scholarly journals Reflections on science advisory systems in Canada

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Remi Quirion ◽  
Arthur Carty ◽  
Paul Dufour ◽  
Ramia Jabr
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Scientific Development ◽  
Recent Experience ◽  
Science Advisory ◽  
Science Advice ◽  
Complex Decision Making ◽  
Solid Foundation ◽  
Advisory Systems ◽  
The Impact

Abstract As the evolution of our world has triggered complexity and technological sophistication, it is now essential to consider sound scientific evidence as an integral element of decision-making. Science advisers or chief scientists have to take into account many factors in giving advice. Depending on the nature and level of advice, factors such as the ideology of the governing body, the state of the social, economic and scientific development in the country or region, potential impacts on the health, environment and security of the community, the balance of risk and reward in various options, must all be considered. Canada has lived through a few of these issues in its recent experience with science advice and advisory systems. This article will elaborate on the impact and influence of changes in science advisory bodies at the federal and Quebec government levels and will provide a perspective on their impact. It examines the historical evolution of the advisory apparatus for science throughout Canada’s history and underscores some of their successes and failures under different regimes. The conclusion drawn in this article is that science and science advisory systems in Canada have lacked continuity and a solid foundation thus weakening efforts to enable sound science-based policy into decision-making. The article argues for a more institutionalized and pluralistic approach to ensuring that evidence and science advice can endure—both at the federal and provincial levels. In many ways, the experience with these advisory mechanisms suggests a growing need to ensure sound advice within increasingly complex decision-making as well as a demand by citizens to have scientific evidence considered more carefully in public policy and for the public interest. This article is published as part of a collection on scientific advice to governments.

Abstract TP310: Effect of an Extended Treatment Window on Transfer Times in Patients With Stroke

Stroke ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dawn K Beland ◽  
Ilene Staff ◽  
Jenna Beckwith ◽  
Amre Nouh
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Process Of Care ◽  
Patient Demographics ◽  
Complex Decision Making ◽  
Complex Decision ◽  
Stroke Type ◽  
Comprehensive Stroke Center ◽  
Stroke Center ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Transfer Times

STK-OP-1 examines transfer times for patients going to a higher level of care. Known as door in, door out or DIDO, certified stroke centers are required to report times for both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke patients transferred to a Primary or Comprehensive Stroke Center (CSC). Purpose: Barriers to time-sensitive transfer and complex decision making are common. As a result, Hartford Healthcare (HHC) began a QI initiative to measure DIDO times while introducing advanced CTP imaging and treatment in the extended window, April 2018. This project evaluates the impact on DIDO. Methods: This multi-center QI project evaluated data pre and post implementation for stroke transfers to the CSC. Pre-implementation was May 2017 to April 2018, post-implementation May 2018 to March 2019. Patient and process of care data abstracted from Epic was entered into Excel. The main analysis compared median DIDO times using Wilcoxon Ranked Sum. Results: Data were collected on hospital, stroke type/severity and treatments administered; patient demographics, and key timing variables of door in/door out, EMS and CT. While there is no universal criterion for DIDO, 60 minutes is often the ultimate goal with 90 or 120 minutes as intermediate goals. Pre and post implementation median DIDO times for all hospitals were 117 and 139 minutes (p = 0.02), for HHC hospitals 115 and 137 minutes (p = 0.027) and for non-HHC hospitals 118 and 140.5 minutes (p = 0.423). Of the pre-implementation group, 7.8% had CTP imaging prior to transfer compared with 9.3% post. Extended times post-implementation include factors such as complex decision making, patient eligibility or hospital capacity issues. A new transfer algorithm was implemented April 2019. Future analyses will correlate DIDO with patient, stroke and treatment categories to better define delays and barriers. Relevance: A JC directive to CSCs are to develop supportive relationships with referring hospitals to facilitate efficient care. As decision making becomes more complex, the process for transfer needs to improve. DIDO goals need to be realistic to prevent secondary imaging at the CSC, i.e. the tradeoff for an extra 15 or 20 minutes should translate into shorter door to puncture times. Reducing the time to treatment may help improve patient outcomes.

scholarly journals Supporting surgeons in patient-centred complex decision-making: a qualitative analysis of the impact of a perioperative physician clinic

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e033277
Author(s):  
Clarabelle T Pham ◽  
Catherine L Gibb ◽  
Robert A Fitridge ◽  
Jon Karnon ◽  
Elizabeth Hoon
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Complex Patients ◽  
Complex Decision Making ◽  
Complex Decision ◽  
Additional Value ◽  
The Impact ◽  
High Risk Clinic

