scholarly journals Salient stakeholders: Using the salience stakeholder model to assess stakeholders’ influence in healthcare priority setting

2021 ◽  
pp. 100048
Author(s):  
Lydia Kapiriri ◽  
Donya Shaghayegh Razavi
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Stakeholder Model

Strategi Program Eco-School Dalam Menghadirkan Karakter Peduli Lingkungan

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-139
Author(s):  
Vina Karmilasari ◽  
◽  
Devi Sutrisno Putri ◽  
Dodi Faedlulloh ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Stakeholder Model

Fenomena bencan alam yang datang silih berganti belakangan ini menyentak pikiran dan membuat kita berpikir kebelakang untuk menghubungkan kejadian-kejadian tersebut dengan proses pendidikan yang telah diterapkan. Eco-school merupakan program besar yang mewadahi keinginan sekolah untuk berperan dalam melestarikan lingkungan. Program eco-school menggabungkan pembelajaran dan tindakan, sehingga menjadi metode yang efektif untuk mengubah perilaku dan membentuk karakter. Undang-undang Nomor 20 tahun 2003 tentang sistem pendidikan Nasional dan Peraturan Presiden Nomor 87 tahun 2017 tentang Penguatan Pendidikan Karakter menegaskan pentingnya melakukan revolusi karakter bangsa. Program Penguatan Pendidikan Karakter (PPK) ini sejalan dengan agenda Nawacita penguatan karakter bangsa melalui budi pekerti dan pembangunan karakter peserta didik sebagai bagian dari revolusi mental. Dalam Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Panjang Nasional (RPJPN) tahun 2005-2025, secara implisit ditegaskan Pemerintah menjadikan pembangunan karakter sebagai salah satu program prioritas pembangunan nasional. Untuk dapat mencapai target maksimal dari penerapan eco-school maka dibutuhkan strategi yang sesuai dan mumpuni dalam mengeksekusi seluruh program tersebut. Mengedepankan proses interaksi komunikasi yang mendalam antara peneliti dengan fenomena yang diteliti, maka penelitian memperoleh formulasi strategi berupa langkah kerja eco-school yakni: a) sosialisasi; b) pendidikan; c) pemberdayaan; d) pembudayaan; e) kerjasama peran stakeholder. Model strategi yang tersebut diharapkan dapat berkontribusi guna membentuk karakter siswa peduli lingkungan yang kemudian secara beriringan mendukung tercapainya tujuan pembangunan berkelajutan (sustainable development) melalui karakter peduli lingkungan.

Pengembangan Keswadayaan Kelompok PEW sebagai Strategi Pemberdayaan Ekonomi Berbasis Kewilayahan di Kota Yogyakarta

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 160
Author(s):  
Yuli Kurniyati ◽  
Bening Hadilinatih
Keyword(s):  
Participant Observation ◽  
Group Discussion ◽  
Monitoring And Evaluation ◽  
Develop Model ◽  
Economic Empowerment ◽  
Self Reliance ◽  
Stakeholder Model ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
The City ◽  
Group Self

<p>Areas Based Economic Empowerment Program (Program Ekonomi Berbasis Kewilayahan/PEW) is a program designed to focus on the learning process and empowercommunities through local economic institutions to shore up the economy of thecommunity itself. This study aims to: 1). Knowing the PEW Group self-reliance inorganizing services to members in order to regionally based economic empowerment.2). Identifying the factors management, member participation and partnership thathinder or support the PEW Group self-reliance and self-reliance opportunities for effortsto develop a support group for regionally based economic empowerment, 3). Formula tepolicy recommendations for the city authorities to develop and implement a model ofselfreliance development PEW group as a regionally based economic empowerment strategy in the city of Yogyakarta. This research is qualitative research, the research took place in the townYogyakarta. The collecting data techniques used were: study documentation, participant, observation, in-depth interviews, and focus group discussion (FGD). In the first studywere: 1). Evaluating Performance PEW Group 2). Identify factors inhibiting andsupporting self-sufficiency Group 3). Self-Supporting analyze PEW Group 4). Early formulation compile policy recommendations group. The research development model of self-reliance. Year II study is 1). Self-Supporting Group to develop a model based onthe results of Phase I study 2). Validation conduct joint FGD Stakeholder Model through3). Develop Model Self-Supporting Implementation Handbook. Results showed that the level of self-reliance menilitian PEW group is still low. This isreflected in the level of independence that is still low, both in terms of independence inthe administration, self-reliance and independence in the management of the assets. PEW group of selfsufficiency level is still low, due to several factors, namely: (1) Capacity Board PEW Group is still low (2) The lack of participation of members of the Group, and (3) lack of stakeholder support. Another factor that still require serious treatment that can increase self-reliance PEW Group is a factor Assistance Group Implementation and Monitoring and Evaluation during implementation is still lacking.</p>

