Introduction The need to develop and evaluate interventions, addressing problems performing activities of daily living (ADL) among persons with chronic conditions, is evident. Guided by the British Medical Research Council’s guidance on how to develop and evaluate complex interventions, the occupational therapy programme (A Better everyday LifE (ABLE)) was developed and feasibility tested. The aim of this protocol is to report the planned design and methods for evaluating effectiveness, process and cost-effectiveness of the programme. Methods and analysis The evaluation is designed as a randomised controlled trial with blinded assessors and investigators. Eighty participants with chronic conditions and ADL problems are randomly allocated to ABLE or usual occupational therapy. Data for effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evaluations are collected at baseline (week 0), post intervention (week 10) and follow-up (week 26). Coprimary outcomes are self-reported ADL ability (ADL-Interview (ADL-I) performance) and observed ADL motor ability (Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS)). Secondary outcomes are perceived satisfaction with ADL ability (ADL-I satisfaction); and observed ADL process ability (AMPS). Explorative outcomes are occupational balance (Occupational Balance Questionnaire); perceived change (Client-Weighted Problems Questionnaire) and general health (first question of the MOS 36-item Short Form Survey Instrument). The process evaluation is based on quantitative data from registration forms and qualitative interview data, collected during and after the intervention period. A realist evaluation approach is applied. A programme theory expresses how context (C) and mechanisms (M) in the programme may lead to certain outcomes (O), in so-called CMO configurations. Outcomes in the cost-effectiveness evaluation are quality-adjusted life years (EuroQool 5-dimension) and changes in ADL ability (AMPS, ADL-I). Costs are estimated from microcosting and national registers. Ethics and dissemination Danish Data Protection Service Agency approval: Journal-nr.: P-2020-203. The Ethical Committee confirmed no approval needed: Journal-nr.: 19 045 758. Dissemination for study participants, in peer-reviewed journals and conferences. Trial registration number NCT04295837
There are multiple reasons to motivate the role of capital taxation in the heterogenous-agent incomplete-markets (HAIM) model. One is the production inefficiency caused by precautionary savings. The other is the wealth redistribution role played by capital taxation. To distinguish between these two reasons, this article uses an analytical tractable HAIM model with a degenerated distribution of wealth while preserving the role of precautionary savings. The degenerated wealth distribution shuts down the distributional role played by capital taxation. Our results show that, with no role to play for redistribution, the government bond is more suitable than capital tax for addressing the production inefficiency caused by households' precautionary savings in the HAIM model.
For the second volume of a literary journal, J Journal is off to a good start. Published by John Jay College of Criminal Justice, J calls itself “a journal of new creative writing that poses questions about justice, directly and tangentially.” Receiving it in the mail, I wasn’t sure what to expect – how much mileage could they get out of just one topic? Would it be filled exclusively with essays about the criminal justice system, or would fiction be a part? Could this really be called “literary”?
