Table A1. Exceptional changes to Table A (to be approved by e-mail or signature by the student, the responsible person in the Sending Institution and the responsible person in the Receiving Institution) Table B1: Exceptional changes to Table B (if applicable) (to be approved by e-mail or signature by the student and the responsible person in the Sending Institution) Component code (if any) Component title at the Receiving Institution (as indicated in the course catalogue) Component without changes [tick if applicable] Deleted component [tick if applicable] Added component [tick if applicable] Reason for changexiii Semester Number of ECTS credits (or equivalent) Component code (if any) Component title at the Sending Institution (as indicated in the course catalogue) Component without changes [tick if applicable] Deleted component [tick if applicable] Added component [tick if applicable] Semester Number of ECTS credits (or equivalent) Others: Total – in original LA (Table A): Total – in original LA (Table B): Total – deleted components: Total – deleted components: Total – added components: Total – added components: Total after changes: Total after changes: Commitment Name Email Position Date Signature Student Student Responsible person at the Sending Institution Responsible person at the Receiving Institution Commitment By signing this document, the student, the Sending Institution and the Receiving Institution confirm that they approve the Learning Agreement and that they will comply with all the arrangements agreed by all parties. Sending and Receiving Institutions undertake to apply all the principles of the Erasmus Charter for Higher Education relating to mobility for studies (or the principles agreed in the Inter-Institutional Agreement for institutions located in Partner Countries). The Beneficiary Institution and the student should also commit to what is set out in the Erasmus+ grant agreement. The Receiving Institution confirms that the educational components listed in Table A are in line with its course catalogue and should be available to the student. The Sending Institution commits to recognise all the credits or equivalent units gained at the Receiving Institution for the successfully completed educational components and to count them towards the student's degree as described in Table B. Any exceptions to this rule are documented in an annex of this Learning Agreement and agreed by all parties. The student and the Receiving Institution will communicate to ...
Table A1. 1 “Subset A of Licensed Patents”, Table A1.2 “Subset B of Licensed Patents”, and Table 1.3 “Background Patents” are hereby deleted in their entirety and replaced as follows: Xxxxxx ID New UW ID Previous UW ID Appl Number Patent No. Filing [* * *] [* * *] [* * *] [* * *] [* * *] [* * *] [* * *] [* * *] [* * *] [* * *] [* * *] [* * *]
Table A1. Results of a random-effects probit regression of the probability of success, round number (Round), treatments (FULL_ALL, STF, ST, FULL_SCRAMBLE, VEC_SCRABMLE), and interactions between round number and treatment (FULL_Round, STF_Round, ST_Round). Standard errors in brackets; * indicates significant at the 10% level, ** at the 5% level, and *** at the 1% level. Covariate Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Round -0.159*** -0.0202 -0.0113 (0.0476) (0.0452) (0.0495) FULL_ALL -3.585*** -2.710*** -0.931 (0.586) (0.678) (0.642) STF 0.0949 0.474 0.768 (0.726) (0.784) (0.818) ST -1.189* -1.199 -0.241 (0.658) (0.808) (0.879) FULL_SCRAMBLE 0.870 0.312 1.328* (0.689) (0.852) (0.784) VEC_SCRAMBLE -1.406** -0.275 1.292* (0.619) (0.711) (0.779) FULL_ALL_Round 0.461*** 0.421*** 0.341*** (0.0771) (0.0875) (0.0802) STF_Round 0.0411 0.00820 0.0309 (0.0928) (0.0890) (0.0881) ST_Round 0.135 0.249*** 0.101 (0.0844) (0.0962) (0.0995) FULL_SCRAMBLE_Round -0.160* -0.0224 -0.0960 (0.0901) (0.114) (0.102) VEC_SCRAMBLE_Round 0.161** 0.0523 0.0434 (0.0800) (0.0800) (0.0863) Constant 1.320*** 0.178 -0.730 (0.365) (0.396) (0.446) No. Obs. 000 000 000
Table A1. Summary Statistics for Data Used for Econometric Results on Institutional Gaps and Income Gaps (Figures 4 and 7) Samplea Variable No. observations Mean Standard deviation Minimum Maximum Group 1 ICRG variablesb Log (country’s GDP per capita/USA GDP 414 923 –0.4069638 –1.715673 0.558766 0.579324 –1.75361 –3.65967 0.6972296 –0.3095284 per capita) Group 2 ICRG variablesb Log (country’s GDP per capita/USA GDP 162 378 –0.1312372 –1.328616 0.4356544 0.3673385 –1.00386 –2.19757 0.6972296 –0.3095284 per capita, PPP adjusted)
