BACKGROUND: Non-inferiority and equivalence trials aim to determine whether a new treatment is good enough (non-inferior) or as good as (equivalent to) another treatment. To inform the decision about non-inferiority or equivalence, a margin is used. We aimed to identify the current methods used to determine non-inferiority or equivalence margins, as well as the main challenges and suggestions from trialists.
METHODS: We developed an online questionnaire that included both closed and open-ended questions about methods to elicit non-inferiority or equivalence margins, underlying principles, and challenges and suggestions for improvement. We recruited trialists with experience of determining a margin by contacting corresponding authors for non-inferiority or equivalence trials. We used descriptive statistics and content analysis to identify categories in qualitative data.
RESULTS: We had forty-one responses, all from non-inferiority trials. More than half of the trials were non-pharmacological (n = 21, 51%), and the most common primary outcome was clinical (n = 29, 71%). The two most used methods to determine the margin were as follows: a review of the evidence base (n = 27, 66%) and opinion seeking methods (n = 24, 59%). From those using reviews, the majority used systematic reviews or reviews of multiple RCTs to determine the margin (n = 17, 63%). From those using opinion seeking methods, the majority involved clinicians with or without other professionals (n = 19, 79%). Respondents reported that patients\' opinions on the margin were sought in four trials (16%). Median confidence in overall quality of the margin was 5 out of 7 (maximum confidence); however, around a quarter of the respondents were \"completely unconfident\" that the margin reflected patient\'s views. We identified \"stakeholder involvement\" as the most common category to determine respondent\'s confidence in the quality of the margins and whether it reflected stakeholder\'s views. The most common suggestion to improve the definition of margins was \"development of methods to involve stakeholders,\" and the most common challenge identified was \"communication of margins.\"
CONCLUSIONS: Responders highlighted the need for clearer guidelines on defining a margin, more and better stakeholder involvement in its selection, and better communication tools that enable discussions about non-inferiority trials with stakeholders. Future research should focus on developing best practice recommendations.

UNASSIGNED: Information and communication technology solutions have the potential to support active and healthy aging and improve monitoring and treatment outcomes. To make such solutions acceptable, all stakeholders must be involved in the requirements elicitation process. Due to the COVID-19 situation, alternative approaches to commonly used face-to-face methods must often be used. One aim of the current article is to share a unique experience from the Pharaon project where due to the COVID-19 outbreak alternative elicitation methods were used. In addition, an overview of common functional, quality, and emotional goals identified by six pilot sites is presented to complement the knowledge about the needs of older adults.
UNASSIGNED: Originally planned face-to-face co-creation seminars were impossible to carry out, and all pilot sites chose alternative requirements elicitation methods that were most suitable in their situation. The elicited requirements were presented in the form of goal models. In one summary goal model, we provide an overview of common functional, quality, and emotional goals.
UNASSIGNED: Different elicitation methods were combined based on the digital literacy of the target group and their access to digital tools. Methods applied without digital technologies were phone interviews, reviews of literature and previous projects, while by means of digital technologies online interviews, online questionnaires, and (semi-)virtual co-creation seminars were conducted. The combination of the methods allowed to involve all planned stakeholders. Virtual and semi-virtual co-creation seminars created collaborative environment comparable to face-to-face situations, while online participation helped to save the time of the participants. The most prevalent functional goals elicited were \"Monitor health,\" \"Receive advice,\" \"Receive information.\" \"Easy to use/comfortable,\" \"personalized/tailored,\" \"automatic/smart\" were identified as most prevalent quality goals. Most frequently occurring emotional goals were \"involved,\" \"empowered,\" and \"informed.\"
UNASSIGNED: There are alternative methods to face-to-face co-creation seminars, which effectively involve older adults and other stakeholders in the requirements elicitation process. Despite the used elicitation method, the requirements can be easily transformed into goal models to present the results in a uniform way. The common requirements across different pilots provided a strong foundation for representing detailed requirements and input for further software development processes.

In the context of comparing linguistic profiles across neurodevelopmental disorders, Down syndrome (DS) has captured growing attention for its uneven profile. Although specific weaknesses in grammatical and phonological processing have been reported, research evidence on phonological development remains scarce, particularly beyond early childhood. The purpose of this study was to explore the phonological profiles of children and adolescents with Down syndrome. The profiles were based on the frequency and relative proportion of the processes observed by classes, and they were compared to those of typically developing preschool children of similar verbal age. A complementary goal was to assess the effect of two different methods of elicitation: a test of articulation and spontaneous speech sampling. Finally, intergroup and intragroup differences in full match percentages between three positions at syllable-level (complex onset, medial coda, and final coda) were assessed. The results of the present study confirmed that the frequency of phonological processes in children and adolescents with DS is atypically high and is above what is expected for lexical age and at the same level as grammatical age. Highly increased frequency of processes, consistent in all kinds of processes and positions at the syllable-level, and asynchronous with verbal age and mental age suggest atypical developmental trajectories of phonological development in the Down syndrome population.

