scholarly journals THE IMPACT OF KEY AUDIT MATTERS DISCLOSURE ON COMMUNICATIVE VALUE OF THE AUDITOR’S REPORT: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-32
Author(s):  
Budhi Yoga ◽  
◽  
Agung Dinarjito ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
International Standard ◽  
Audit Standard ◽  
The Impact

This research aims to discuss whether the disclosure of key audit matters (KAM) increases the communicative value of the auditor’s report. It also examines factors that need to be considered related to KAM disclosure. It is carried out in connection with the issuance of the Exposure Draft of Indonesia Audit Standard (AS) 701 on ”Pengomunikasian Hal Audit Utama dalam Laporan Auditor Independen” which was adopted from the International Standard on Auditing 701. In Indonesia, no research was found yet related to this topic. By conducting a systematic literature review of the latest articles from 2012 to 2021, this study found that KAM disclosure increases the communicative value of the auditor’s report, which is useful for report users in their decision-making. This study also informed specific areas that were often disclosed as KAM and provided information related to the factors that can decrease the communicative value of KAM disclosure. The results support the plan of AS 701 implementation in Indonesia because it will increase the communicative value of the auditor’s report. This study will be of interest to auditors in preparing the implementation of AS 701, report users in understanding KAM disclosure, and regulators as initial infor­mation regarding KAM disclosure to support their duties when AS 701 has been effectively implemented in Indonesia.

Behavioural biases in investment decision making – a systematic literature review

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Satish Kumar ◽  
Nisha Goyal
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Investment Decision ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Behavioural Finance ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Investment Decision Making ◽  
The Impact

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to systematically review the literature published in past 33 years on behavioural biases in investment decision-making. The paper highlights the major gaps in the existing studies on behavioural biases. It also aims to raise specific questions for future research. Design/methodology/approach – We employ systematic literature review (SLR) method in the present study. The prominence of research is assessed by studying the year of publication, journal of publication, country of study, types of statistical method, citation analysis and content analysis on the literature on behavioural biases. The present study is based on 117 selected articles published in peer- review journals between 1980 and 2013. Findings – Much of the existing literature on behavioural biases indicates the limited research in emerging economies in this area, the dominance of secondary data-based empirical research, the lack of empirical research on individuals who exhibit herd behaviour, the focus on equity in home bias, and indecisive empirical findings on herding bias. Research limitations/implications – This study focuses on individuals’ behavioural biases in investment decision-making. Our aim is to analyse the impact of cognitive biases on trading behaviour, volatility, market returns and portfolio selection. Originality/value – The paper covers a considerable period of time (1980-2013). To the best of authors’ knowledge, this study is the first using systematic literature review method in the area of behavioural finance and also the first to examine a combination of four different biases involved in investment decision-making. This paper will be useful to researchers, academicians and those working in the area of behavioural finance in understanding the impact of behavioural biases on investment decision-making.

Cognitive biases and decision-making strategies in times of change: a systematic literature review

2020 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiara Acciarini ◽  
Federica Brunetta ◽  
Paolo Boccardelli
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Strategic Decisions ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Impact

PurposeIn a work environment marked by unprecedented complexity, volatility and ambiguity, managers must accomplish their objectives while navigating many challenges. This paper aims to investigate potential interrelations among environmental transformations, cognitive biases and strategic decisions. In particular, the purpose of the study is to crystallize the state of art on the impact of cognitive biases on strategic decisions, in the context of environmental transformations.Design/methodology/approachThe authors have conducted a systematic literature review to identify existing relevant work on this topic and to detect potential avenues for future research.FindingsThe findings highlight how decision-making is influenced and enabled by internal (e.g. perception) and external factors (e.g. digitalization). Specifically, the strategic role of cognitive biases appears to be crucial when investigating the related impact on strategic decisions in times of environmental transformation.Practical implicationsImplications are drawn for scholars and practitioners interested in evaluating the role of specific decision-making determinants for the formation and implementation of strategic decisions. In this sense, we stress that decision-makers need to manage their cognitive biases and select the right information out of a wide data set in order to adapt to environmental transformations.Originality/valueBy systematizing the literature review, potential interrelations among environmental transformations, cognitive biases and strategic decisions are identified. Furthermore, the primary phases that drive the decision-making process are proposed (analysis, decision, onboarding and control).

