State University of New York System

About: State University of New York System is a education organization based out in Albany, New York, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 54077 authors who have published 78070 publications receiving 2985160 citations.

Seismic resilience of a hospital system

Abstract: This paper presents a comprehensive model to quantify disaster resilience of systems that is defined as the capability to sustain functionality and recover from losses generated by extreme events. The model combines loss estimation and recovery models and can be applied to critical facilities (e.g. hospitals, military buildings, etc.), as well as utility lifelines (e.g. electric power systems, transportation networks, water systems etc.) that are crucial to the response of recovery processes, decisions and policies. Current research trend leads toward the definition of complex recovery models that are able to describe the process over time and the spatial definition of recovery (e.g. meta-models for the case of health care facilities). The model has been applied to a network of hospitals in Memphis, Tennessee. The resilience framework can be used as a decision support tool to increase the resilience index of systems, such as health care facilities, and reduce disaster vulnerability and consequences.

Scripts for group model building

Abstract: Building models directly with client groups has become increasingly common in the field of system dynamics. For the past nine years, the modeling group at the University at Albany has been experimenting with techniques handling the complex modeling and facilitation processes involved in group work. This article extends the previously reported work by discussing specific scripted techniques used to implement the group modeling building approach. The authors’ purpose is to initiate a larger discussion of shared scripts and techniques for group model building. The discussion is divided into planning for a group model building conference, scheduling the day, particular scripts and techniques for various group model building tasks, and closing a group modeling conference. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 13, 107‐129, 1997 (No. of Figures: 4 No. of Tables: 0 No. of Refs: 40) Model building or model refinement working directly with a small group of clients has become increasingly common in the field of system dynamics. Almost ten years ago Jac Vennix (Vennix et al. 1988) described a procedure for involving health care practitioners in the Netherlands in the construction and refinement of a dynamic model of health care, an approach which he has continued to develop (Vennix 1990; 1996). Barry Richmond (1987; 1997) has described the Strategic Forum as a way to involve clients directly in model building and analysis. Many consultants have refined the practice of developing causal loop sketches with direct involvement of client groups to include preliminary model development, refinement, and presentation. Outside the field of system dynamics, other systems thinkers and group decision support experts have similarly developed advanced approaches to working with small groups to support system conceptualization, model formulation, and decision making. Particularly notable is the work of Colin Eden (Eden et al. 1983; Eden 1989; Eden and Ackermann 1992), John Bryson (Bryson and Finn 1995; Bryson 1995), and John Rohrbaugh (see references below). This article suggests that modelers who engage in modeling with groups rely on fairly sophisticated pieces of small group process, which we will call ‘‘scripts.’’ A full multi-day modeling conference consists of a sequence of such scripts placed

Cognitive Behavioral Group Treatment for Social Phobia: Comparison with a Credible Placebo Control

Abstract: Forty-nine patients participated in a study comparing cognitive-behavioral group treatment (CBGT) for social phobia with a credible placebo control. CBGT consisted of exposure to simulated phobic events, cognitive restructuring of maladaptive thoughts, and homework for self-directed exposure and cognitive restructuring between sessions. Control patients received a treatment package consisting of lecture-discussion and group support that was comparable to CBGT on measures of treatment credibility and outcome expectations. At pretest, posttest, and 3- and 6-month follow-ups, patients completed assessments that included clinician ratings, self-report measures, and behavioral, physiological, and cognitive-subjective measures derived from a behavioral simulation of a personally relevant phobic event. Both groups improved on most measures, but, at both posttest and follow-up, CBGT patients were rated as more improved than controls and reported less anxiety before and during the behavioral test. At follow-up, CBGT patients also reported significantly fewer negative and more positive self-statements than controls on a thought-listing task following the behavioral test. Regardless of treatment condition, follow-up changes in clinician-rated phobic severity were significantly related to changes on the thought-listing measure.