Victorian Government announced a $3.2 million revegetation program that will build habitat at Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve. The revegetation program will see more than 80,000 understorey plants planted to increase habitat diversity and insect availability, which will have a positive impact on the resident species' diet.[43] The government has committed to progressively phasing out approximately 186 water frontage and grazing licences by 2018. This is in the aim of improving riparian habitat and river health in the conservation reserve.[44]
In April 2014, the Victorian Government allocated $11 million over five years to support implementation of all recommendations made by the Leadbeater's Possum Advisory Group. The 13 recommendations and 48 resulting actions are being implemented to assist in the conservation of the Leadbeater's possum.[45]
In 2015 Greening Australia commenced a three-year project to increase habitat and improve vegetation condition to support wild populations of the helmeted honeyeater and Leadbeater's possum. Greening Australia will work with six partner agencies and two friends groups to deliver: improved habitat quality for these species and enhanced connectivity between existing populations; increased duration and availability of food resources and availability of nesting sites for helmeted honeyeaters through additional 650,000 trees and shrubs; and increased spatial extent of Eucalyptus camphora woodland and associated riparian vegetation by 100 hectares.[6]
Access[edit]
There is no general public access to the reserve, though birdwalks and counting tours are organised by the Friends of the Helmeted Honeyeater and through BirdLife Australia.
^ a b c Pearce, J., Habitat Selection by the White-eared Honeyeater. II. A Case Study at Yellingbo State Nature Reserve, South-east Victoria. Emu, 1996. 96(1): p. 50-54.
^ a b c Phillips, Kevin Helping to save an icon: the helmeted honeyeater Conservation Bulletin: Trust for Nature (Victoria) 2003 27
^ a b A park for today: Yellingbo State Emblems Park, proposal prepared by Woori Yallock Creek Park Alliance (2011). Report can be found at: http://www.johnshill.org.au/pdf/woori_yallock_proposal.pdf
^ a b c d e Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve Management Plan. 2004, Parks Victoria: Melbourne.
^ a b Menkhorst, P., Background and Implementation Information for the Helmeted Honeyeater Lichenostomus melanops cassidix National Recovery Plan 2008, Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment Melbourne.
^ a b c d "Friends of the Helmeted Honeyeater". helmetedhoneyeater.org.au/yellingbo.htm. 7 May 2016. Retrieved 7 May 2016.
^ Beilharz, L.a.W., D, Observations of ground activity in Leadbeater's possum 'Gymnobelideus leadbeateri' in subalpine snowgum woodland at Mount Baw Baw, Victoria The Victorian Naturalist, Feb 2015. Vol. 132(No. 1): p. 21-22.
^ Hansen, B.D. and A.C. Taylor, Isolated remnant or recent introduction? Estimating the provenance of Yellingbo Leadbeater's possums by genetic analysis and bottleneck simulation. Molecular Ecology, 2008. 17(18): p. 4039-4052.
^ Harley DKP, W.M.a.H.T., The distribution and abundance of Leadbeater's possum Gymnobelideus leadbeateri in lowland swamp forest at Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve. Australian Mammalogy, 2005. 27: p. 7-15.
^ Lindenmayer DB, C.R., Tanton MT, Nix Ha And Smith, AP, The conservation of arboreal marsupials in the montane ash forests of the central highlands of Victoria, south-east Australia: III. The habitat requirements of Leadbeater's Possum Gymnobelideus leadbeateri and models of the diversity and abundance of arboreal marsupials. Biological Conservation 1991. 56: p. 295-315.
^ Smith, A.a.L., DB, Tree hollow requirements of Leadbeater's Possum and other possums and gliders in timber production ash forests of the Victorian central highlands. Australian Wildlife Research, 1988. 15: p. 347-362.
^ "Parks Victoria". parkweb.vic.gov.au/explore/parks/yellingbo-n.c.r. 26 April 2016. Retrieved 26 April 2016.
^ Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, D.o.S.a.E., Action Statement No. 130: Sedge-rich Eucalyptus camphora Swamp, in Action Statement. 2003, State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment: East Melbourne
^ Pearce, J. and P.R. Minchin, Vegetation of the Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve and its relationship to the distribution of the helmeted honeyeater, bell miner and white-eared honeyeater. Wildlife Research, 2001. 28(1): p. 41-52.
^ "Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna 2013" (PDF). 16 May 2016. Retrieved 16 May 2016.
^ "Case Study From Victoria – Example of Trends in Species And Communities: Helmeted honeyeater Lichenostomus melanops cassidix" (PDF). 16 May 2016. Retrieved 16 May 2016.
^ a b The State of Victoria, D.o.E.a.P.I., Victorian Government Response to Victorian Environmental Assessment Council's Yellingbo Investigation Final Report. 2014: Melbourne.