ObjectivePatients with comorbidities can be referred to a physician-led high-risk clinic for medical optimisation prior to elective surgery at the discretion of the surgical consultant, but the factors that influence this referral are not well understood. The aims of this study were to understand the factors that influence a surgeon’s decision to refer a patient to the clinic, and how the clinic impacts on the management of complex patients.DesignQualitative study using theoretical thematic analysis to analyse transcribed semi-structured interviews.SettingInterviews were held in either the surgical consultant’s private office or a quiet office/room in the hospital ward.ParticipantsSeven surgical consultants who were eligible to refer patients to the clinic.ResultsWhen discussing the factors that influence a referral to the clinic, all participants initially described the optimisation of comorbidities and would then discuss with examples the challenges with managing complex patients and communicating the risks involved with having surgery. When discussing the role of the clinic, two related subthemes were dominant and focused on the management of risk in complex patients. The participants valued the involvement of the clinic in the decision-making and communication of risks to the patient.ConclusionsThe integration of the high-risk clinic in this study appears to offer additional value in supporting the decision-making process for the surgical team and patient beyond the clinical outcomes. The factors that influence a surgeon’s decision to refer a patient to the clinic appear to be driven by the aim to manage the uncertainty and risk to the patient regarding surgery and it was seen as a strategy for managing difficult and complex cases.

scholarly journals Improving scientific impact: how to practice science that influences environmental policy and management

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Robert Brewster Fisher ◽  
Stephen Wood ◽  
Mark A. Bradford ◽  
T. Rodd Kelsey
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Environmental Policy ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Valuable Resource ◽  
Scientific Impact ◽  
Comprehensive Review ◽  
Environmental Decision Making ◽  
The Impact

Scientists devote substantial time and resources to research intended to help solve environmental problems. Environmental managers and policymakers must decide how to use the best available research evidence to prioritize actions leading to desired environmental outcomes. Yet decision-makers can face barriers to using scientific evidence to inform action. They may be unaware of the evidence, lack access to it, not understand it, or view it as irrelevant. These barriers mean a valuable resource (evidence) is underused. We outline a set of practical steps for scientists who want to improve the impact their research has on decision-making,: (1) Identify and understand the audience; (2) Clarify the need for evidence; (3) Gather "just enough" evidence; and (4) Share and discuss the evidence. These are guidelines, not a strict recipe for success. But we believe that regularly following these recommendations should increase the chance of scientific evidence being considered and used in environmental decision-making. Our goal is for this paper to be accessible to anyone, rather than a comprehensive review of the topic.

Replacing Chlorofluorocarbons in Industry

1990 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 23-26
Author(s):  
Kurt Weigel
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Ozone Depletion ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
South Pole ◽  
The South ◽  
Blowing Agents ◽  
Research Organizations ◽  
Speed Up ◽  
The Impact

Scientific evidence indicates that ozone depletion over the South Pole is more serious than was suspected a few years ago. As a result, production of the principal ozone-depleting compounds is scheduled to be phased out over the next decade. The impact of the elimination of these chemicals on industries will be immediate and significant, with the aerospace and electronics industries among the most severely affected. Alternative solvents, refrigerants, and foam-blowing agents are being developed, but will not be available in commercial quantities until 1992 at the earliest. Meanwhile, CFC users are working with the chemical manufacturers, EPA, DoD, and various research organizations, to speed up the process of identifying and implementing alternative compounds or processes. Most of the proposed alternatives have some drawbacks when compared with CFCs, but can be implemented safely if the user takes the time to understand the issues thoroughly and involves all affected parties in the decision-making process.

Examining the Impact of Training and Feedback on Visualization-Supported Decision Making under Uncertainty

2018 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 1449-1453
Author(s):  
Jihye Song ◽  
Olivia B. Newton ◽  
Stephen M. Fiore ◽  
Jonathan Coad ◽  
Jared Clark ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Ecological Validity ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Decision Making Under Uncertainty ◽  
Cognitive Efficiency ◽  
Training Interventions ◽  
Complex Decision Making ◽  
Complex Decision ◽  
Task Training ◽  
The Impact

Empirical evaluations of uncertainty visualizations often employ complex experimental tasks to ensure ecological validity. However, if training for such tasks is not sufficient for naïve participants, differences in performance could be due to the visualizations or to differences in task comprehension, making interpretation of findings problematic. Research has begun to assess how training is related to performance on decision-making tasks using uncertainty visualizations. This study continues this line of research by investigating how training, in general, and feedback, in particular, affect performance on a simulated resource allocation task. Additionally, we examined how this alters metacognition and workload to produce differences in cognitive efficiency. Our results suggest that, on a complex decision-making task, training plays a critical role in performance with respect to accuracy, subjective workload, and cognitive efficiency. This study has implications for improving research on complex decision making, and for designing more efficacious training interventions to assess uncertainty visualizations.