Table A1. Mixed model analyses comparing the differences between the blended acceptance and commitment therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy group over time Outcome b SE t p Blaming yourself T0-T1 -0.93 0.26 -3.54 < 0.001 T1-T2 -0.90 0.29 -3.08 0.002 T1-T3 -0.95 0.30 -3.15 0.002 T0-T1 * condition -0.05 0.53 0.93 T1-T2 * condition -0.22 0.59 -0.09 0.71 T1-T3*condition -0.23 0.60 0.37 0.70 Rumination T0-T1 -1.10 0.27 -4.09 < 0.001 T1-T2 -0.97 0.30 -3.22 0.001 T1-T3 -0.93 0.31 -3.01 0.003 T0-T1 * condition 0.40 0.54 0.74 0.46 T1-T2 * condition -0.64 0.60 -1.07 0.28 T1-T3*condition -1.18 0.62 -1.91 0.06 Reappraisal T0-T1 0.09 0.33 0.27 0.79 T1-T2 -0.93 0.37 -2.50 0.01 8 T1-T3 -1.04 0.38 -2.74 0.001 T0-T1 * condition 0.73 0.67 2,00 0.27 T1-T2 * condition -0.31 0.74 -0.42 0.67 T1-T3*condition -0.24 0.76 -0.31 0.76 Catastrophizing T0-T1 -0.68 0.21 -3.31 <0.001 T1-T2 -0.30 0.23 -1.29 0.20 T1-T3 -0.35 0.24 -1.47 0.14 T0-T1 * condition 0.34 0.42 0.83 0.41 T1-T2 * condition -0.60 0.46 -1.32 0.19 T1-T3*condition -0.52 0.47 -1.10 0.27 Mindfulness T0-T1 3.80 0.93 4.08 < 0.001 T1-T2 0.90 1.04 0.86 0.39 T1-T3 1.86 1.07 1.75 0.08 T0-T1 * condition 1.41 1.86 0.76 0.45 T1-T2 * condition 0.27 2.08 0.13 0.90 T1-T3*condition 2.00 2.13 0.94 0.35 Experiential avoidance T0-T1 -2.79 0.67 -4.13 < 0.001 T1-T2 -2.68 0.75 3.57 < 0.001 T1-T3 -3.02 0.77 -3.93 < 0.001 T0-T1 * condition 2.77 1.35 2.06 0.06 T1-T2 * condition -2.10 1.50 -1.40 0.16 T1-T3*condition -2.48 1.54 -1.61 0.11 Appendix 2 Supplementary material 1. Links to videos created for older adults Dutch xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxx.xxx/watch?v=QCcDCvt9N5E English xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxx.xxx/watch?v=HlBp_5oUeMw Supplementary material 2. Links to videos created for clinicians Dutch xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxx.xxx/watch?v=4zUTpkXTR1c English xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxx.xxx/watch?v=d4BMGtrHTi0 References
Table A1. Evaporation methods further explained
Table A1. Context analysis – Study-related stakeholders and their expectations. Stakeholder Role Expectations Impact Sponsor Contracting owner Legal responsibility Answer to the research question Respect of quality, cost, delay Reputation Funding Principal Investigator Study launching Legal and scientifical responsibility Answer to the research question Respect of quality, delay Reputation Career Subjects Participant undergoing study procedures Strengthened follow-up Chance of a better treatment Improve scientific knowledge Oblige the investigator Modification of health condition (positive or negative) Investigators Prescription Data collection Answer to the research question Respect of quality, delay Chance of a better treatment for their patients Publication Continuing good peer-to-peer relations Financial compensation Wish for simplification or lightening of workload Continuing contact with CTU/CRC/CRO Increased workload Author in publications Career CTU/CRC/ CRO Project management Collaboration with motivated and efficient partners Satisfaction of partners Reputation Career Funding Durability Steering Committee Validation of inputs, outputs and major decisions Availability of relevant and reliable data for decision making Reputation Competent authority Ethics Committee Authority in charge of data protection Health Ministry … Study authorisation on ethical, scientific and legal aspects Definition of Health politics based on study results Availability of relevant and reliable data for decision making on scientific relevance, benefice/risk ratio, rights, target population, safety of participants Reputation Target population Final beneficiaries Improved care Modification of health condition (positive or negative) Medical journals Publication of study results Availability of relevant, reliable and original results Respect of Consort Statement Reputation Public media Vulgarisation of study results Controversy Inform and alert Create emotion Reputation Increased income Table A2. Three examples of risk formulation. Risk area Risk formulation Validity of Study results The proportion of missing data on the main outcome is higher than the one used for sample size calculation. Study Participants The investigator does not notify all SAEs. Study Organisation While configuring the randomisation result page (the randomisation list is stratified by sex), the IT specialist uses the variable Sex instead of the variable Intervention and decodes it with the labels of the variable In...
