Search results

The purpose of this study is to investigate Koreans' preferences for FCDM versus SDM and explored the influence of Asian cultural values on decision-making in the context of managing chronic illnesses, such as type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Shared decision-making (SDM) emphasizes collaboration between providers and service recipients to decide on the best treatment options. However, it may not fully account for the role of families in managing chronic illness, particularly for people from Eastern cultural backgrounds who value active participation from their families in decisions. In response, family-centered decision-making (FCDM) has been proposed as an alternative approach. Using a vignette experiment design, data (n = 316) were collected from Koreans in the US and in Korea who were randomly presented with either SDM or FCDM processes for reaching T2DM treatment decisions. In addition to demographic information, participants reported on three dimensions of their decision-making experience: satisfaction, perceived effectiveness, and perspective-taking. They also rated their Asian cultural values and familiarity with T2DM. Results show better satisfaction, perceived effectiveness, and perspective taking for FCDM compared to SDM when examined in context of treatment types and perceived illness severity. Moderation effects were found for familiarity of illness, with familiarity effects varying by perceived severity. Study findings provided some evidence in favor of FCDM in Asian communities addressing the disabilities and chronic illness of a family member. Although the current study investigated treatment decisions for T2DM during doctor's visits, FCDM has shown potential to be applied in other service settings.

Data fusion and the combination of multiple data sources have been part of travel survey processes for some time. In the current context, where technologies and information systems spread and become more and more diverse, the transportation community is getting more and more interested in the potential of data fusion processes to help gather more complete datasets and help give additional utility to available data sources. Research is looking for ways to enhance the available information by using both various data collection methods and data from various sources, surveys or observation systems. Survey response rates are decreasing over the world, and combining survey modes appears to be an interesting way to address this problem. Letting interviewees choose their survey mode allows increasing response rates, but survey mode could impact the data collected. This paper first discusses issues rising when combining survey modes within the same survey and presents a method to merge the data coming from different survey modes, in order to consolidate the database. Then, it defines and describes the data fusion process and discusses how it can be relevant for transportation analysis and modelling purposes. Benefiting from the availability of various datasets from the Greater Montréal Area and the Greater Lyon Area, some applications of data fusion are constructed and/or reproduced to illustrate and test some of the methods described in the literature.

This double volume presents the state of the art in research on the microfoundations of institutions. In this introductory chapter, we develop an overview of where the emerging microfoundational agenda in institutional theory stands and in which direction it is moving. We discuss the questions of what microfoundations of institutions are, what the “micro” in microfoundations represents, why we use the plural form (microfoundations vs microfoundation), why microfoundations of institutions are needed, and how microfoundations can be studied. Specifically, we highlight that there are several traditions of microfoundational research, and we outline a cognitive, a communicative and a behavioral perspective. In addition, we explain that scholars tend to think of microfoundations in terms of an agency, levels, or mechanisms argument. We delineate key challenges and opportunities for future research and explain why we believe that the debate on microfoundations will become a defining element in the further development of institutional theory.