human
***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Background Both low back pain ( LBP ) and neck pain ( NP ) are major occupational health problems . In the workplace , participatory ergonomics ( PE ) is frequently used on musculoskeletal disorders . However , evidence on the effectiveness of PE to prevent LBP and NP obtained from r and omised controlled trials ( RCTs ) is scarce . This study evaluates the process of the Stay@Work participatory ergonomics programme , including the perceived implementation of the prioritised ergonomic measures . Methods This cluster- RCT was conducted at the departments of four Dutch companies ( a railway transportation company , an airline company , a steel company , and a university including its university medical hospital ) . Directly after the r and omisation outcome , intervention departments formed a working group that followed the steps of PE during a six-hour working group meeting . Guided by an ergonomist , working groups identified and prioritised risk factors for LBP and NP , and composed and prioritised ergonomic measures . Within three months after the meeting , working groups had to implement the prioritised ergonomic measures at their department . Data on various process components ( recruitment , reach , fidelity , satisfaction , and implementation components , i.e. , dose delivered and dose received ) were collected and analysed on two levels : department ( i.e. , working group members from intervention departments ) and participant ( i.e. , workers from intervention departments ) . Results A total of 19 intervention departments ( n = 10 with mental workloads , n = 1 with a light physical workload , n = 4 departments with physical and mental workloads , and n = 4 with heavy physical workloads ) were recruited for participation , and the reach among working group members who participated was high ( 87 % ) . Fidelity and satisfaction towards the PE programme rated by the working group members was good ( 7.3 or higher ) . The same was found for the Stay@Work ergocoach training ( 7.5 or higher ) . In total , 66 ergonomic measures were prioritised by the working groups . Altogether , 34 % of all prioritised ergonomic measures were perceived as implemented ( dose delivered ) , while the workers at the intervention departments perceived 26 % as implemented ( dose received ) . Conclusions PE can be a successful method to develop and to prioritise ergonomic measures to prevent LBP and NP . Despite the positive rating of the PE programme the implementation of the prioritised ergonomic measures was lower than expected . Trial registration Current Controlled Trials IS RCT AIMS quantitative description of adherence to motivational interviewing ( MI ) in smoking cessation sessions ; and examination of the relationships between client characteristics and adherence to MI , and between adherence to MI and future smoking status . METHODS 84 sessions were conducted during a r and omised controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a  population -based smoking intervention in women during the postpartum period . Demographic and behaviour-related variables were included in a logistic regression to predict adherence to MI . MEASUREMENTS adherence was measured using the MI Treatment Integrity Scale . FINDINGS 38.1 % of sessions showed good adherence to MI . Receiving a good MI session was not related to any demographic or behavioural variables . The relationship between adherence and intervention outcome after six months was not statistically significant ( chi(2)=0.355 , p=0.551 ) . CONCLUSIONS the smoking cessation sessions examined in this study failed to adhere to MI . There was no relationship between adherence to MI and behavioural outcome six months after the intervention , indicating that women who smoke post partum may be a high-risk group for whom specific smoking cessation interventions need to be developed Background Dementia affects 35 million people worldwide and is currently incurable . Many cases may be preventable because regular participation in physical , mental and social leisure activities during middle age is associated with up to 47 % dementia risk reduction . However , the majority of middle-aged adults are not active enough . MCI is therefore a clear target for activity interventions aim ed at reducing dementia risk . An active lifestyle during middle age reduces dementia risk but it remains to be determined if increased activity reduces dementia risk when MCI is already evident . Before this can be investigated conclusively , complex multimodal activity programmes are required that ( 1 ) combine multiple health promoting activities , ( 2 ) engage people with MCI , and ( 3 ) result in sufficient adherence rates . Methods We design ed the ThinkingFit programme to engage  people with MCI  in a complex intervention comprised of three activity components : physical activity , group-based cognitive stimulation ( GCST ) and individual cognitive stimulation ( ICST ) . Engagement and adherence was promoted by applying specific psychological techniques to enhance behavioural flexibility in an early pre-phase and during the course of the intervention . To pilot the intervention , participants served as their own controls during a 6- to 12-week run-in period , which was followed by 12 weeks of activity intervention . Results Out of 212 MCI patients screened , 163 were eligible , 70 consented and 67 completed the intervention ( mean age 74 years ) .  