Table A1. 1 This table reflects the proposals and reasoning for how the comments and open issues from HOD 57-2019 and the intersessional commenting by XXX was dealt with by the Group of WG Chairs. Consideration by HOD Proposals and reflections by the online meeting of WG Chairs para 3.21: Management objectives on underwater noise: to keep the objective ‘Ensure noise levels do not adversely affect [noise sensitive species and do not injure] sea life’, noting the general support for deleting the words in brackets and the proposals to consider replacing the word ‘ensure’. Revise to: ‘Minimize noise to levels that do not adversely affect marine life’ - The objectives should adhere to the guidance to be formulated in an aspirational way (HOD 57-2019, document 3.3 Add.1). - However, in order to harmonize with other management objectives the revised objective is proposed to use the initial word ‘Minimize’ instead of ‘Ensure’.
Table A1. Test for Parallel Pre-Policy Trends (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) VARIABLES Minutes Any New Any Lab Any Image # Visits in Specialty Any Health with PCP Medication Test Past 12mo Referral Education Comparison a. Owner vs. Non-Owner PCPs for Medicaid visits -0.227 -0.0138 -0.0217* 0.00653 -0.372** 0.000722 -0.0152 (0.638) (0.0423) (0.0154) (0.0328) (0.195) (0.0167) (0.0184) Interaction of linear semiannual time trend and dummy for owner PCPs Comparison b. Medicaid vs. Privately Insured Visits -0.162 0.0093 -0.0167 0.00258 -0.144 0.00325 0.0162 (1.033) (0.0218) (0.0844) (0.00952) (0.293) (0.0262) (0.0847) Interaction of linear semiannual time trend and dummy for owner PCPs Notes. The sample for comparison a) consists of 12,899 primary care visits made by Medicaid patients; the sample for comparison b) consists of 46,727 primary care visits made by Medicaid or privately insured patients. Interaction terms are between linear semiannual time trend and a dummy for treatment group. Linear semiannual time trend begins with the first half of 2010 being 0, the second half of 2010 being 1, the first half of 2012 being 2, and so on so forth. Estimates for control variables are omitted. Standard errors (in parentheses) are clustered at the physician level. Standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Appendix A2. Number of Primary Care Office Visits I examined some national and per-PCP indictors related to office visits. The purpose was to identify any change on the extensive margin of primary care supply. I calculated the indicators for owner and non-owner PCPs separately (Tables A2 and A3, respectively). First, I relied on NAMCS patient visit weights to estimate national aggregate numbers of office visits (item A). Secondly, I relied on physician weights to estimate number of owner/non-owner PCPs that saw the privately insured and Medicaid patients (item B). Note that number of PCPs seeing the privately insured was always higher than the number of PCPs seeing Medicaid patients. Thirdly, I estimated on average how many office visits a PCP offered to each type of patients, by dividing item A by item B (item C). Then, I cited the average number of office visits to a patient’s PCP in the past 12 months from Figure 2 (item D). Lastly, I divided item A by item D, to get an estimate of total number of patients who ever had an office visit (item E). I found that, overall, owner and non-owner PCPs offered less office visits to non-elderly adult Medicaid benefic...
Table A1. Summary of the results from the FISICA sensitivity model per detector. The table also includes estimates of the point-source detection limit, detection limit for spectrophotometry at R=5 and a limiting line strength. Table notes: 1 The detector NEP is set to be half that of the background photon noise NEP (see R4.6.7-10) 2 The overall NEP is the quadrature sum of the background NEP and detector NEP (allowing for an extra 20% to the detector NEP for non-detector noise contributions (e.g. from the readout – see R4.7.3). 3 Includes the contribution from both telescopes, taking into account interferometric efficiency. To put these results into perspective Figure A1.1 shows how the performance of FIRI, based on the current FISICA study design and sensitivity model, compares with other recent and future missions in terms of sensitivity.
