130 resultados para Scottish Funding Council
Resumo:
This chronicle considers some of the possible developments in the Northern Ireland Peace Process that may be occasioned by the imperatives for wider constitutional change resulting from the Independence Referendum in Scotland in September 2014. After reviewing the devolution story in Scotland, and the developments leading to the referendum, some of the wider tensions that remain within the UK constitution are reviewed, and their impact on the Northern Ireland settlement are considered. Next, attention is given to the range of issues that are presently undermining the continuing success of the Northern Ireland settlement as a mechanism of government and the possibilities for adapting the constitutional architecture to overcome these difficulties.
Resumo:
The UK Refractory Asthma Stratification Programme(RASP-UK) will explore novel biomarker stratificationstrategies in severe asthma to improve clinicalmanagement and accelerate development of newtherapies. Prior asthma mechanistic studies have notstratified on inflammatory phenotype and theunderstanding of pathophysiological mechanisms inasthma without Type 2 cytokine inflammation is limited.RASP-UK will objectively assess adherence tocorticosteroids (CS) and examine a novel compositebiomarker strategy to optimise CS dose; this will alsoaddress what proportion of patients with severe asthmahave persistent symptoms without eosinophilic airwaysinflammation after progressive CS withdrawal. There will be interactive partnership with the pharmaceutical industry to facilitate access to stratified populations for novel therapeutic studies.
Resumo:
This paper considers the use of value capture (VC) as a means of financing public-private partnerships (PPPs) in the United Kingdom (UK). Although some VC techniques are used in the UK, they are employed more widely in the United States of America. After considering the traditional approach to financing UK PPPs, this paper describes the main VC finance instruments. The findings of a series of case studies are then presented and conclusions drawn. While VC financing may prove unpopular with those bearing the cost of infrastructure improvements, it is recommended that such instruments are considered by UK policy makers.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates have profound effects on bone physiology, and could modify the process of metastasis. We undertook collaborative meta-analyses to clarify the risks and benefits of adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment in breast cancer.
METHODS: We sought individual patient data from all unconfounded trials in early breast cancer that randomised between bisphosphonate and control. Primary outcomes were recurrence, distant recurrence, and breast cancer mortality. Primary subgroup investigations were site of first distant recurrence (bone or other), menopausal status (postmenopausal [combining natural and artificial] or not), and bisphosphonate class (aminobisphosphonate [eg, zoledronic acid, ibandronate, pamidronate] or other [ie, clodronate]). Intention-to-treat log-rank methods yielded bisphosphonate versus control first-event rate ratios (RRs).
FINDINGS: We received data on 18 766 women (18 206 [97%] in trials of 2-5 years of bisphosphonate) with median follow-up 5·6 woman-years, 3453 first recurrences, and 2106 subsequent deaths. Overall, the reductions in recurrence (RR 0·94, 95% CI 0·87-1·01; 2p=0·08), distant recurrence (0·92, 0·85-0·99; 2p=0·03), and breast cancer mortality (0·91, 0·83-0·99; 2p=0·04) were of only borderline significance, but the reduction in bone recurrence was more definite (0·83, 0·73-0·94; 2p=0·004). Among premenopausal women, treatment had no apparent effect on any outcome, but among 11 767 postmenopausal women it produced highly significant reductions in recurrence (RR 0·86, 95% CI 0·78-0·94; 2p=0·002), distant recurrence (0·82, 0·74-0·92; 2p=0·0003), bone recurrence (0·72, 0·60-0·86; 2p=0·0002), and breast cancer mortality (0·82, 0·73-0·93; 2p=0·002). Even for bone recurrence, however, the heterogeneity of benefit was barely significant by menopausal status (2p=0·06 for trend with menopausal status) or age (2p=0·03), and it was non-significant by bisphosphonate class, treatment schedule, oestrogen receptor status, nodes, tumour grade, or concomitant chemotherapy. No differences were seen in non-breast cancer mortality. Bone fractures were reduced (RR 0·85, 95% CI 0·75-0·97; 2p=0·02).
INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant bisphosphonates reduce the rate of breast cancer recurrence in the bone and improve breast cancer survival, but there is definite benefit only in women who were postmenopausal when treatment began.
FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: The optimal ways of using aromatase inhibitors or tamoxifen as endocrine treatment for early breast cancer remains uncertain.
METHODS: We undertook meta-analyses of individual data on 31 920 postmenopausal women with oestrogen-receptor-positive early breast cancer in the randomised trials of 5 years of aromatase inhibitor versus 5 years of tamoxifen; of 5 years of aromatase inhibitor versus 2-3 years of tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitor to year 5; and of 2-3 years of tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitor to year 5 versus 5 years of tamoxifen. Primary outcomes were any recurrence of breast cancer, breast cancer mortality, death without recurrence, and all-cause mortality. Intention-to-treat log-rank analyses, stratified by age, nodal status, and trial, yielded aromatase inhibitor versus tamoxifen first-event rate ratios (RRs).
