L'équité d'accès aux ressources en eau : fin ou moyen d'amélioration de l'efficacité de l'irrigation ? : la gestion des ressources en eau dans l'état du Gujarat (Inde) dans la perpective de la political ecology

La thèse présentée ici est le résultat d'une étroite collaboration avec une ONG indienne, AKRSP(I), intervenant dans le développement de l'irrigation au Gujarat depuis plus de 25 ans. Un SIG prototype a été mis en oeuvre et nous permet de proposer ime analyse spatiale et quantitative de l'action de cette ONG ainsi qu'une réflexion plus générale sur les leviers de mise en valeur et de gestion des ressources en eau à des fins agricoles. On peut souligner trois principaux enseignements: Les perspectives d'application des SIG au sein des ONG sont manifestes. Les exigences des bailleurs de fonds peuvent néanmoins faire obstacle à leur développement car, indi-rectement, ils favorisent la mise en oeuvre de SI voués à la justification plutôt qu'à la planification et au suivi des programmes d'actions. Ce résultat soulève la question de la pertinence de l'encadrement, des critères d'évaluation et de la conditionnalité de l'aide publique au développement. Les ONG ont un fort potentiel pour participer à la mise en valeur des ressources en eau en Inde et aider à relever le défi agro-démographique indien, en particulier dans les zones marginales où les services étatiques sont en retrait. Les stratégies d'action basées principalement sur l'application des instruments économiques et techniques doivent cependant être modifiées. Nous montrons qu'elles favorisent une inégalité d'accès aux ressources qui débouche sur une efficacité limitée des pratiques d'irrigation, sur un plan agro-technique. Ces résultats soulignent la nécessité de poursuivre une réflexion critique des discours et solutions dominants en matière de gestion des ressources en eau. Deux pistes d'amélioration sont avancées: 1. considérer l'équité d'accès comme un moyen d'optimiser la gestion de la ressource (limiter le volume d'eau par agriculteur pour encourager les choix de cultures irriguées peu consommatrices et l'adoption des technologies d'économie d'eau), 2. prêter attention à l'ordre dans lequel les différents instruments de gestion disponibles sont employés afin de les articuler dans un séquençage temporel pertinent. La Political Ecology apparait comme un cadre conceptuel très pertinent pour engager cette réflexion critique. Elle permet d'intégrer différentes échelles d'asymétries de pouvoirs à la compréhension des situations et des blocages observables localement : inégalités de capabilités et forces socio-politiques à l'échelle locale, politiques agro-industrielles (coton) et jeux d'alliances politiques des castes à l'échelle nationale, discours et conflits idéologiques ou orientations stratégiques des bailleurs de fonds à l'échelle internationale... Notre recherche empirique contribue modestement au développement de cette Political Ecology de la mise en valeur et de la gestion des ressources en eau. - The present research is based on a close collaboration with an indian NGO, AKRSP(I), which is active in the development of irrigation facilities in Gujarat for the past 25 years. We built a GIS prototype providing quantitative and spatial datas to analyse the NGO intervention and propose a general reflection about water resources development and management issues. Three main findings may be emphasized : The potential of GIS within the workings of an NGO is obvious, as an information ma-nagement tool as much as for developing analytical capacity. However, financial backers expectations may not favour a relevant development of this technology. Indirectly, they promote Information Systems built to justify rather than to plan or monitor action pro¬grammes. This raises the question of stricter framework, conditionality criters and stan¬dardised assessment indicators surrounding official development assistance. There is strong potential that NGOs can assist with the improvement of water resources in India. They can help in overcoming Indian demographic-related agricultural challenges, especially in marginal rural areas neglected by state services. However, intervention strategies mainly based on technical and economic management tools has to be adapted. We found that they lead to inequitable access and distribution of water resources what induces a low efficiency of irrigation practices from an agro-technical point of view. These results underline the need to go further in criticizing dominant ideas and guidelines regarding water resources management. We suggest two other options : 1. to consider equitable access has a tool to improve the effective use of water for agricul¬tural purposes (limiting the volume of water available per farmer would encourage them to adopt low water consumption crops and water saving technics), 2. to consider more carefully the order of use of the various management tools available and to structure them in a relevant sequence. Here, Political Ecology seems to be a relevant conceptual framework to enter into such a critical reflection, integrating different levels and scales of political asymmetries at the core of environmental issues. Indeed, the understanding of regional water situations and social stumbling blocks needs not only to consider local capabilities and socio-political inequities, but also agro-industrial policy (e.i. cotton) and caste political alliances at a national scale, as well as ideological and narrative struggles or strategical orientations of financial backers at an international level. Our empirical research modestly contributes to the development of such a Political Ecology of water resources development and management.