The rise of participatory despotism: a systematic review of online platforms for political engagement

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 422-437
Author(s):  
Rose Marie Santini ◽  
Hanna Carvalho
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Political Participation ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Online Platforms ◽  
Administrative Change ◽  
The Impact

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a systematic literature review of empirical studies into online platforms for political participation. The objective was to diagnose the relationship between different types of digital participatory platforms, the real possibilities of participation generated by those initiatives and the impact of such participation on the decision-making process of governmental representatives. Design/methodology/approach A systematic literature review was conducted using pre-defined terms, expressions and criteria. A total of 434 articles from 1995 to 2015 were gathered from the Web of Science database. And, 32 studies were selected from those articles for meta-synthesis, and the cases investigated were evaluated according to the e-participation ladder model (Smyth, 2001). Findings The results indicated that online political participation worldwide remains timid both in quantity and quality. We have witnessed the growth of a kind of “rhetorical participation” promoted by policy-makers and the rise of a “participatory despotism”, in which only the privileged partake, while the majority remains silent. Practical implications The solutions found to promote increased participation and ensure its effectiveness ranged from shaping the platform design in accordance with citizens’ capacities and interests to a need for profound political–administrative change, which includes the world’s public agencies adopting a more transparent, inclusive and collaborative approach to decision-making. Originality/value This paper proposes a systematic review, mapping the studies on online platforms for political participation, analysing the questions, methods and conclusions found by the authors and evaluating each case study with a participation ladder.

scholarly journals AB0602 IMPACT OF SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS ON PAIN AND FUNCTION IN KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1337.2-1337
Author(s):  
T. W. Swinnen ◽  
M. Willems ◽  
I. Jonkers ◽  
F. P. Luyten ◽  
J. Vanrenterghem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Socioeconomic Factors ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Intervention Effects ◽  
Socioeconomic Outcomes ◽  
And Function ◽  
The Impact