FINDINGS: In the comparison of 5 years of aromatase inhibitor versus 5 years of tamoxifen, recurrence RRs favoured aromatase inhibitors significantly during years 0-1 (RR 0·64, 95% CI 0·52-0·78) and 2-4 (RR 0·80, 0·68-0·93), and non-significantly thereafter. 10-year breast cancer mortality was lower with aromatase inhibitors than tamoxifen (12·1% vs 14·2%; RR 0·85, 0·75-0·96; 2p=0·009). In the comparison of 5 years of aromatase inhibitor versus 2-3 years of tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitor to year 5, recurrence RRs favoured aromatase inhibitors significantly during years 0-1 (RR 0·74, 0·62-0·89) but not while both groups received aromatase inhibitors during years 2-4, or thereafter; overall in these trials, there were fewer recurrences with 5 years of aromatase inhibitors than with tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitors (RR 0·90, 0·81-0·99; 2p=0·045), though the breast cancer mortality reduction was not significant (RR 0·89, 0·78-1·03; 2p=0·11). In the comparison of 2-3 years of tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitor to year 5 versus 5 years of tamoxifen, recurrence RRs favoured aromatase inhibitors significantly during years 2-4 (RR 0·56, 0·46-0·67) but not subsequently, and 10-year breast cancer mortality was lower with switching to aromatase inhibitors than with remaining on tamoxifen (8·7% vs 10·1%; 2p=0·015). Aggregating all three types of comparison, recurrence RRs favoured aromatase inhibitors during periods when treatments differed (RR 0·70, 0·64-0·77), but not significantly thereafter (RR 0·93, 0·86-1·01; 2p=0·08). Breast cancer mortality was reduced both while treatments differed (RR 0·79, 0·67-0·92), and subsequently (RR 0·89, 0·81-0·99), and for all periods combined (RR 0·86, 0·80-0·94; 2p=0·0005). All-cause mortality was also reduced (RR 0·88, 0·82-0·94; 2p=0·0003). RRs differed little by age, body-mass index, stage, grade, progesterone receptor status, or HER2 status. There were fewer endometrial cancers with aromatase inhibitors than tamoxifen (10-year incidence 0·4% vs 1·2%; RR 0·33, 0·21-0·51) but more bone fractures (5-year risk 8·2% vs 5·5%; RR 1·42, 1·28-1·57); non-breast-cancer mortality was similar.
INTERPRETATION: Aromatase inhibitors reduce recurrence rates by about 30% (proportionately) compared with tamoxifen while treatments differ, but not thereafter. 5 years of an aromatase inhibitor reduces 10-year breast cancer mortality rates by about 15% compared with 5 years of tamoxifen, hence by about 40% (proportionately) compared with no endocrine treatment.
FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council.
Resumo:
The introduction of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism as an innovative component of the new Human Rights Council in 2006 has suffered little academic scrutiny. This is partly because it holds as its objective an improvement in human rights situations on the ground, a goal that is difficult to test amongst so many possible causal factors attributable to law reform and policy change, and partly due to the fact that the mechanism has only completed one full cycle of review. This article seeks to remedy this absence of analysis by examining the experience of the United Kingdom during its first review. In doing so, the article first considers the conception of the UPR, before progressing to examine the procedure and recommendations made to the UK by its peers. Finally, the article considers the five year review of the UPR which occurred as a subset of the Human Rights Council Review in 2011 and the resulting changes to the process modalities.
Resumo:
Background:
Healthcare in Qatar is undergoing a period of major reform, driven by a strong economy and vision for a world-class healthcare system. One area identified as a potential contributor to developing a world-class healthcare system is interprofessional education (IPE), with the goal of facilitating healthcare workers to work together collaboratively. Several key steps have been taken towards developing IPE in Qatar, such as the formation of the Qatar Interprofessional Health Council (QIHC), the development of an IPE program for undergraduate healthcare students, the development of a set of shared core competencies, the receipt of substantial buy-in from leaders across the healthcare system, and recent approval of funding to develop a post-licensure healthcare IPE program. In order to improve IPE in Qatar, it is important to better understand the facilitators and barriers to interprofessional collaboration in Qatar. This study seeks to do so by qualitatively exploring facilitators and barriers to interprofessional collaboration for healthcare professional in Qatar from the perspective of health care professionals. By better understanding how health care workers give meaning to interprofessional education and collaboration, this research can assist in improving interprofessional activities in healthcare in Qatar.
Objectives
The purpose of this paper-presentation is to report on finding from a qualitative study that explored different facilitators and barriers of interprofessional practice in Qatar.
Method:
Ten healthcare professionals who work in Qatar were interviewed using semi-structured, open-ended interviews. Interview questions were organized by phenomenological (e.g. exploring the lived-experiences of healthcare workers) and ethnographic interviewing techniques (e.g. focusing on what people do). The questions explored the barriers, facilitators, and what is working well in terms of interprofessional practice for health care professional in Qatar.
Findings and Implications:
Different factors associated with interprofessional collaborations will be discussed. In doing so, this research adds to the literature on IPE by shedding light on interprofessional collaboration and education in the Middle East. Furthermore, this study identifies barriers for health care workers to work collaboratively in health care settings in Qatar. Addressing such barriers, and building off of what is working well, will facilitate Qatar in reaching one of the Vision 2030 goals of improving Qatar’s health and wellness.
