隨著博班生的放榜，我們的研究團隊更加茁壯。
團隊的規模有點樣子，似乎該是設計團隊網頁的時候了！！
內容包含：
研究人員：主要研究人員，博班生，研究助理簡介
各研究人員之研究主題與成果
近照
.....
Your inputs are appreciated.
2011年6月21日 星期二
critical comments
我請 co-authors 給 response letter （論文審查意見回覆） 意見。
一位 co-author 主要的意見是 "poor writing (very bad English)" 建議找 professional editor 改英文。
共勉！
期待各位不要到快50歲了，還收到這樣的評論。
一位 co-author 主要的意見是 "poor writing (very bad English)" 建議找 professional editor 改英文。
共勉！
期待各位不要到快50歲了，還收到這樣的評論。
a meeting with Tammy & Louise
Main findings so far:
1. 99 studies met the criteria.
2. Every study used basic ADL measure as the primary or secondary outcome measure. The BI and FIM were most commonly used. 50% of the studies used the BI and 40% of the studies used the FIM. IADL (EADL) measures were employed in 21% of the studies. The NEADL and FAI were the top 2 mostly used IADL measures. 8% of the studies used the NEADL and 7% of the studies used the FAI.
3. Almost all studies rarely specified the perceptive of ADL function of each ADL measure used. About half of the studies described their ADL measures as assessing level of independence/dependence of performing ADL tasks. [However, the meaning of “independence/dependence of performing ADL tasks” is vague, because it might be “ability” or “actual performance.” ]
4. Up to 80% of the studies did not specify the mode of administration of their ADL measures. 8% of the studies used face-to-face interview; whereas 6% of the studies used performance observation. [The mode of administration is highly correlated with the perspective of ADL function assessed. For example, the “ability” of ADL is best assessed via observation on the patient’s performance on standardized contexts. The actual performance of ADL in daily life could be hardly assessed via observation because of time-consuming and patients’ bias.]
[Many thanks for Jenny's hard work on the above data preparation.]
Further tasks:
1. Developing a questionnaire for asking the authours about the perspective and mode of administration of the ADL measures used. The file has been sent to them. Their comments might be expected by the end of this year.
2. The questionnaire would be sent to the authours in the early January 2010.
3. We will search the databases again in the early January 2010. Some more studies would meet our criteria.
4. We will summarize the measures of QOL for the ADL-related domain simutaneously.
5. We will revise search strategies for searching QOL questionnaire used for RCT later in next year.
1. 99 studies met the criteria.
2. Every study used basic ADL measure as the primary or secondary outcome measure. The BI and FIM were most commonly used. 50% of the studies used the BI and 40% of the studies used the FIM. IADL (EADL) measures were employed in 21% of the studies. The NEADL and FAI were the top 2 mostly used IADL measures. 8% of the studies used the NEADL and 7% of the studies used the FAI.
3. Almost all studies rarely specified the perceptive of ADL function of each ADL measure used. About half of the studies described their ADL measures as assessing level of independence/dependence of performing ADL tasks. [However, the meaning of “independence/dependence of performing ADL tasks” is vague, because it might be “ability” or “actual performance.” ]
4. Up to 80% of the studies did not specify the mode of administration of their ADL measures. 8% of the studies used face-to-face interview; whereas 6% of the studies used performance observation. [The mode of administration is highly correlated with the perspective of ADL function assessed. For example, the “ability” of ADL is best assessed via observation on the patient’s performance on standardized contexts. The actual performance of ADL in daily life could be hardly assessed via observation because of time-consuming and patients’ bias.]
[Many thanks for Jenny's hard work on the above data preparation.]
Further tasks:
1. Developing a questionnaire for asking the authours about the perspective and mode of administration of the ADL measures used. The file has been sent to them. Their comments might be expected by the end of this year.
2. The questionnaire would be sent to the authours in the early January 2010.
3. We will search the databases again in the early January 2010. Some more studies would meet our criteria.
4. We will summarize the measures of QOL for the ADL-related domain simutaneously.
5. We will revise search strategies for searching QOL questionnaire used for RCT later in next year.
文章分類介紹
• Life：生活記錄，含運動、出遊、休閒等
• Others：瑣事，包含心情及隨筆
Others 其他
• Research：研究及學術相關文章
• Schedule：每月計畫與任務
2011
• Sharing：資訊及想法
• Tutoring：教學，包含態度及能力的養成
- Feelings 生活雜想
- Learning English 英文學習
- Sports 運動
- Trips 旅遊
• Others：瑣事，包含心情及隨筆
Others 其他
• Research：研究及學術相關文章
- Academic Exchanges 學術交流
- ADL
- Other protacals 其他合作計畫
- Pediatrics 小兒領域之研究
- PRO-CAT
- PRO-CAT cancer
• Schedule：每月計畫與任務
2011
• Sharing：資訊及想法
- Congratulations 喜訊
- News 新聞資訊
- Thoughts 想法
• Tutoring：教學，包含態度及能力的養成
- Attitude 研究態度
- Enhancing Capacities 能力養成
台中中山醫學大學之合作案
今天跟陳老師討論，結論如下：
1. 協助指導學生，進行合作計畫。
2. 在台中收案，陳老師可協助蒐集資料 並 協助掌握臨床資源，如個案數等。
3. 相關計畫案如：a. 短期記憶力、注意力測驗可用於中風病人、一般成人、精神病人等。以及如何克服學習效應等。
b. OT knowledge & OT 治療經驗可用於中風病人、家屬、一般成人（大學生？）
c. 3-aspect BI 之應用？
d. video rating?
1. 協助指導學生，進行合作計畫。
2. 在台中收案，陳老師可協助蒐集資料 並 協助掌握臨床資源，如個案數等。
3. 相關計畫案如：a. 短期記憶力、注意力測驗可用於中風病人、一般成人、精神病人等。以及如何克服學習效應等。
b. OT knowledge & OT 治療經驗可用於中風病人、家屬、一般成人（大學生？）
c. 3-aspect BI 之應用？
d. video rating?
訂閱：
意見 (Atom)