Background:The personal and societal burden of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) urges the research community to identify factors that predict its onset and progression. A mechanistic understanding of disease is currently lacking but needed to develop targeted interventions. Traditionally, risk factors for KOA are termed ‘local’ to the joint or ‘systemic’ referring to whole-body systems. There are however clear indications in the scientific literature that contextual factors such as socioeconomic position merit further scientific scrutiny, in order to justify a more biopsychosocial view on risk factors in KOA.Objectives:The aims of this systematic literature review were to assess the inclusion of socioeconomic factors in KOA research and to identify the impact of socioeconomic factors on pain and function in KOA.Methods:Major bibliographic databases, namely Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane, were independently screened by two reviewers (plus one to resolve conflicts) to identify research articles dealing with socioeconomic factors in the KOA population without arthroplasty. Included studies had to quantify the relationship between socioeconomic factors and pain or function. Main exclusion criteria were: a qualitative design, subject age below 16 years and articles not written in English or Dutch. Methodological quality was assessed via the Cochrane risk of bias tools for randomized (ROB-II) and non-randomized intervention studies (ROBIN-I) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for assessing the quality of non-randomised studies. Due to heterogeneity of studies with respect to outcomes assessed and analyses performed, no meta-analysis was performed.Results:Following de-duplication, 7639 articles were available for screening (120 conflicts resolved without a third reader). In 4112 articles, the KOA population was confirmed. 1906 (25%) were excluded because of knee arthroplasty and 1621 (21%) because of other issues related to the population definition. Socioeconomic factors could not be identified in 4058 (53%) papers and were adjusted for in 211 (3%) articles. In the remaining papers covering pain (n=110) and/or function (n=81), education (62%) and race (37%) were most frequently assessed as socioeconomic factors. A huge variety of mainly dichotomous or ordinal socioeconomic outcomes was found without further methodological justification nor sensitivity analysis to unravel the impact of selected categories. Although the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) was the most popular instrument to assess pain and function, data pooling was not possible as socioeconomic factors estimates were part of multilevel models in most studies. Overall results showed that lower education and African American race were consistent predictors of pain and poor function, but those effects diminished or disappeared when psychological aspects (e.g. discrimination) or poverty estimates were taken into account. When function was assessed using self-reported outcomes, the impact of socioeconomic factors was more clear versus performance-based instruments. Quality of research was low to moderate and the moderating or mediating impact of socioeconomic factors on intervention effects in KOA is understudied.Conclusion:Research on contextual socioeconomic factors in KOA is insufficiently addressed and their assessment is highly variable methodologically. Following this systematic literature review, we can highlight the importance of implementing a standardised and feasible set of socioeconomic outcomes in KOA trials1, as well as the importance of public availability of research databases including these factors. Future research should prioritise the underlying mechanisms in the effect of especially education and race on pain and function and assess its impact on intervention effects to fuel novel (non-)pharmacological approaches in KOA.References:[1]Smith TO et al. The OMERACT-OARSI Core Domain Set for Measurement in Clinical Trials of Hip and/or Knee Osteoarthritis J Rheumatol 2019. 46:981–9.Disclosure of Interests:None declared.

scholarly journals Systematic literature review of machine learning methods used in the analysis of real-world data for patient-provider decision making

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Brnabic ◽  
Lisa M. Hess
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Real World ◽  
Learning Algorithms ◽  
External Validation ◽  
Machine Learning Algorithms ◽  
Learning Methods ◽  
Machine Learning Methods

Abstract Background Machine learning is a broad term encompassing a number of methods that allow the investigator to learn from the data. These methods may permit large real-world databases to be more rapidly translated to applications to inform patient-provider decision making. Methods This systematic literature review was conducted to identify published observational research of employed machine learning to inform decision making at the patient-provider level. The search strategy was implemented and studies meeting eligibility criteria were evaluated by two independent reviewers. Relevant data related to study design, statistical methods and strengths and limitations were identified; study quality was assessed using a modified version of the Luo checklist. Results A total of 34 publications from January 2014 to September 2020 were identified and evaluated for this review. There were diverse methods, statistical packages and approaches used across identified studies. The most common methods included decision tree and random forest approaches. Most studies applied internal validation but only two conducted external validation. Most studies utilized one algorithm, and only eight studies applied multiple machine learning algorithms to the data. Seven items on the Luo checklist failed to be met by more than 50% of published studies. Conclusions A wide variety of approaches, algorithms, statistical software, and validation strategies were employed in the application of machine learning methods to inform patient-provider decision making. There is a need to ensure that multiple machine learning approaches are used, the model selection strategy is clearly defined, and both internal and external validation are necessary to be sure that decisions for patient care are being made with the highest quality evidence. Future work should routinely employ ensemble methods incorporating multiple machine learning algorithms.

scholarly journals A Systematic Literature Review of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for Sustainable Selection of Insulation Materials in Buildings

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 737
Author(s):  
Indre Siksnelyte-Butkiene ◽  
Dalia Streimikiene ◽  
Tomas Balezentis ◽  
Virgilijus Skulskis
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Energy Demand ◽  
Energy Performance ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Multi Criteria Decision Making ◽  
Insulation Materials ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Selection Of