Activity adherence rates were high : physical activity = 71 % ; GCST = 83 % ; ICST = 67 % . Significant treatment effects ( p < .05 ) were evident on physical health outcomes ( decreased BMI and systolic blood pressure , [ pre/post values of 26.3/25.9 kg/m2 and 145/136 mmHg respectively ] ) , fitness ( decreased resting and recovery heart rate [ 68/65 bpm and 75/69 bpm ] ) , and cognition ( improved working memory [ 5.3/6.3 items ] ) . Conclusions We found satisfactory recruitment , retention and engagement rates , coupled with significant treatment effects in elderly MCI patients . It appears feasible to conduct r and omized controlled trials of the dementia prevention potential of complex multimodal activity programmes like ThinkingFit . Trial registration Clinical Trials.gov registration nr : NCT01603862 ; date : 17/5/2012 A recent special issue of the Journal of Pediatric Psychology included papers focused on evidence -based assessment across several broad domains of assessment in pediatric psychology ( e.g. , adherence , pediatric pain , and quality of life ) . In one of these papers , Holmbeck et al. ( 2008 ) review ed strengths and limitations of existing measures of psychosocial adjustment and psychopathology , concluding that many measures lacked supporting psychometric data ( e.g. , basic indices of reliability and validity ) that would permit a complete evaluation of these measures . Given that measure development and validation papers are frequently published in JPP ( Brown , 2007 ) , it is important that we attend to guiding psychometric principles when developing and disseminating data on new measures to be employed with pediatric population s ( Nunnally & Bernstein , 1994 ) . Thus , the purpose of this paper is to present and describe a checklist for authors to use when su bmi tting measure development papers to JPP . This checklist is included in the Appendix and is also included at the following link on the JPP website : http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/jpepsy/for _ authors /measure%20development%20checklist.pdf Findings presented by Holmbeck et al. ( 2008 ) indicated that 34 of the 37 measures review ed met pre-established “ evidence -based assessment ” ( EBA ) criteria for “ well-established ” measures ( Cohen et al. , 2008 ) . To be considered “ well-established , ” a measure had to have been presented in at least two peer- review ed journal articles by different investigatory teams , have demonstrated adequate levels of reliability and validity , and be accompanied by supporting information ( e.g. , a measure manual ) . Although most measures that we review ed met these criteria , we also found that most of the 34 “ well-established ” measures were hampered by at least one major psychometric flaw and /or lacked important psychometric data . We concluded that a more fine-grained EBA classification system is needed . One important distinction in this literature relates to differences between empirically supported assessment and evidence -based assessment . This type of distinction was first discussed in the literature on clinical interventions ( e.g. , Spring , 2007 ) . An empirically supported intervention is one that has demonstrated efficacy in r and omized clinical trials or clinic-based effectiveness trials . An evidence -based intervention has empirical support in the manner just described , but also “ integrates research evidence , clinical expertise , and patient preferences and characteristics … empirically-supported treatments  ( ESTs )  are an important component of evidence -based practice ( EBP ) , but EBP can not be reduced to ESTs ” ( Spring , 2007 , p.611 ) . Applying these terms to the field of assessment and measure development efforts , an empirically supported assessment measure would be one that demonstrates satisfactory psychometric characteristics , broadly defined . To be evidence based , the measure should also demonstrate utility in clinical setting s , be useful in making diagnoses , be sensitive to treatment effects , and /or provide incremental validity above and beyond other similar measures . Although papers in the special issue of JPP frequently referred to “ evidence -based assessment ” ( Cohen et al. , 2009 ) , the articles included in the issue tended to evaluate the degree to which the measures were empirically-supported rather than evidence based . To be “ evidence -based , ” our review s would have needed to integrate an evaluation of clinical utility , diagnostic utility , and treatment sensitivity with the empirical psychometric data presented in each review . As noted , the published review s were more likely to focus on the latter rather than on the former . As suggested by Mash and Hunsley ( 2005 ) , detailed EBA profiles would provide a complete evaluation of evidence across each of several psychometric and clinical ly relevant dimensions , including : ( a ) internal consistency , ( b ) test – retest reliability , ( c ) the availability of normative data , ( d ) content validity , ( e ) construct validity , ( f ) convergent and discriminant validity , ( g ) criterion-related validity , ( h ) incremental validity , ( i ) clinical utility , ( j ) diagnostic utility , and ( k ) treatment sensitivity . The focus on incremental validity and clinical and diagnostic utility raises the bar from a focus on “ empirical support ” ( i.e. , where the focus would tend to be primarily on psychometric data ) to a broad focus on the “ evidence base ” for a measure . In developing the checklist that is the focus of this article , we attempted to provide a list of criteria relevant to establishing the evidence base ( and not just empirical support ) for a measure . In addition to shifting the focus from providing “ empirical support ” for a measure to providing an “ evidence base ” for our instruments , a checklist for measure development papers would permit JPP review ers to evaluate such papers in the same way that review ers of r and omized clinical trials make use of the Consoli date d St and ards of Reporting Trials ( CONSORT ) checklist and flowchart ( Altman et al. , 2001 ) . The CONSORT checklist contains reporting st and ards with respect to method ological features of and the manner in which results are reported in clinical trials . Moreover , authors are required to provide a flowchart that describes details of sample recruitment and attrition during the course of the study . Thus , a checklist for measure development papers would serve two interrelated purpose s : ( a ) it would provide guidance to authors as they embark on the measure development process and would provide a list of criteria authors can use as they develop an evidence base for their measures , and ( b ) it would begin to st and ardize the manner in which psychometric and other assessment -related data are presented in measure development papers for this journal . Before providing a more detailed overview of the checklist , it is important to note that this checklist is rather exhaustive ( see Appendix ) . As such , it represents what would “ ideally ” be expected for a measure development or validation manuscript rather than minimal criteria for such papers . No one paper can provide a complete evaluation of all important psychometric and clinical ly relevant dimensions that will establish once- and -for-all the evidence base for a measure . Instrument refinement is part of a measure development process that gradually builds an evidence base for a scale ( see Smith & McCarthy , 1995 , for suggestions on measure refinement ) . Indeed , the validation of any measure is a cumulative process that occurs across many different types of research studies and across research programs BACKGROUND There is still only limited underst and ing of whether and why interventions to facilitate the implementation of guidelines for improving primary care are successful . It is therefore important to look inside the ' black box ' of the intervention , to ascertain which elements work well or less well . AIM To assess the associations of key elements of a nationwide multifaceted prevention programme with the successful implementation of cervical screening guidelines in general practice . DESIGN OF STUDY A nationwide prospect i ve cohort study . SETTING A r and om sample of one-third of all 4,758 general practice s in The Netherl and s ( n = 1,586 ) . METHOD General practitioners ( GPs ) in The Netherl and s were exposed to a two- and -a-half-year nationwide multifaceted prevention programme to improve the adherence to national guidelines for cervical cancer screening . Adherence to guidelines at baseline and after the intervention and actual exposure to programme elements were assessed in the sample using self-administered question naires . RESULTS Both baseline and post-measurement question naires were returned by 988 practice s ( response rate = 62 % ) . No major differences in baseline practice characteristics between study population , non-responders , and all Netherl and s practice s were observed . After the intervention all practice s improved markedly ( P<0.001 ) in their incorporation of nine out of 10 guideline indicators for effective cervical screening into practice . The most important elements for successful implementation were : specific software modules ( odds ratios and 95 % confidence intervalsfor all nine indicators ranged from OR = 1.85 [ 95 % CI = 1.24 - 2.77 ] to OR = 10.2 [ 95 % CI =  
    Output:
    
