Do Different Models of Integration Affect Actual Integration? The Cases of France and Great Britain Revisited

Britain and France adapted two different integration models, namely assimilationist and multiculturalism to integrate their immigrants. These two big models of integration have distinctive characteristics to integrate immigrants. There is a general claim that multiculturalism model is the best for integrating immigrants in terms of actual integration, however, some argue the opposite, that French assimilationist model is ‘better off.’ This study examines these controversial claims by looking at the level to which immigrants are integrated in economic, social, political, cultural dimensions of integration and attitudes towards immigrants in Britain and France. Within a given theoretical framework, this study compares the overall competency level of immigrants’ integration in terms of actual integration between British multiculturalism model and French assimilationist model and validate that both these two big models of integration have reached a comparable level of integration and they do not have any decisive impact on actual integration.

Russian Arctic Ports : Problems with the development and management of tourist flows

The potential changes to the territory of the Russian Arctic open up unique possibilities for the development of tourism. More favourable transport opportunities along the Northern Sea Route (NSR) create opportunities for tourism development based on the utilisation of the extensive areas of sea shores and river basins. A major challenge for the Russian Arctic sea and river ports is their strong cargo transport orientation originated by natural resource extraction industries. A careful assessment of the prospects of current and future tourism development is presented here based on the development of regions located along the shores of the Arctic ocean (including Murmansk and Arkhangelsk oblast, Nenets Autonomous okrug (AO), Yamal-Nenets AO, Taymyr AO, Republic of Sakha, Chykotsky AO). An evaluation of the present development of tourism in maritime cities suggests that a considerable qualitative and quantitative increase of tourism activities organised by domestic tourism firms is made virtually impossible. There are several factors contributing to this. The previously established Soviet system of state support for the investments into the port facilities as well as the sea fleet were not effectively replaced by creation of new structures. The necessary investments for reconstruction could be contributed by the federal government but the priorities are not set towards the increased passenger transportation. Having in mind, increased environmental pressures in this highly sensitive area it is especially vital to establish a well-functioning monitoring and rescue system in the situation of ever increasing risks which come not only from the increased transports along the NSR, but also from the exploitation of the offshore oil and gas reserves in the Arctic seas. The capacity and knowledge established in Nordic countries (Norway, Finland) concerning cruise tourism should not be underestimated and the already functioning cooperation in Barents Region should expand towards this particular segment of the tourism industry. The current stage of economic development in Russia makes it clear that tourism development is not able to compete with the well-needed increase in the cargo transportation, which means that Russia’s fleet is going to be utilised by other industries. However, opening up this area to both local and international visitors could contribute to the economic prosperity of these remote areas and if carefully managed could sustain already existing maritime cities along the shores of the Arctic Ocean.

Health system context and implementation of evidence-based practices-development and validation of the Context Assessment for Community Health (COACH) tool for low- and middle-income settings

Background: The gap between what is known and what is practiced results in health service users not benefitting from advances in healthcare, and in unnecessary costs. A supportive context is considered a key element for successful implementation of evidence-based practices (EBP). There were no tools available for the systematic mapping of aspects of organizational context influencing the implementation of EBPs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Thus, this project aimed to develop and psychometrically validate a tool for this purpose. Methods: The development of the Context Assessment for Community Health (COACH) tool was premised on the context dimension in the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework, and is a derivative product of the Alberta Context Tool. Its development was undertaken in Bangladesh, Vietnam, Uganda, South Africa and Nicaragua in six phases: (1) defining dimensions and draft tool development, (2) content validity amongst in-country expert panels, (3) content validity amongst international experts, (4) response process validity, (5) translation and (6) evaluation of psychometric properties amongst 690 health workers in the five countries. Results: The tool was validated for use amongst physicians, nurse/midwives and community health workers. The six phases of development resulted in a good fit between the theoretical dimensions of the COACH tool and its psychometric properties. The tool has 49 items measuring eight aspects of context: Resources, Community engagement, Commitment to work, Informal payment, Leadership, Work culture, Monitoring services for action and Sources of knowledge. Conclusions: Aspects of organizational context that were identified as influencing the implementation of EBPs in high-income settings were also found to be relevant in LMICs. However, there were additional aspects of context of relevance in LMICs specifically Resources, Community engagement, Commitment to work and Informal payment. Use of the COACH tool will allow for systematic description of the local healthcare context prior implementing healthcare interventions to allow for tailoring implementation strategies or as part of the evaluation of implementing healthcare interventions and thus allow for deeper insights into the process of implementing EBPs in LMICs.