Official Positions for FRAX(®) clinical regarding glucocorticoids: the impact of the use of glucocorticoids on the estimate by FRAX(®) of the 10 year risk of fracture from Joint Official Positions Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX(®).

Given the significant impact the use of glucocorticoids can have on fracture risk independent of bone density, their use has been incorporated as one of the clinical risk factors for calculating the 10-year fracture risk in the World Health Organization's Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX(®)). Like the other clinical risk factors, the use of glucocorticoids is included as a dichotomous variable with use of steroids defined as past or present exposure of 3 months or more of use of a daily dose of 5 mg or more of prednisolone or equivalent. The purpose of this report is to give clinicians guidance on adjustments which should be made to the 10-year risk based on the dose, duration of use and mode of delivery of glucocorticoids preparations. A subcommittee of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation joint Position Development Conference presented its findings to an expert panel and the following recommendations were selected. 1) There is a dose relationship between glucocorticoid use of greater than 3 months and fracture risk. The average dose exposure captured within FRAX(®) is likely to be a prednisone dose of 2.5-7.5 mg/day or its equivalent. Fracture probability is under-estimated when prednisone dose is greater than 7.5 mg/day and is over-estimated when the prednisone dose is less than 2.5 mg/day. 2) Frequent intermittent use of higher doses of glucocorticoids increases fracture risk. Because of the variability in dose and dosing schedule, quantification of this risk is not possible. 3) High dose inhaled glucocorticoids may be a risk factor for fracture. FRAX(®) may underestimate fracture probability in users of high dose inhaled glucocorticoids. 4) Appropriate glucocorticoid replacement in individuals with adrenal insufficiency has not been found to increase fracture risk. In such patients, use of glucocorticoids should not be included in FRAX(®) calculations.

Official Positions for FRAX® clinical regarding international differences from Joint Official Positions Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX®.

Osteoporosis is a serious worldwide epidemic. Increased risk of fractures is the hallmark of the disease and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality and economic burden. FRAX® is a web-based tool developed by the Sheffield WHO Collaborating Center team, that integrates clinical risk factors, femoral neck BMD, country specific mortality and fracture data and calculates the 10 year fracture probability in order to help health care professionals identify patients who need treatment. However, only 31 countries have a FRAX® calculator at the time paper was accepted for publication. In the absence of a FRAX® model for a particular country, it has been suggested to use a surrogate country for which the epidemiology of osteoporosis most closely approximates the index country. More specific recommendations for clinicians in these countries are not available. In North America, concerns have also been raised regarding the assumptions used to construct the US ethnic specific FRAX® calculators with respect to the correction factors applied to derive fracture probabilities in Blacks, Asians and Hispanics in comparison to Whites. In addition, questions were raised about calculating fracture risk in other ethnic groups e.g., Native Americans and First Canadians. In order to provide additional guidance to clinicians, a FRAX® International Task Force was formed to address specific questions raised by physicians in countries without FRAX® calculators and seeking to integrate FRAX® into their clinical practice. The main questions that the task force tried to answer were the following: The Task Force members conducted appropriate literature reviews and developed preliminary statements that were discussed and graded by a panel of experts at the ISCD-IOF joint conference. The statements approved by the panel of experts are discussed in the current paper.

