Search

Sustainable development goals are used as a guidance for strategies development on local, regional and national levels. The importance of including young people in this complex process is recognized in all relevant documents (i.e. Agenda 21), however it is not an easy task to elicit opinions and preferences from the youth. Furthermore, the assessment of the sustainable development goals itself presents a challenge for the noisy data and nonlinear relationships in data. Popular approach is fuzzy set models where expert knowledge is presented with comprehensible rules; however expert knowledge elicitation takes a long time too. Several studies proposed an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system approach that combines the fuzzy set theory to model expert knowledge with neural networks for inferring rules and membership functions from data to assess the sustainable development performance. We base our assumptions that ANFIS can be used to predict the importance of sustainable development pillars from the demographic data of young people. For this purpose, we have conducted an online survey on sustainable development goals opinions and importance of young people in Serbia. The sample of 386 respondents has been split into a training sample of 300 instances (to generate membership functions and fuzzy rules) and a testing sample of 86 instances to predict the importance of the three pillars. We have conducted a trace-driven simulation test to validate the results of the proposed ANFIS model. Results of the study provided insights into how the young people in Serbia assess the importance of sustainable development goals. Secondly, the results suggest that ANFIS can be applied to predict values of importance of the three sustainable development pillars with the relative error of Rel Err < 5%. It must be noted that the considered model could be further improved by using training samples with more data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

England’s national Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme advocates stepped care as its organizational delivery of psychological therapies to common mental health problems. There is limited evidence regarding the efficacy of stepped care as a service delivery model, heterogeneity of definition and differences in model implementation in both research and routine practice, hence outcome comparison in terms of effectiveness of model is difficult. Despite sound evidence of the efficacy of low intensity interventions there appears to be a perpetuation of the notion that severity and complexity should only be treated by a high intensity intervention through the continuation of a stratified care model. Yet no psychotherapy treatment is found to be more superior to another, and not enough is known about what works for whom to aid the matching of treatment decision. In the absence of understanding precise treatment factors optimal for recovery, it may be useful to better understand the impact of a service delivery model, and whether different models achieve different outcomes. This study aims to contribute to the discussion regarding the stepped care definition and delivery, and explores the impact on clinical outcomes where different types of stepped care have been implemented within the same service. An observational cohort study analysed retrospective data (n = 16,723) over a 4 year period, in a single IAPT service, where delivery changed from one type of stepped care model to another. We compared the outcomes of treatment completers with a stratified care model and a progression care model. We also explored the assumption that patients who score severe on psychological measures, and therefore are potentially complex, would achieve better outcomes in a stratified model. Outcomes in each model type were compared, alongside baseline factor variables. A significant association was observed between a recovery outcome and model type, with patients 1.5 times more likely to recover in the progression delivery model. The potential implications are that with a progression stepped care model of service delivery, more patients can be treated with a lower intensity intervention, even with initial severe presentations, ensuring that only those that need high intensity CBT or equivalent are stepped up. This could provide services with an effective clinical model that is efficient and potentially more cost effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]