^ Granger, L., S. Kasel, and M.A. Adams, Tree Decline in Southeastern Australia: Nitrate Reductase Activity and Indications of Unbalanced Nutrition in Eucalyptus ovata (Labill.) and E. camphora (R. T. Baker) Communities at Yellingbo, Victoria. Oecologia, 1994. 98(2): p. 221-228.
^ a b c d e f Victorian Environmental Assessment Council, Yellingbo Investigation Final Report, 2013: East Melbourne
^ Soulé, M.E. and D. Simberloff, What do genetics and ecology tell us about the design of nature reserves? Biological Conservation, 1986. 35(1): p. 19-40.
^ Diamond, J.M., et al., Island Biogeography and Conservation: Strategy and Limitations. Science, 1976. 193(4257): p. 1027-1032.
^ Terborgh, J., Preservation of Natural Diversity: The Problem of Extinction Prone Species. BioScience, 1974. 24(12): p. 715-722.
^ East, R., Species-area curves and populations of large mammals in African savanna reserves. Biological Conservation, 1981. 21(2): p. 111-126.
^ Arup, Tom (21 July 2013). "Edge of Existence". The Age. Retrieved 15 May 2016.
^ McCarthy, M.A., Extinction dynamics of the helmeted honeyeater: effects of demography, stochasticity, inbreeding and spatial structure. Ecological Modelling, 1996. 85: p. 151-163.
^ Harrisson, K.A., et al., Scope for genetic rescue of an endangered subspecies though re-establishing natural gene flow with another subspecies. Molecular Ecology, 2016. 25(6): p. 1242-1258.
^ Lindenmayer, D.B. and H.P. Possingham, Ranking Conservation and Timber Management Options for Leadbeater's Possum in Southeastern Australia Using Population Viability Analysis. Conservation Biology, 1996. 10(1): p. 235-251.
^ Lindenmayer, D.B., et al., Ignoring the science in failing to conserve a faunal icon – major political, policy and management problems in preventing the extinction of Leadbeater's possum. Pacific Conservation Biology, 2015. 21(4): p. 257-265.
^ a b Menkhorst, P., et al., Helmeted honeyeater recovery plan : 1989–1993. 1991, East Melbourne: Dept. of Conservation and Environment.
^ a b Menkhorst, P., National Recovery Plan for the Helmeted Honeyeater. 2008: Melbourne
^ a b c State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Supporting the recovery of the Leadbeater's Possum. Progress report, October 2015
^ "Yellingbo and Helmeted Honeyeaters secure a brighter future: media release". 6 November 2015. Retrieved 3 May 2016.
^ McCarthy, M.A., D.C. Franklin, and M.A. Burgman, The importance of demographic uncertainty: An example from the helmeted honeyeater Lichenostomus melanops cassidix. Biological Conservation, 1994. 67(2): p. 135-142.
^ "Friends of the Helmeted Honeyeater". Parks Victoria. 26 April 2016. Retrieved 26 April 2016.
^ Smales, I., Menkhorst P and Horrocks, G, The Helmeted Honeater recovery programme: a view of its organisation and operation. In A. Bennett, G Backhouse & T. Clark (Eds). People and nature conservation: perspective on private land use and endangered species recovery, 1995: p. 35-44.
^ a b c "Friends of the Leadbeater's Possum". Friends of the Leadbeater's Possum. 3 May 2016. Retrieved 3 May 2016.
^ "Survival rate of critically endangered bird doubles as Helmeted Honeyeater learns to fear". Bush Telegraph. 2 October 2014. Retrieved 15 May 2016.
^ Friends of the Helmeted Honeyeater Inc (30 April 2016). Introductory speech to the Convoy of Conservation Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve, Victoria
^ a b "Supporting the Recovery of the Leadbeater's Possum Progress Report October 2015" (PDF). State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. October 2015. Retrieved 12 May 2016.
^ Harley, D., The application of Zoos Victoria's 'fighting extinction' commitment to the conservation of Leadbeater's possum 'Gymnobelideus leadbeateri' Victorian Naturalist, October 2012. Vol. 129 (No. 5): p. 175-180.
^ "Zoos Victoria's 20 priority species: helmeted honeyater, Lichenostomus melanops cassidix, Critically Endangered" (PDF). Zoos Victoria. 15 May 2016. Retrieved 15 May 2016.
^ "Good news: Yellingbo property purchases progressing!". Trust for Nature. 12 May 2016. Retrieved 15 May 2016.
^ "Australia : Yellingbo's Endangered Species Protected". MENA. 26 September 2014. Archived from the original on 11 September 2016. Retrieved 15 May 2016.
^ "Questions and Answers for the government response to Yellingbo Investigation". Department of Environment and Primary Industries. Retrieved 15 May 2016.
^ "Leadbeater's Possum". Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. Retrieved 15 May 2016.
Anon (2004). Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve Management Plan (PDF). Melbourne: Parks Victoria. ISBN 0-7311-8307-X.
Menkhorst, Peter (2008). Background and Implementation Information for the Helmeted Honeyeater Lichenostomus melanops cassidix National Recovery Plan (PDF). Melbourne: Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria. ISBN 1-74152-357-5.
Friends of the Helmeted Honeyeater
Friends of the Leadbeater's Possum
Birdlife Australia
Trust for Nature
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yellingbo_Nature_Conservation_Reserve&oldid=905687728"
IUCN Category Ia
Nature Conservation Reserves of Victoria (Australia)
Protected areas established in 1965
1965 establishments in Australia