Global Health Priority-Setting

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Health Resources ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Health Priorities ◽  
Health Coverage ◽  
Household Finances ◽  
Health Gains ◽  
Global Priority ◽  
Financing Gap

Global health is at a crossroads. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has come with ambitious targets for health and health services worldwide. To reach these targets, many more billions of dollars need to be spent on health. However, development assistance for health has plateaued and domestic funding on health in most countries is growing at rates too low to close the financing gap. National and international decision-makers face tough choices about how scarce health care resources should be spent. Should additional funds be spent on primary prevention of stroke, treating childhood cancer, or expanding treatment for HIV/AIDS? Should health coverage decisions take into account the effects of illness on productivity, household finances, and children’s educational attainment, or should they just focus on health outcomes? Does age matter for priority-setting or should it be ignored? Are health gains far in the future less important than gains in the present? Should higher priority be given to people who are sicker or poorer? This book provides a framework for how to think about evidence-based priority-setting in health. Over 18 chapters, ethicists, philosophers, economists, policymakers, and clinicians from around the world assess the state of current practice in national and global priority-setting, describe new tools and methodologies to address establishing global health priorities, and tackle the most important ethical questions that decision-makers must consider in allocating health resources.

scholarly journals Long-term views on chronic kidney disease research priorities among stakeholders engaged in a priority-setting partnership: A qualitative study

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 1142-1149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meghan J. Elliott ◽  
Joanna E. M. Sale ◽  
Zahra Goodarzi ◽  
Linda Wilhelm ◽  
Andreas Laupacis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Disease Research ◽  
A Priority ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership

scholarly journals Sharing power in global health research: an ethical toolkit for designing priority-setting processes that meaningfully include communities

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridget Pratt
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Reflective Equilibrium ◽  
Empirical Work ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Project Planning ◽  
Global Health Research ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Health Research Priority Setting

AbstractTo promote social justice and equity, global health research should meaningfully engage communities throughout projects: from setting agendas onwards. But communities, especially those that are considered disadvantaged or marginalised, rarely have a say in the priorities of the research projects that aim to help them. So far, there remains limited ethical guidance and resources on how to share power with communities in health research priority-setting. This paper presents an “ethical toolkit” for academic researchers and their community partners to use to design priority-setting processes that meaningfully include the communities impacted by their projects. An empirical reflective equilibrium approach was employed to develop the toolkit. Conceptual work articulated ethical considerations related to sharing power in g0l0o0bal health research priority-setting, developed guidance on how to address them, and created an initial version of the toolkit. Empirical work (51 in-depth interviews, 1 focus group, 2 case studies in India and the Philippines) conducted in 2018 and 2019 then tested those findings against information from global health research practice. The final ethical toolkit is a reflective project planning aid. It consists of 4 worksheets (Worksheet 1- Selecting Partners; Worksheet 2- Deciding to Partner; Worksheet 3- Deciding to Engage with the Wider Community; Worksheet 4- Designing Priority-setting) and a Companion Document detailing how to use them. Reflecting on and discussing the questions in Worksheets 1 to 4 before priority-setting will help deliver priority-setting processes that share power with communities and projects with research topics and questions that more accurately reflect their healthcare and system needs.

scholarly journals Development of a checklist to guide equity considerations in health technology assessment

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Benkhalti ◽  
Manuel Espinoza ◽  
Richard Cookson ◽  
Vivian Welch ◽  
Peter Tugwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Translation ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Health Inequities ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Pilot Test

Abstract Objectives Health technology assessment (HTA) can impact health inequities by informing healthcare priority-setting decisions. This paper presents a novel checklist to guide HTA practitioners looking to include equity considerations in their work: the equity checklist for HTA (ECHTA). The list is pragmatically organized according to the generic HTA phases and can be consulted at each step. Methods A first set of items was based on the framework for equity in HTA developed by Culyer and Bombard. After rewording and reorganizing according to five HTA phases, they were complemented by elements emerging from a literature search. Consultations with method experts, decision makers, and stakeholders further refined the items. Further feedback was sought during a presentation of the tool at an international HTA conference. Lastly, the checklist was piloted through all five stages of an HTA. Results ECHTA proposes elements to be considered at each one of the five HTA phases: Scoping, Evaluation, Recommendations and Conclusions, Knowledge Translation and Implementation, and Reassessment. More than a simple checklist, the tool provides details and examples that guide the evaluators through an analysis in each phase. A pilot test is also presented, which demonstrates the ECHTA's usability and added value. Conclusions ECHTA provides guidance for HTA evaluators wishing to ensure that their conclusions do not contribute to inequalities in health. Several points to build upon the current checklist will be addressed by a working group of experts, and further feedback is welcome from evaluators who have used the tool.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document