926 resultados para Model for priority setting
Resumo:
The main objectives of this paper are to: firstly, identify key issues related to sustainable intelligent buildings (environmental, social, economic and technological factors); develop a conceptual model for the selection of the appropriate KPIs; secondly, test critically stakeholder's perceptions and values of selected KPIs intelligent buildings; and thirdly develop a new model for measuring the level of sustainability for sustainable intelligent buildings. This paper uses a consensus-based model (Sustainable Built Environment Tool- SuBETool), which is analysed using the analytical hierarchical process (AHP) for multi-criteria decision-making. The use of the multi-attribute model for priority setting in the sustainability assessment of intelligent buildings is introduced. The paper commences by reviewing the literature on sustainable intelligent buildings research and presents a pilot-study investigating the problems of complexity and subjectivity. This study is based upon a survey perceptions held by selected stakeholders and the value they attribute to selected KPIs. It is argued that the benefit of the new proposed model (SuBETool) is a ‘tool’ for ‘comparative’ rather than an absolute measurement. It has the potential to provide useful lessons from current sustainability assessment methods for strategic future of sustainable intelligent buildings in order to improve a building's performance and to deliver objective outcomes. Findings of this survey enrich the field of intelligent buildings in two ways. Firstly, it gives a detailed insight into the selection of sustainable building indicators, as well as their degree of importance. Secondly, it tesst critically stakeholder's perceptions and values of selected KPIs intelligent buildings. It is concluded that the priority levels for selected criteria is largely dependent on the integrated design team, which includes the client, architects, engineers and facilities managers.
Resumo:
This paper develops an account of the normative basis of priority setting in health care as combining the values which a given society holds for the common good of its members, with the universal provided by a principle of common humanity. We discuss national differences in health basket in Europe and argue that health care decision-making in complex social and moral frameworks is best thought of as anchored in such a principle by drawing on the philosophy of need. We show that health care needs are ethically ‘thick’ needs whose psychological and social construction can best be understood in terms of David Wiggins's notion of vital need: a person's need is vital when failure to meet it leads to their harm and suffering. The moral dimension of priority setting which operates across different societies’ health care systems is located in the demands both of and on any society to avoid harm to its members.
Resumo:
Introduction There is a renewed call for a new approach to development with emphasis on community empowerment or participation, with the belief that more sustainable activities will be undertaken in those communities. Much of that call, however, is coming not from within the communities, but primarily from advocates of change who may have little to do with those communities. What then will the new approach bring apart from a change in who are the decision-makers? And how do we ensure that the change that is called for will, in fact, bring added benefits to the communities themselves? To be sure, there are some successful stories of a community approach to problem solving. However, there are also many more stories of project failures. Serious analytical work, therefore, needs to be done to determine the factors that promote a successful community-based approach; when this approach should be used; and the methodology that should be employed. In an attempt to determine these factors, a brief analysis will be made of some of the governing structures in the subregion and their possible impact on the proposed new approach. Some of the earlier efforts at stakeholder and community approach to projects will also be examined as well as the new development strategy that is prompting the call for this new paradigm. The new paradigm focuses to a large extent on decision-making and community empowerment. With few exceptions, it is short on the promotion of tangible activities that are based on the resource inventory of the communities. This is not surprising, since, as noted before, the advocates of community empowerment may have very little connection with the communities and, in most cases, are unfamiliar with the resource base. Hence, a theoretical case is made, suggesting more style than substance. Another obvious shortcoming of this new paradigm is its continued over- dependence on assistance from the outside to build communities. Externally funded projects, seminars and meetings outside of the communities and foreign technical assistance continue to dominate these projects. While, of course, all communities have basic common needs such as water, health, education and electricity, there is sufficient diversity within communities to allow for tailoring of activities and programmes such that their differences become assets. It is in that context, that agro-tourism activities, standards, agricultural diversification, food and nutrition and priority setting have been chosen as aspects and activities for promoting community development, drawing on the various strengths of communities, rural or urban.
