The Vietnam's Transition Economy and Its Fledgling Financial Markets: 1986-2003

In this paper, we analyze the context of Vietnam’s economic standings in the reform period. The first section embarks on most remarkable factors, which promote the development of financial markets are: (i) Doi Moi policies in 1986 unleash ‘productive powers’. Real GDP growth, and key economic indicators improve. The economy truly departs from the old-style command economy; (ii) FDI component is present in the economy as sine qua non; a crucial growth engine, forming part of the financial markets, planting the ‘seeds’ for its growth; and (iii) the private economy is both the result and cause of the reform. Its growth is steady. Today, it represents a powerhouse, and helps form part of the genuine financial economy. A few noteworthy points found in the next section are: (i) No evidence of financial markets existence was found before Doi Moi. The reform has generated a bulk of private-sector financial companies. New developments have roots in the 1992-amended constitution (x3.2); (ii) The need to reform the financial started with the domino collapse of credit cooperatives in early 1990s. More stress is caused by the ‘blow’ of banking deficiency in late 1990s; and (iii) Laws on SBV and credit institutions, and the launch of the stock market are bold steps. Besides, the Asian financial turmoil forces the economy to reaffirm its reform agenda. Our findings also indicate, through empirical evidences, that economic conditions have stabilized throughout the reform, thanks to the contributions of the FDI and private economic sector. Private investment flows continue to be an eminent factor that drives the economy growth.

Quality of care for cancer patients on home parenteral nutrition: Development of key interventions and outcome indicators using a two-round Delphi approach

Purpose: Clear recommendations on how to guide patients with cancer on home parenteral nutrition (HPN) are lacking as the use of HPN in this population remains a controversial issue. Therefore, the aims of this study were to rank treatment recommendations and main outcome indicators to ensure high-quality care and to indicate differences in care concerning benign versus malignant patients. Methods: Treatment recommendations, identified from published guidelines, were used as a starting point for a two-round Delphi approach. Comments and additional interventions proposed in the first round were reevaluated in the second round. Ordinal logistic regression with SPSS 2.0 was used to identify differences in care concerning benign versus malignant patients. Results: Twenty-seven experts from five European countries completed two Delphi rounds. After the second Delphi round, the top three most important outcome indicators were (1) quality of life (QoL), (2) incidence of hospital readmission and (3) incidence of catheter-related infections. Forty-two interventions were considered as important for quality of care (28/42 based on published guidelines; 14/42 newly suggested by Delphi panel). The topics 'Liver disease' and 'Metabolic bone disease' were considered less important for cancer patients, together with use of infusion pumps (p = 0.004) and monitoring of vitamins and trace elements (p = 0.000). Monitoring of QoL is considered more important for cancer patients (p = 0.03). Conclusion: Using a two-round Delphi approach, we developed a minimal set of 42 interventions that may be used to determine quality of care in HPN patients with malignancies. This set of interventions differs from a similar set developed for benign patients. © 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.