Official Positions for FRAX® clinical regarding smoking from Joint Official Positions Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX®.

The worldwide prevalence of smoking has been estimated at about 50% in men, and 10% in women, with larger variations among different populations studied. Smoking has been shown to affect many organ systems resulting in severe morbidity and increased mortality. In addition, smoking has been identified as a predictor of ten-year fracture risk in men and women, largely independent of an individual's bone mineral density. This finding has eventually lead to incorporation of this risk factor into FRAX®, an algorithm that has been developed to calculate an individual's ten-year fracture risk. However, only little, or conflicting data is available on a possible association between smoking dose, duration, length of time after cessation, type of tobacco and fracture risk, limiting this risk factor's applicability in the context of FRAX®.

Joint Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX(®). Executive Summary of the 2010 Position Development Conference on Interpretation and use of FRAX® in clinical practice.

The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) and the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) convened the FRAX(®) Position Development Conference (PDC) in Bucharest, Romania, on November 14, 2010, following a two-day joint meeting of the ISCD and IOF on the "Interpretation and Use of FRAX(®) in Clinical Practice." These three days of critical discussion and debate, led by a panel of international experts from the ISCD, IOF and dedicated task forces, have clarified a number of important issues pertaining to the interpretation and implementation of FRAX(®) in clinical practice. The Official Positions resulting from the PDC are intended to enhance the quality and clinical utility of fracture risk assessment worldwide. Since the field of skeletal assessment is still evolving rapidly, some clinically important issues addressed at the PDCs are not associated with robust medical evidence. Accordingly, some Official Positions are based largely on expert opinion. Despite limitations inherent in such a process, the ISCD and IOF believe it is important to provide clinicians and technologists with the best distillation of current knowledge in the discipline of bone densitometry and provide an important focus for the scientific community to consider. This report describes the methodology and results of the ISCD-IOF PDC dedicated to FRAX(®).

Official Positions for FRAX® clinical regarding rheumatoid arthritis from Joint Official Positions Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX®.

Rheumatoid arthritis is the only secondary cause of osteoporosis that is considered independent of bone density in the FRAX(®) algorithm. Although input for rheumatoid arthritis in FRAX(®) is a dichotomous variable, intuitively, one would expect that more severe or active disease would be associated with a greater risk for fracture. We reviewed the literature to determine if specific disease parameters or medication use could be used to better characterize fracture risk in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis. Although many studies document a correlation between various parameters of disease activity or severity and decreased bone density, fewer have associated these variables with fracture risk. We reviewed these studies in detail and concluded that disability measures such as HAQ (Health Assessment Questionnaire) and functional class do correlate with clinical fractures but not morphometric vertebral fractures. One large study found a strong correlation with duration of disease and fracture risk but additional studies are needed to confirm this. There was little evidence to correlate other measures of disease such as DAS (disease activity score), VAS (visual analogue scale), acute phase reactants, use of non-glucocorticoid medications and increased fracture risk. We concluded that FRAX(®) calculations may underestimate fracture probability in patients with impaired functional status from rheumatoid arthritis but that this could not be quantified at this time. At this time, other disease measures cannot be used for fracture prediction. However only a few, mostly small studies addressed other disease parameters and further research is needed. Additional questions for future research are suggested.

Official Positions for FRAX® clinical regarding biochemical markers from Joint Official Positions Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX®.

The best indirect evidence that increased bone turnover contributes to fracture risk is the fact that most of the proven therapies for osteoporosis are inhibitors of bone turnover. The evidence base that we can use biochemical markers of bone turnover in the assessment of fracture risk is somewhat less convincing. This relates to natural variability in the markers, problems with the assays, disparity in the statistical analyses of relevant studies and the independence of their contribution to fracture risk. More research is clearly required to address these deficiencies before biochemical markers might contribute a useful independent risk factor for inclusion in FRAX(®).