Resumo:
Introduction The Scottish Oral Health Research Collaboration identified dental education research (DER) as a key strand of their strategy,(1) leading to the formation of the Dental Education Research Group. The starting point for this group was to understand various stakeholders’ perceptions of research priorities, yet no existing studies were found. The aim of the current study was to identify DER priorities for Scotland in the next 3-5 years. Methods The study utilised a similar methodology to that of Dennis et al,(2) in medical education. Data were collected sequentially using two online questionnaires with multiple dental stakeholders represented at undergraduate and postgraduate levels across urban and rural Scotland. 85 participants completed questionnaire 1 (qualitative) and 649 participants completed questionnaire 2 (quantitative). Qualitative and quantitative data analysis approaches were used. Results Of the 24 priorities identified, the top priorities were: role of assessments in identifying competence; undergraduate curriculum prepares for practice; and promoting teamwork within the dental team. Following factor analysis, the priorities loaded on four factors: teamwork and professionalism, measuring and enhancing performance, personal and professional development challenges, and curriculum integration and innovation. The top barriers were lack of time, funding, staff motivation, valuing of DER, and resources/ infrastructure. Discussion There were many similarities between the identified priorities for dental and medical education research2, but also some notable differences, which will be discussed. Overwhelmingly, the identified priorities in dentistry related to fitness for practice and robust assessment practices. Take home message Priority setting exercises with multiple stakeholders are an important first step in developing a national research strategy. References 1. Bagg J, Macpherson L, Mossey P, Rennie J, Saunders B, Taylor M (2010) Strategy for Oral Health Research in Scotland. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government. 2. Dennis A A, Cleland J A, Johnston P, Ker JS, Lough, M Rees CE (2014) Exploring stakeholders’ views of medical education research priorities: a national study. Medical Education, 48(11): 1078-1091.
Resumo:
This James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership aimed to identify and prioritise unanswered questions about adult intensive care that are important to people who have been critically ill, their families, and the health professionals who care for them. Consensus techniques (modified Delphi and Nominal Group) were used to generate suggestions using online and postal surveys. Following verification and iterative editorial review, research topics were constructed from these suggestions. These topics were presented in a second online and postal survey for rating. A Nominal Group of 21 clinicians, patients and family representatives subsequently met to rank the most important research topics and produce a prioritised list. The project was coordinated by a representative Steering Group and independently overseen by the JLA. The initial survey and review of the literature generated over 1,300 suggestions. Preliminary editing and verification permitted us to encapsulate these suggestions within 151 research topics. Iterative review by members of the Steering Group produced 37 topic statements, subsequently rated by participants. Using the mode to determine importance, 19 topics were presented to the group from which a ‘top three’ intensive care research priorities were identified and a further nine topics were prioritised. By applying and adapting the JLA methodology to focus on an area of care rather than to a single disease, we have provided a means to ensure that patients, their families and professionals materially contribute to the prioritisation of intensive care research in the UK.
Resumo:
This epidemiological investigation examines the impact of several environmental sanitation conditions and hygiene practices on diarrhea occurrence among children under five years of age living in an urban area. The case-control design was employed; 997 cases and 999 controls were included in the investigation. Cases were defined as children with diarrhea and controls were randomly selected among children under five years of age. After logistic regression adjustment, the following variables were found to be significantly associated with diarrhea: washing and purifying fruit and vegetables; presence of wastewater in the street; refuse storage, collection and disposal; domestic water reservoir conditions; feces disposal from swaddles; presence of vectors in the house and flooding in the lot. The estimates of the relative risks reached values up to 2.87. The present study revealed the feasibility of developing and implementing an adequate model to establish intervention priorities in the field of environmental sanitation.
Resumo:
Article
Resumo:
Article
Resumo:
We consider a quantity-setting duopoly model, and we study the decision to move first or second, by assuming that. the firms produce homogeneous goods and that. there is some demand uncertainty. The competitive phase consists of two periods, and in either period, the firms can make a production decision that is irreversible. As far as the firms are allowed to choose (non-cooperatively) the period they make the decision, we study the circumstances that favour sequential rather than simultaneous decisions.
Resumo:
Current levels of endangerment and historical trends of species and habitats are the main criteria used to direct conservation efforts globally. Estimates of future declines, which might indicate different priorities than past declines, have been limited by the lack of appropriate data and models. Given that much of conservation is about anticipating and responding to future threats, our inability to look forward at a global scale has been a major constraint on effective action. Here, we assess the geography and extent of projected future changes in suitable habitat for terrestrial mammals within their present ranges. We used a global earth-system model, IMAGE, coupled with fine-scale habitat suitability models and parametrized according to four global scenarios of human development. We identified the most affected countries by 2050 for each scenario, assuming that no additional conservation actions other than those described in the scenarios take place. We found that, with some exceptions, most of the countries with the largest predicted losses of suitable habitat for mammals are in Africa and the Americas. African and North American countries were also predicted to host the most species with large proportional global declines. Most of the countries we identified as future hotspots of terrestrial mammal loss have little or no overlap with the present global conservation priorities, thus confirming the need for forward-looking analyses in conservation priority setting. The expected growth in human populations and consumption in hotspots of future mammal loss mean that local conservation actions such as protected areas might not be sufficient to mitigate losses. Other policies, directed towards the root causes of biodiversity loss, are required, both in Africa and other parts of the world.