text:
Q: Shifting an LFSR loop in O(1) time? I'm looking for a way to mathematically combine two concepts: LFSRs, and Barrel Shifters
I'm looking for a way, in O(1) time, to shift an LFSR loop a given number of shifts.
What I'm hoping to find is a simple process where I have the current state of the LFSR and the number of times I want to shift from that state as parameters to a quick/easy process.
At first I just thought about looking at all the taps, then moving the taps over by 1 and looking at them again, finding the shift in bit each time and appending it onto the end but of course this isn't O(1) and it gets complicated if I want to shift so many times that a tap would "slide off" the original LFSR state.
I may be in the wrong place to ask this because I'm looking for a way to do this programmatically. Although any incite into how it's possible (or why it's impossible) would be very helpful.

A: The successive contents of a (binary) maximal-length linear feedback shift register with $n$ stages can be interpreted as the elements
$\ldots, \alpha^{i-1}, \alpha^i, \alpha^{i+1}, \ldots,$ of $\mathbb F_{2^n}$
(where $\alpha$ is a primitive element in the field) expressed in the
dual-polynomial basis (see the answers and comments on
this question).
So what you are asking is,

Given the current state $\alpha^i$ and an integer $j$, compute
  the state $\alpha^{i+j}$ as quickly as possible (preferably in $O(1)$
  time).

This would require either

*

*exponentiation (compute $\alpha^j$) followed
by multiplication (to find $\alpha^i \times \alpha^j$)

or

*

*a discrete logarithm
computation (find $i = \log_{\alpha}(\alpha^i)$ followed by addition
($i+j$) and exponentiation.