Resumo:
Background:
Healthcare in Qatar is undergoing a period of major reform, driven by a strong economy and vision for a world-class healthcare system. One area identified as a potential contributor to developing a world-class healthcare system is interprofessional education (IPE), with the goal of facilitating healthcare workers to work together collaboratively. Several key steps have been taken towards developing IPE in Qatar, such as the formation of the Qatar Interprofessional Health Council (QIHC), the development of an IPE program for undergraduate healthcare students, the development of a set of shared core competencies, the receipt of substantial buy-in from leaders across the healthcare system, and recent approval of funding to develop a post-licensure healthcare IPE program. In order to improve IPE in Qatar, it is important to better understand the facilitators and barriers to interprofessional collaboration in Qatar. This study seeks to do so by qualitatively exploring facilitators and barriers to interprofessional collaboration for healthcare professional in Qatar from the perspective of health care professionals. By better understanding how health care workers give meaning to interprofessional education and collaboration, this research can assist in improving interprofessional activities in healthcare in Qatar.
Objectives
The purpose of this paper-presentation is to report on finding from a qualitative study that explored different facilitators and barriers of interprofessional practice in Qatar.
Method:
Ten healthcare professionals who work in Qatar were interviewed using semi-structured, open-ended interviews. Interview questions were organized by phenomenological (e.g. exploring the lived-experiences of healthcare workers) and ethnographic interviewing techniques (e.g. focusing on what people do). The questions explored the barriers, facilitators, and what is working well in terms of interprofessional practice for health care professional in Qatar.
Findings and Implications:
Different factors associated with interprofessional collaborations will be discussed. In doing so, this research adds to the literature on IPE by shedding light on interprofessional collaboration and education in the Middle East. Furthermore, this study identifies barriers for health care workers to work collaboratively in health care settings in Qatar. Addressing such barriers, and building off of what is working well, will facilitate Qatar in reaching one of the Vision 2030 goals of improving Qatar’s health and wellness.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Long-term hormone therapy has been the standard of care for advanced prostate cancer since the 1940s. STAMPEDE is a randomised controlled trial using a multiarm, multistage platform design. It recruits men with high-risk, locally advanced, metastatic or recurrent prostate cancer who are starting first-line long-term hormone therapy. We report primary survival results for three research comparisons testing the addition of zoledronic acid, docetaxel, or their combination to standard of care versus standard of care alone.
METHODS: Standard of care was hormone therapy for at least 2 years; radiotherapy was encouraged for men with N0M0 disease to November, 2011, then mandated; radiotherapy was optional for men with node-positive non-metastatic (N+M0) disease. Stratified randomisation (via minimisation) allocated men 2:1:1:1 to standard of care only (SOC-only; control), standard of care plus zoledronic acid (SOC + ZA), standard of care plus docetaxel (SOC + Doc), or standard of care with both zoledronic acid and docetaxel (SOC + ZA + Doc). Zoledronic acid (4 mg) was given for six 3-weekly cycles, then 4-weekly until 2 years, and docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) for six 3-weekly cycles with prednisolone 10 mg daily. There was no blinding to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Pairwise comparisons of research versus control had 90% power at 2·5% one-sided α for hazard ratio (HR) 0·75, requiring roughly 400 control arm deaths. Statistical analyses were undertaken with standard log-rank-type methods for time-to-event data, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs derived from adjusted Cox models. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ControlledTrials.com (ISRCTN78818544).
FINDINGS: 2962 men were randomly assigned to four groups between Oct 5, 2005, and March 31, 2013. Median age was 65 years (IQR 60-71). 1817 (61%) men had M+ disease, 448 (15%) had N+/X M0, and 697 (24%) had N0M0. 165 (6%) men were previously treated with local therapy, and median prostate-specific antigen was 65 ng/mL (IQR 23-184). Median follow-up was 43 months (IQR 30-60). There were 415 deaths in the control group (347 [84%] prostate cancer). Median overall survival was 71 months (IQR 32 to not reached) for SOC-only, not reached (32 to not reached) for SOC + ZA (HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·79-1·11; p=0·450), 81 months (41 to not reached) for SOC + Doc (0·78, 0·66-0·93; p=0·006), and 76 months (39 to not reached) for SOC + ZA + Doc (0·82, 0·69-0·97; p=0·022). There was no evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effect (for any of the treatments) across prespecified subsets. Grade 3-5 adverse events were reported for 399 (32%) patients receiving SOC, 197 (32%) receiving SOC + ZA, 288 (52%) receiving SOC + Doc, and 269 (52%) receiving SOC + ZA + Doc.
INTERPRETATION: Zoledronic acid showed no evidence of survival improvement and should not be part of standard of care for this population. Docetaxel chemotherapy, given at the time of long-term hormone therapy initiation, showed evidence of improved survival accompanied by an increase in adverse events. Docetaxel treatment should become part of standard of care for adequately fit men commencing long-term hormone therapy.
FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer, Janssen, Astellas, NIHR Clinical Research Network, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research.