Resumo:
Objectives: The objectives of this study is to review the set of criteria of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) for priority-setting in research with addition of new criteria if necessary, and to develop and evaluate the reliability and validity of the final priority score. Methods: Based on the evaluation of 199 research topics, forty-five experts identified additional criteria for priority-setting, rated their relevance, and ranked and weighted them in a three-round modified Delphi technique. A final priority score was developed and evaluated. Internal consistency, test–retest and inter-rater reliability were assessed. Correlation with experts’ overall qualitative topic ratings were assessed as an approximation to validity. Results: All seven original IOM criteria were considered relevant and two new criteria were added (“potential for translation into practice”, and “need for knowledge”). Final ranks and relative weights differed from those of the original IOM criteria: “research impact on health outcomes” was considered the most important criterion (4.23), as opposed to “burden of disease” (3.92). Cronbach’s alpha (0.75) and test–retest stability (interclass correlation coefficient = 0.66) for the final set of criteria were acceptable. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for overall assessment of priority was 0.66. Conclusions: A reliable instrument for prioritizing topics in clinical and health services research has been developed. Further evaluation of its validity and impact on selecting research topics is required
Resumo:
La formation des sociétés fondées sur la connaissance, le progrès de la technologie de communications et un meilleur échange d'informations au niveau mondial permet une meilleure utilisation des connaissances produites lors des décisions prises dans le système de santé. Dans des pays en voie de développement, quelques études sont menées sur des obstacles qui empêchent la prise des décisions fondées sur des preuves (PDFDP) alors que des études similaires dans le monde développé sont vraiment rares. L'Iran est le pays qui a connu la plus forte croissance dans les publications scientifiques au cours de ces dernières années, mais la question qui se pose est la suivante : quels sont les obstacles qui empêchent l'utilisation de ces connaissances de même que celle des données mondiales? Cette étude embrasse trois articles consécutifs. Le but du premier article a été de trouver un modèle pour évaluer l'état de l'utilisation des connaissances dans ces circonstances en Iran à l’aide d'un examen vaste et systématique des sources suivie par une étude qualitative basée sur la méthode de la Grounded Theory. Ensuite au cours du deuxième et troisième article, les obstacles aux décisions fondées sur des preuves en Iran, sont étudiés en interrogeant les directeurs, les décideurs du secteur de la santé et les chercheurs qui travaillent à produire des preuves scientifiques pour la PDFDP en Iran. Après avoir examiné les modèles disponibles existants et la réalisation d'une étude qualitative, le premier article est sorti sous le titre de «Conception d'un modèle d'application des connaissances». Ce premier article sert de cadre pour les deux autres articles qui évaluent les obstacles à «pull» et «push» pour des PDFDP dans le pays. En Iran, en tant que pays en développement, les problèmes se situent dans toutes les étapes du processus de production, de partage et d’utilisation de la preuve dans la prise de décision du système de santé. Les obstacles qui existent à la prise de décision fondée sur des preuves sont divers et cela aux différents niveaux; les solutions multi-dimensionnelles sont nécessaires pour renforcer l'impact de preuves scientifiques sur les prises de décision. Ces solutions devraient entraîner des changements dans la culture et le milieu de la prise de décision afin de valoriser la prise de décisions fondées sur des preuves. Les critères de sélection des gestionnaires et leur nomination inappropriée ainsi que leurs remplaçants rapides et les différences de paiement dans les secteurs public et privé peuvent affaiblir la PDFDP de deux façons : d’une part en influant sur la motivation des décideurs et d'autre part en détruisant la continuité du programme. De même, tandis que la sélection et le remplacement des chercheurs n'est pas comme ceux des gestionnaires, il n'y a aucun critère pour encourager ces deux groupes à soutenir le processus décisionnel fondés sur des preuves dans le secteur de la santé et les changements ultérieurs. La sélection et la promotion des décideurs politiques devraient être basées sur leur performance en matière de la PDFDP et les efforts des universitaires doivent être comptés lors de leurs promotions personnelles et celles du rang de leur institution. Les attitudes et les capacités des décideurs et des chercheurs devraient être encouragés en leur donnant assez de pouvoir et d’habiliter dans les différentes étapes du cycle de décision. Cette étude a révélé que les gestionnaires n'ont pas suffisamment accès à la fois aux preuves nationales et internationales. Réduire l’écart qui sépare les chercheurs des décideurs est une étape cruciale qui doit être réalisée en favorisant la communication réciproque. Cette question est très importante étant donné que l'utilisation des connaissances ne peut être renforcée que par l'étroite collaboration entre les décideurs politiques et le secteur de la recherche. Dans ce but des programmes à long terme doivent être conçus ; la création des réseaux de chercheurs et de décideurs pour le choix du sujet de recherche, le classement des priorités, et le fait de renforcer la confiance réciproque entre les chercheurs et les décideurs politiques semblent être efficace.