The European Commission has recently adopted the Renovation Wave Strategy, aiming at the improvement of the energy performance of buildings. The strategy aims to at least double renovation rates in the next ten years and make sure that renovations lead to higher energy and resource efficiency. The choice of appropriate thermal insulation materials is one of the simplest and, at the same time, the most popular strategies that effectively reduce the energy demand of buildings. Today, the spectrum of insulation materials is quite wide, and each material has its own specific characteristics. It is recognized that the selection of materials is one of the most challenging and difficult steps of a building project. This paper aims to give an in-depth view of existing multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) applications for the selection of insulation materials and to provide major insights in order to simplify the process of methods and criteria selection for future research. A systematic literature review is performed based on the Search, Appraisal, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA) framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. In order to determine which MCDM method is the most appropriate for different questions, the main advantages and disadvantages of different methods are provided.

scholarly journals Multiple Criteria Decision Making for the Achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals: A Systematic Literature Review and a Research Agenda

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (8) ◽  
pp. 4129
Author(s):  
Manuel Sousa ◽  
Maria Fatima Almeida ◽  
Rodrigo Calili
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Sustainable Development Goals ◽  
Multiple Criteria Decision Making ◽  
Multiple Criteria ◽  
2030 Agenda ◽  
Development Goals

Multiple-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods have been widely employed in various fields and disciplines, including decision problems regarding Sustainable Development (SD) issues. The main objective of this paper is to present a systematic literature review (SLR) on MCDM methods supporting decisions focusing on the achievement of UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in regional, national, or local contexts. In this regard, 143 published scientific articles from 2016 to 2020 were retrieved from the Scopus database, selected and reviewed. They were categorized according to the decision problem associated with SDGs issues, the MCDM methodological approach, including the use (or not) of fuzzy set theory, sensitivity analysis, and multistakeholder approaches, the context of MCDM applications, and the MCDM classification (if utility-based, compromise, multi-objective, outranking, or other MCDM methods). The widespread adoption of MCDM methods in complex contexts confirms that they can help decision-makers solve multidimensional problems associated with key issues within the 2030 Agenda framework. Besides, the state-of-art review provides an improved understanding of this research field and directions for building a research agenda for those interested in advancing the research on MCDM applications in issues associated with the 2030 Agenda framework.

scholarly journals Sustainability of Biosimilars in Europe: A Delphi Panel Consensus with Systematic Literature Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 400
Author(s):  
Arnold G. Vulto ◽  
Jackie Vanderpuye-Orgle ◽  
Martin van der Graaff ◽  
Steven R. A. Simoens ◽  
Lorenzo Dagna ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Health Care Systems ◽  
Delphi Panel ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Care Systems ◽  
Supply Risks ◽  
The Impact

Introduction: Biosimilars have the potential to enhance the sustainability of evolving health care systems. A sustainable biosimilars market requires all stakeholders to balance competition and supply chain security. However, there is significant variation in the policies for pricing, procurement, and use of biosimilars in the European Union. A modified Delphi process was conducted to achieve expert consensus on biosimilar market sustainability in Europe. Methods: The priorities of 11 stakeholders were explored in three stages: a brainstorming stage supported by a systematic literature review (SLR) and key materials identified by the participants; development and review of statements derived during brainstorming; and a facilitated roundtable discussion. Results: Participants argued that a sustainable biosimilar market must deliver tangible and transparent benefits to the health care system, while meeting the needs of all stakeholders. Key drivers of biosimilar market sustainability included: (i) competition is more effective than regulation; (ii) there should be incentives to ensure industry investment in biosimilar development and innovation; (iii) procurement processes must avoid monopolies and minimize market disruption; and (iv) principles for procurement should be defined by all stakeholders. However, findings from the SLR were limited, with significant gaps on the impact of different tender models on supply risks, savings, and sustainability. Conclusions: A sustainable biosimilar market means that all stakeholders benefit from appropriate and reliable access to biological therapies. Failure to care for biosimilar market sustainability may impoverish biosimilar development and offerings, eventually leading to increased cost for health care systems and patients, with fewer resources for innovation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document