Official Positions for FRAX® clinical regarding falls and frailty: can falls and frailty be used in FRAX®? From Joint Official Positions Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX®.

Risk factors for fracture can be purely skeletal, e.g., bone mass, microarchitecture or geometry, or a combination of bone and falls risk related factors such as age and functional status. The remit of this Task Force was to review the evidence and consider if falls should be incorporated into the FRAX® model or, alternatively, to provide guidance to assist clinicians in clinical decision-making for patients with a falls history. It is clear that falls are a risk factor for fracture. Fracture probability may be underestimated by FRAX® in individuals with a history of frequent falls. The substantial evidence that various interventions are effective in reducing falls risk was reviewed. Targeting falls risk reduction strategies towards frail older people at high risk for indoor falls is appropriate. This Task Force believes that further fracture reduction requires measures to reduce falls risk in addition to bone directed therapy. Clinicians should recognize that patients with frequent falls are at higher fracture risk than currently estimated by FRAX® and include this in decision-making. However, quantitative adjustment of the FRAX® estimated risk based on falls history is not currently possible. In the long term, incorporation of falls as a risk factor in the FRAX® model would be ideal.

Official Positions for FRAX® clinical regarding prior fractures from Joint Official Positions Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX®.

The 2010 Position Development Conference addressed four questions related to the impact of previous fractures on 10-year fracture risk as calculated by FRAX(®). To address these questions, PubMed was searched on the keywords "fracture, epidemiology, osteoporosis." Titles of retrieved articles were reviewed for an indication that risk for future fracture was discussed. Abstracts of these articles were reviewed for an indication that one or more of the questions listed above was discussed. For those that did, the articles were reviewed in greater detail to extract the findings and to find additional past work and citing works that also bore on the questions. The official positions and the supporting literature review are presented here. FRAX(®) underestimates fracture probability in persons with a history of multiple fractures (good, A, W). FRAX(®) may underestimate fracture probability in individuals with prevalent severe vertebral fractures (good, A, W). While there is evidence that hip, vertebral, and humeral fractures appear to confer greater risk of subsequent fracture than fractures at other sites, quantification of this incremental risk in FRAX(®) is not possible (fair, B, W). FRAX(®) may underestimate fracture probability in individuals with a parental history of non-hip fragility fracture (fair, B, W). Limitations of the methodology include performance by a single reviewer, preliminary review of the literature being confined to titles, and secondary review being limited to abstracts. Limitations of the evidence base include publication bias, overrepresentation of persons of European descent in the published studies, and technical differences in the methods used to identify prevalent and incident fractures. Emerging topics for future research include fracture epidemiology in non-European populations and men, the impact of fractures in family members other than parents, and the genetic contribution to fracture risk.

Official Positions for FRAX® Bone Mineral Density and FRAX® simplification from Joint Official Positions Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX®.

Tools to predict fracture risk are useful for selecting patients for pharmacological therapy in order to reduce fracture risk and redirect limited healthcare resources to those who are most likely to benefit. FRAX® is a World Health Organization fracture risk assessment algorithm for estimating the 10-year probability of hip fracture and major osteoporotic fracture. Effective application of FRAX® in clinical practice requires a thorough understanding of its limitations as well as its utility. For some patients, FRAX® may underestimate or overestimate fracture risk. In order to address some of the common issues encountered with the use of FRAX® for individual patients, the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) and International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) assigned task forces to review the medical evidence and make recommendations for optimal use of FRAX® in clinical practice. Among the issues addressed were the use of bone mineral density (BMD) measurements at skeletal sites other than the femoral neck, the use of technologies other than dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, the use of FRAX® without BMD input, the use of FRAX® to monitor treatment, and the addition of the rate of bone loss as a clinical risk factor for FRAX®. The evidence and recommendations were presented to a panel of experts at the Joint ISCD-IOF FRAX® Position Development Conference, resulting in the development of Joint ISCD-IOF Official Positions addressing FRAX®-related issues.