agent
***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Background Both low back pain ( LBP ) and neck pain ( NP ) are major occupational health problems . In the workplace , participatory ergonomics ( PE ) is frequently used on musculoskeletal disorders . However , evidence on the effectiveness of PE to prevent LBP and NP obtained from r and omised controlled trials ( RCTs ) is scarce . This study evaluates the process of the Stay@Work participatory ergonomics programme , including the perceived implementation of the prioritised ergonomic measures . Methods This cluster- RCT was conducted at the departments of four Dutch companies ( a railway transportation company , an airline company , a steel company , and a university including its university medical hospital ) . Directly after the r and omisation outcome , intervention departments formed a working group that followed the steps of PE during a six-hour working group meeting . Guided by an ergonomist , working groups identified and prioritised risk factors for LBP and NP , and composed and prioritised ergonomic measures . Within three months after the meeting , working groups had to implement the prioritised ergonomic measures at their department . Data on various process components ( recruitment , reach , fidelity , satisfaction , and implementation components , i.e. , dose delivered and dose received ) were collected and analysed on two levels : department ( i.e. , working group members from intervention departments ) and participant ( i.e. , workers from intervention departments ) . Results A total of 19 intervention departments ( n = 10 with mental workloads , n = 1 with a light physical workload , n = 4 departments with physical and mental workloads , and n = 4 with heavy physical workloads ) were recruited for participation , and the reach among working group members who participated was high ( 87 % ) . Fidelity and satisfaction towards the PE programme rated by the working group members was good ( 7.3 or higher ) . The same was found for the Stay@Work ergocoach training ( 7.5 or higher ) . In total , 66 ergonomic measures were prioritised by the working groups . Altogether , 34 % of all prioritised ergonomic measures were perceived as implemented ( dose delivered ) , while the workers at the intervention departments perceived 26 % as implemented ( dose received ) . Conclusions PE can be a successful method to develop and to prioritise ergonomic measures to prevent LBP and NP . Despite the positive rating of the PE programme the implementation of the prioritised ergonomic measures was lower than expected . Trial registration Current Controlled Trials IS RCT AIMS quantitative description of adherence to motivational interviewing ( MI ) in smoking cessation sessions ; and examination of the relationships between client characteristics and adherence to MI , and between adherence to MI and future smoking status . METHODS 84 sessions were conducted during a r and omised controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a  population -based smoking intervention in women during the postpartum period . Demographic and behaviour-related variables were included in a logistic regression to predict adherence to MI . MEASUREMENTS adherence was measured using the MI Treatment Integrity Scale . FINDINGS 38.1 % of sessions showed good adherence to MI . Receiving a good MI session was not related to any demographic or behavioural variables . The relationship between adherence and intervention outcome after six months was not statistically significant ( chi(2)=0.355 , p=0.551 ) . CONCLUSIONS the smoking cessation sessions examined in this study failed to adhere to MI . There was no relationship between adherence to MI and behavioural outcome six months after the intervention , indicating that women who smoke post partum may be a high-risk group for whom specific smoking cessation interventions need to be developed Background Dementia affects 35 million people worldwide and is currently incurable . Many cases may be preventable because regular participation in physical , mental and social leisure activities during middle age is associated with up to 47 % dementia risk reduction . However , the majority of middle-aged adults are not active enough . MCI is therefore a clear target for activity interventions aim ed at reducing dementia risk . An active lifestyle during middle age reduces dementia risk but it remains to be determined if increased activity reduces dementia risk when MCI is already evident . Before this can be investigated conclusively , complex multimodal activity programmes are required that ( 1 ) combine multiple health promoting activities , ( 2 ) engage people with MCI , and ( 3 ) result in sufficient adherence rates . Methods We design ed the ThinkingFit programme to engage  people with MCI  in a complex intervention comprised of three activity components : physical activity , group-based cognitive stimulation ( GCST ) and individual cognitive stimulation ( ICST ) . Engagement and adherence was promoted by applying specific psychological techniques to enhance behavioural flexibility in an early pre-phase and during the course of the intervention . To pilot the intervention , participants served as their own controls during a 6- to 12-week run-in period , which was followed by 12 weeks of activity intervention . Results Out of 212 MCI patients screened , 163 were eligible , 70 consented and 67 completed the intervention ( mean age 74 years ) .  