The use of experimental methods to determine consumers\' willingness to pay for \"quality\" food has been gaining importance in scientific research. In most of the empirical literature on this issue the experimental design starts with blind tasting, after which information is introduced. It is assumed that this approach allows consumers to elicit the real value that they attach to each of the features added through specific information. In this paper, the starting hypothesis is that this technique overestimates the weight of the features introduced by information in consumers\' willingness to pay when compared to a real market situation, in which consumers are confronted with all the information at once. The data obtained through contingent valuation in an in-store setting was used to estimate a hedonic model aiming at assessing consumers\' willingness to pay (WTP) for the feature \"geographical origin of the variety\" of pears and apples in different information scenarios: i) blind tasting followed by extrinsic information and ii) full information provided at once. The results show that, in fact, features are more valued when gradually added to background information than when consumers receive all the information from the beginning.

Eliciting adverse event (AE) and non-study medication data reports from clinical research participants is integral to evaluating drug safety. However, using different methods to question participants yields inconsistent results, compromising the interpretation, comparison and pooling of data across studies. This is particularly important given the widespread use of anti-malarials in vulnerable populations, and their increasing use in healthy, but at-risk individuals, as preventive treatment or to reduce malaria transmission.
Experienced and knowledgeable anti-malarial drug clinical researchers were invited to participate in a Delphi technique study, to facilitate consensus on what are considered optimal (relevant, important and feasible) methods, tools, and approaches for detecting participant-reported AE and non-study medication data in uncomplicated malaria treatment studies.
Of 72 invited, 25, 16 and 10 panellists responded to the first, second and third rounds of the Delphi, respectively. Overall, 68% (68/100) of all questioning items presented for rating achieved consensus. When asking general questions about health, panellists agreed on the utility of a question/concept about any change in health, taking care to ensure that such questions/concepts do not imply causality. Eighty-nine percent (39/44) of specific signs and symptoms questions were rated as optimal. For non-study medications, a general question and most structured questioning items were considered an optimal approach. The use of mobile phones, patient diaries, rating scales as well as openly engaging with participants to discuss concerns were also considered optimal complementary data-elicitation tools.
This study succeeded in reaching consensus within a section of the anti-malarial drug clinical research community about using a general question concept, and structured questions for eliciting data about AEs and non-study medication reports. The concepts and items considered in this Delphi to be relevant, important and feasible should be further investigated for potential inclusion in a harmonized approach to collect participant-elicited anti-malarial drug safety data. This, in turn, should improve understanding of anti-malarial drug safety.

To reduce the probability of failures and to improve outcomes of safety-critical human-intensive processes, such as health care processes, it is important to be able to rigorously analyze such processes. The quality of that analysis often depends on having an accurate, detailed, and sufficiently complete understanding of the process being analyzed, where this understanding is typically represented as a formal process model that could then drive various rigorous analysis approaches. Developing this understanding and the corresponding formal process model may be difficult and, thus, a variety of process elicitation methods are often used. The work presented in this paper evaluates the effectiveness of five common elicitation methods in terms of their ability to elicit detailed process information necessary to support rigorous process analysis. These methods are employed to elicit typical steps and steps for responding to exceptional situations in a safety-critical health care process, the chemotherapy treatment plan review process. The results indicate strengths and weaknesses of each of the elicitation methods and suggest that it is preferable to apply multiple elicitation methods.

Different methods to elicit risk attitudes of individuals often provide differing results despite a common theory. Reasons for such inconsistencies may be the different influence of underlying factors in risk-taking decisions. In order to evaluate this conjecture, a better understanding of underlying factors across methods and decision contexts is desirable. In this paper we study the difference in result of two different risk elicitation methods by linking estimates of risk attitudes to gender, age, and personality traits, which have been shown to be related. We also investigate the role of these factors during decision-making in a dilemma situation. For these two decision contexts we also investigate the decision-maker\'s physiological state during the decision, measured by heart rate variability (HRV), which we use as an indicator of emotional involvement. We found that the two elicitation methods provide different individual risk attitude measures which is partly reflected in a different gender effect between the methods. Personality traits explain only relatively little in terms of driving risk attitudes and the difference between methods. We also found that risk taking and the physiological state are related for one of the methods, suggesting that more emotionally involved individuals are more risk averse in the experiment. Finally, we found evidence that personality traits are connected to whether individuals made a decision in the dilemma situation, but risk attitudes and the physiological state were not indicative for the ability to decide in this decision context.