Federalism and Welfare to Work in Switzerland: The Development of Active Social Policies in a Fragmented Welfare State

This article is concerned with the impact that federal structures have on the development of welfare to work or activation policies. More precisely, it argues that the incentives and the risks associated with a division of responsibilities among different jurisdictions may constitute an obstacle to broad reforms that promote labor market participation of nonworking benefit recipients. This argument is illustrated with a case study discussing policy responses to a massive rise in caseloads among social assistance recipients in Switzerland. We conclude that the lack of a fundamental reform was the consequence of the incentives provided by the federal structure of the program. These incentives have both encouraged cost shifting among jurisdictions and discouraged involvement of federal level policy makers in a bigger reform.

FRAX® International Task Force of the 2010 Joint International Society for Clinical Densitometry & International Osteoporosis Foundation Position Development Conference.

Osteoporosis is a serious worldwide epidemic. FRAX® is a web-based tool developed by the Sheffield WHO Collaborating Center team, that integrates clinical risk factors and femoral neck BMD and calculates the 10 year fracture probability in order to help health care professionals identify patients who need treatment. However, only 31 countries have a FRAX® calculator. In the absence of a FRAX® model for a particular country, it has been suggested to use a surrogate country for which the epidemiology of osteoporosis most closely approximates the index country. More specific recommendations for clinicians in these countries are not available. In North America, concerns have also been raised regarding the assumptions used to construct the US ethnic specific FRAX® calculators with respect to the correction factors applied to derive fracture probabilities in Blacks, Asians and Hispanics in comparison to Whites. In addition, questions were raised about calculating fracture risk in other ethnic groups e.g., Native Americans and First Canadians. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) in conjunction with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) assembled an international panel of experts that ultimately developed joint Official Positions of the ISCD and IOF advising clinicians regarding FRAX® usage. As part of the process, the charge of the FRAX® International Task Force was to review and synthesize data regarding geographic and race/ethnic variability in hip fractures, non-hip osteoporotic fractures, and make recommendations about the use of FRAX® in ethnic groups and countries without a FRAX® calculator. This synthesis was presented to the expert panel and constitutes the data on which the subsequent Official Positions are predicated. A summary of the International Task Force composition and charge is presented here.

FRAX(®) Clinical Task Force of the 2010 Joint International Society for Clinical Densitometry & International Osteoporosis Foundation Position Development Conference.

The World Health Organization fracture risk assessment tool, FRAX(®), is an advance in clinical care that can assist in clinical decision-making. However, with increasing clinical utilization, numerous questions have arisen regarding how to best estimate fracture risk in an individual patient. Recognizing the need to assist clinicians in optimal use of FRAX(®), the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) in conjunction with the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) assembled an international panel of experts that ultimately developed joint Official Positions of the ISCD and IOF advising clinicians regarding FRAX(®) usage. As part of the process, the charge of the FRAX(®) Clinical Task Force was to review and synthesize data surrounding a number of recognized clinical risk factors including rheumatoid arthritis, smoking, alcohol, prior fracture, falls, bone turnover markers and glucocorticoid use. This synthesis was presented to the expert panel and constitutes the data on which the subsequent Official Positions are predicated. A summary of the Clinical Task Force composition and charge is presented here.

Peripheral dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in the management of osteoporosis: the 2007 ISCD Official Positions.

Peripheral assessment of bone density using photon absorptiometry techniques has been available for over 40 yr. The initial use of radio-isotopes as the photon source has been replaced by the use of X-ray technology. A wide variety of models of single- or dual-energy X-ray measurement tools have been made available for purchase, although not all are still commercially available. The Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) have been developed following a systematic review of the literature by an ISCD task force and a subsequent Position Development Conference. These cover the technological diversity among peripheral dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (pDXA) devices; define whether pDXA can be used for fracture risk assessment and/or to diagnose osteoporosis; examine whether pDXA can be used to initiate treatment and/or monitor treatment; provide recommendations for pDXA reporting; and review quality assurance and quality control necessary for effective use of pDXA.