This fleshes out @YuvalFilmus's hint
that a simple method may not exist.  Of course, if $n$ is not too
large, and the set of values of $j$ that you are interested in is
not too large, table look-up would be the way to solve the problem
instead of barrel shifters.  If $j$ can be only two or three
values, you can implement the transformation $\alpha^i \to \alpha^{i+j}$
using Exclusive-OR trees with feedback going not just to the last
stage of the LFSR but to several stages.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
FOX AND HIS FRIENDS
FOX AND HIS FRIENDS (Faustrecht der Freiheit) (director/writer: Rainer Werner Fassbinder; screenwriter: Christian Hohoff; cinematographer: Michael Ballhaus; editor: Thea Eymesz; music: Peer Raben; cast: Rainer Werner Fassbinder (Franz Bieberkopf alias 'Fox'), Peter Chatel (Eugen Thiess), Adrian Hoven (Wolf Thiess, Eugen's father), Christiane Maybach (Hedwig Bieberkopf), Hans Zander (Barman Springer), Kurt Raab (Wodka-Peter), Rudolf Lenz (Attorney Dr. Siebenkäss), Karl Scheydt (Klaus), Peter Kern (Florist 'Fatty' Schmidt), Karl-Heinz Staudenmeyer (Krapp), Harry Bär (Philip), Karlheinz Böhm (Max), Barbara Valentin (Max's wife), Ingrid Caven (Singer in bar), Lilo Pempeit (Neighbour), Irm Hermann (Mlle. Cherie de Paris), El Hedi ben Salem (Salem the Moroccan); Runtime: 123; MPAA Rating: NR; producer: Rainer Werner Fassbinder; New Yorker Films; 1975-Germany-in German with English subtitles)
"One of Rainer Werner Fassbinder's brilliant melodramas from the 1970s."
One of Rainer Werner Fassbinder's brilliant melodramas from the 1970s. Fassbinder plays an ugly, surly, crude, guileless, dimwitted blue-collar working stiff named Franz Bieberkopf, who performs in Munich in a traveling circus sideshow as Fox the Talking Head. When the owner, Klaus (Karl Scheydt), is arrested for cheating on his taxes, the show closes. The next thing you know is that the broke Franz wins five hundred thousand marks in the lottery and finds himself in the company of a close-knit group of effete bourgeois poofs. They see him as an easy sucker and scheme to take away his money. The opportunistic Eugen (Peter Chatel) becomes Fox's lover, leaving his cultured handsome boutique owner boyfriend Philip (Harry Bär) with plans to return to him after he takes all of Fox's money. Using Fox's money they move into an expensive flat together and buy 84,000 marks worth of antique furniture from one of their group members, Max (Karlheinz Böhm). He's involved in a sham marriage with a beleaguered woman (Barbara Valentin), dragging her along to his friends' social affairs. Fox buys from Philip an expensive wardrobe for each, and they go on holiday together to Morocco with again Fox footing the bill. Eugen arranges for Fox to give his father a 100,000 mark loan to save his dying bookbinding business and then cunningly manipulates it so he can legally inherit the flat. Fox goes along with the deceptions thinking he has found love and is being introduced into a better world. Even though he doesn't share their taste for fancy food, opera, books and culture he refuses to believe he's being used despite being warned by his vulgar boozy sister (Christiane Maybach) that the poofs are taking him for a ride. After around six months, they clean the fool out and the exploited lower-class Fox is thrown out of his flat and completely destroyed psychologically. To escape his misery he takes too many Valiums. By the end of his trip, Fox realized he would have been better off not trying to be middle-class and should have settled for being in his own milieu. But that didn't sink in until it was too late and he hit rock bottom.
The film offers a keen social analysis of the different classes, racism (in the Marrakesh Hilton the Arab Salem is not allowed to visit the German tourists for a threesome because they can only work there but not be guests), the horrors of consumerism, the materialistic uppity gay bourgeois scene and how cruel people can be to others when they are vulnerable. Money is a ticket into a better class, but if the person is not educated to the values of that class we can see how he will no longer be accepted when his money is no longer there. Fassbinder gives a memorable performance as the brash proletariat who gets tamed by the effetes and loses all sense of his worth in his descent.
REVIEWED ON 5/10/2006 GRADE: A


Here we've provide a compiled a list of the best hamster puzzles and riddles to solve we could find.
The results compiled are acquired by taking your search "hamster" and breaking it down to search through our database for relevant content.
Where do pet hamsters come from?


I loved the video. It reminded me of my trip to Tunisia last April. I'm glad I got to go then … feel sorry for the tourists traveling there now.
This is not Tunisia in the video, however I do feel sorry for what is happening there! so sad!
You know Alicia, you are right, they are happy… in their own way….
Good morning Mirella…I see my friend John finally found you…ha…I was on the Tunisia trip with him…I'm glad to hear things are going well there…here's hoping all continues to improve….the problem of world hunger appears to be coming to the surface but as you know few in the west fully understand the nature of the problem…take care my friend and be safe.
Yep John find me and am happy that he did:) He has a very interesting blog himself!
I hope you are doing well Charlie… I meant to write to ask you about your news and how things are going….
J'immaginais Khartoum exactement comme ça!!!
Tu vois! je n'exagere pas quand je te raconte!
Great and very interesting video, Mirella. I love these snippets of what you're seeing. What struck me was how flat it is: the complete lack of trees or mountains to break the skyline. Are the streets packed Earth, or paved and just covered in dust? Thanks for taking the time to share!
No streets names, no numbers no urbanism…why bother?
The trick is to find where you are going without being lost…and all the dust you see, always land in the lungs, ears, eyes, all opened orifices and drawers and closet….ok I will stop venting now.
People are so resilient and resourceful. I wonder what draws people to such inhospitable places to live. Living in these conditions must be a constant battle. We are living in a mud puddle just now, but I know that will soon pass. The sandbox life goes on forever. Thank you Mirella, for showing us your suburb.
Debra am so sorry for what happened in Brisbane and to your house! your pictures are amazing… sad but good images.
I hope you will have a good recovery time in Italy away from the mess….
Mud, dust … Nature can be so cruel!