Activity adherence rates were high : physical activity = 71 % ; GCST = 83 % ; ICST = 67 % . Significant treatment effects ( p < .05 ) were evident on physical health outcomes ( decreased BMI and systolic blood pressure , [ pre/post values of 26.3/25.9 kg/m2 and 145/136 mmHg respectively ] ) , fitness ( decreased resting and recovery heart rate [ 68/65 bpm and 75/69 bpm ] ) , and cognition ( improved working memory [ 5.3/6.3 items ] ) . Conclusions We found satisfactory recruitment , retention and engagement rates , coupled with significant treatment effects in elderly MCI patients . It appears feasible to conduct r and omized controlled trials of the dementia prevention potential of complex multimodal activity programmes like ThinkingFit . Trial registration Clinical Trials.gov registration nr : NCT01603862 ; date : 17/5/2012 A recent special issue of the Journal of Pediatric Psychology included papers focused on evidence -based assessment across several broad domains of assessment in pediatric psychology ( e.g. , adherence , pediatric pain , and quality of life ) . In one of these papers , Holmbeck et al. ( 2008 ) review ed strengths and limitations of existing measures of psychosocial adjustment and psychopathology , concluding that many measures lacked supporting psychometric data ( e.g. , basic indices of reliability and validity ) that would permit a complete evaluation of these measures . Given that measure development and validation papers are frequently published in JPP ( Brown , 2007 ) , it is important that we attend to guiding psychometric principles when developing and disseminating data on new measures to be employed with pediatric population s ( Nunnally & Bernstein , 1994 ) . Thus , the purpose of this paper is to present and describe a checklist for authors to use when su bmi tting measure development papers to JPP . This checklist is included in the Appendix and is also included at the following link on the JPP website : http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/jpepsy/for _ authors /measure%20development%20checklist.pdf Findings presented by Holmbeck et al. ( 2008 ) indicated that 34 of the 37 measures review ed met pre-established “ evidence -based assessment ” ( EBA ) criteria for “ well-established ” measures ( Cohen et al. , 2008 ) . To be considered “ well-established , ” a measure had to have been presented in at least two peer- review ed journal articles by different investigatory teams , have demonstrated adequate levels of reliability and validity , and be accompanied by supporting information ( e.g. , a measure manual ) . Although most measures that we review ed met these criteria , we also found that most of the 34 “ well-established ” measures were hampered by at least one major psychometric flaw and /or lacked important psychometric data . We concluded that a more fine-grained EBA classification system is needed . One important distinction in this literature relates to differences between empirically supported assessment and evidence -based assessment . This type of distinction was first discussed in the literature on clinical interventions ( e.g. , Spring , 2007 ) . An empirically supported intervention is one that has demonstrated efficacy in r and omized clinical trials or clinic-based effectiveness trials . An evidence -based intervention has empirical support in the manner just described , but also “ integrates research evidence , clinical expertise , and patient preferences and characteristics … empirically-supported treatments  ( ESTs )  are an important component of evidence -based practice ( EBP ) , but EBP can not be reduced to ESTs ” ( Spring , 2007 , p.611 ) . Applying these terms to the field of assessment and measure development efforts , an empirically supported assessment measure would be one that demonstrates satisfactory psychometric characteristics , broadly defined . To be evidence based , the measure should also demonstrate utility in clinical setting s , be useful in making diagnoses , be sensitive to treatment effects , and /or provide incremental validity above and beyond other similar measures . Although papers in the special issue of JPP frequently referred to “ evidence -based assessment ” ( Cohen et al. , 2009 ) , the articles included in the issue tended to evaluate the degree to which the measures were empirically-supported rather than evidence based . To be “ evidence -based , ” our review s would have needed to integrate an evaluation of clinical utility , diagnostic utility , and treatment sensitivity with the empirical psychometric data presented in each review . As noted , the published review s were more likely to focus on the latter rather than on the former . As suggested by Mash and Hunsley ( 2005 ) , detailed EBA profiles would provide a complete evaluation of evidence across each of several psychometric and clinical ly relevant dimensions , including : ( a ) internal consistency , ( b ) test – retest reliability , ( c ) the availability of normative data , ( d ) content validity , ( e ) construct validity , ( f ) convergent and discriminant validity , ( g ) criterion-related validity , ( h ) incremental validity , ( i ) clinical utility , ( j ) diagnostic utility , and ( k ) treatment sensitivity . The focus on incremental validity and clinical and diagnostic utility raises the bar from a focus on “ empirical support ” ( i.e. , where the focus would tend to be primarily on psychometric data ) to a broad focus on the “ evidence base ” for a measure . In developing the checklist that is the focus of this article , we attempted to provide a list of criteria relevant to establishing the evidence base ( and not just empirical support ) for a measure . In addition to shifting the focus from providing “ empirical support ” for a measure to providing an “ evidence base ” for our instruments , a checklist for measure development papers would permit JPP review ers to evaluate such papers in the same way that review ers of r and omized clinical trials make use of the Consoli date d St and ards of Reporting Trials ( CONSORT ) checklist and flowchart ( Altman et al. , 2001 ) . The CONSORT checklist contains reporting st and ards with respect to method ological features of and the manner in which results are reported in clinical trials . Moreover , authors are required to provide a flowchart that describes details of sample recruitment and attrition during the course of the study . Thus , a checklist for measure development papers would serve two interrelated purpose s : ( a ) it would provide guidance to authors as they embark on the measure development process and would provide a list of criteria authors can use as they develop an evidence base for their measures , and ( b ) it would begin to st and ardize the manner in which psychometric and other assessment -related data are presented in measure development papers for this journal . Before providing a more detailed overview of the checklist , it is important to note that this checklist is rather exhaustive ( see Appendix ) . As such , it represents what would “ ideally ” be expected for a measure development or validation manuscript rather than minimal criteria for such papers . No one paper can provide a complete evaluation of all important psychometric and clinical ly relevant dimensions that will establish once- and -for-all the evidence base for a measure . Instrument refinement is part of a measure development process that gradually builds an evidence base for a scale ( see Smith & McCarthy , 1995 , for suggestions on measure refinement ) . Indeed , the validation of any measure is a cumulative process that occurs across many different types of research studies and across research programs BACKGROUND There is still only limited underst and ing of whether and why interventions to facilitate the implementation of guidelines for improving primary care are successful . It is therefore important to look inside the ' black box ' of the intervention , to ascertain which elements work well or less well . AIM To assess the associations of key elements of a nationwide multifaceted prevention programme with the successful implementation of cervical screening guidelines in general practice . DESIGN OF STUDY A nationwide prospect i ve cohort study . SETTING A r and om sample of one-third of all 4,758 general practice s in The Netherl and s ( n = 1,586 ) . METHOD General practitioners ( GPs ) in The Netherl and s were exposed to a two- and -a-half-year nationwide multifaceted prevention programme to improve the adherence to national guidelines for cervical cancer screening . Adherence to guidelines at baseline and after the intervention and actual exposure to programme elements were assessed in the sample using self-administered question naires . RESULTS Both baseline and post-measurement question naires were returned by 988 practice s ( response rate = 62 % ) . No major differences in baseline practice characteristics between study population , non-responders , and all Netherl and s practice s were observed . After the intervention all practice s improved markedly ( P<0.001 ) in their incorporation of nine out of 10 guideline indicators for effective cervical screening into practice . The most important elements for successful implementation were : specific software modules ( odds ratios and 95 % confidence intervalsfor all nine indicators ranged from OR = 1.85 [ 95 % CI = 1.24 - 2.77 ] to OR = 10.2 [ 95 % CI =  
    Output:
    