scholarly journals Optimization-Based TOPSIS Method with Incomplete Weight Information under Nested Probabilistic-Numerical Linguistic Environment

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Yan Deng ◽  
Xinxin Wang ◽  
Chao Min
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Assessment ◽  
Quantitative Information ◽  
Distance Measures ◽  
Topsis Method ◽  
Uncertain Environments ◽  
Attribute Weight ◽  
Complex Decision Making ◽  
Incomplete Weight ◽  
The Impact

With the development of the economic and technology, decision-making problems are more and more complex and uncertain. Experts have difficulty in expressing evaluation information because of different research background and insufficient cognition of knowledge structure. Attribute weight information has been often incomplete in decision-making problems. Considering that nested probabilistic-numerical linguistic term sets (NPNLTSs) are flexible to express qualitative and quantitative information, in this paper, we firstly establish an optimization model based on distance measures to obtain the attribute weight. Combined with a classical decision-making method, an optimization-based TOPSIS method with NPNLTSs is proposed to deal with complex decision-making problems. After that, a case study about the river health assessment is given to show the effectiveness and practicability of the proposed method. Finally, some comparative analysis and discussion are provided from three aspects, including the impact for the results without weight optimization, the impact for the results under other uncertain environments, and the impact for the results using other decision-making methods. As a result, the proposed optimization-based TOPSIS method is effective and reliable. The optimization-based TOPSIS method proposed in this paper provides a new way to deal with uncertain and practical problems, which makes a technically sound contribution to the decision-making field.

scholarly journals How Does Part-Time Farming Affect Farmers’ Adoption of Conservation Agriculture in Jianghan Plain, China?

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (16) ◽  
pp. 5983
Author(s):  
Xin Yang ◽  
Yiming Sang
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Conservation Agriculture ◽  
Positive Influence ◽  
Jianghan Plain ◽  
The Sustainable Development ◽  
Multivariate Logistic Model ◽  
Part Time ◽  
Complex Decision Making ◽  
Complex Decision ◽  
The Impact

Part-time farming has been suggested by scholars to play an important part in farmers’ decision making, but seldom empirical evidence has been done on the field of conservation agriculture (CA) technology adoption worldwide. Based on the field survey data of 433 farmers in Jianghan Plain, China, this paper estimate the impact of part-time farming on farmers’ adoption of CA technology by applying the multivariate logistic model. The results show that 91.92% of the farmers adopted CA technology. Part-time farming had a highly significant positive influence on the likelihood of adoption. Moreover, the impact degree increased along with the deepening of part-time farming. In addition, farmers’ adoption behaviors were affected by gender, contracted land area, economic welfare cognition and social welfare cognition. Our results help to understand farmers’ complex decision-making on farmland and to promote the sustainable development of agriculture in Jianghan Plain. A somewhat targeted approach to design policies to support technological, policy and institutional interventions to encourage farmers to engage in part-time farming are recommended, especially in areas that share similar edaphic and climatic characteristics with Jianghan Plain.

Mental models, communication, and engagement in marine projects

2017 ◽  
Vol 74 (7) ◽  
pp. 2034-2039 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabio Boschetti ◽  
Matthew Andreotta
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mental Models ◽  
Information Needs ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Engagement Process ◽  
Causal Layered Analysis ◽  
Common Framework ◽  
Complex Decision Making

Abstract In a hypothetical decision-making situation in which a unique truth exists and each party’s aim in acquiring knowledge is to approach the truth, argumentation would be unnecessary because the best scientific theory would win the argument. Likewise, if truth is irrelevant and a perfect persuasion method is available, argumentation would also be pointless, because arguing parties, each possessing the perfect recipe, would lead a third party to switch sides endlessly. In the real world, argumentation matters because a unique truth rarely exists, information can be uncertain or vague, aims are often ambiguous if not contradictory, and acquiring knowledge can have other purposes besides approaching the truth. Marine scientists are increasingly expected to contribute to complex decision-making by providing not only scientific evidence, but also impact in the form of effective communication and persuasion. Here we review insights from different disciplines on how humans organise knowledge, beliefs, opinions, assumptions and worldviews, how these interrelate and how they affect decision-making as well as the reception of information. By focussing on the theory of mental models and the Causal Layered Analysis we also show how the structure underlying the organisation of scientific and non-scientific knowledge can be reduced to a fairly common framework. We conclude by reviewing some tools a marine scientist can employ in a stakeholder engagement process in order to better understand the audience to which scientific information needs to be delivered.

scholarly journals Advocacy science and fisheries decision-making

2011 ◽  
Vol 68 (10) ◽  
pp. 2007-2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jake C. Rice
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Ecological Economic ◽  
Privileged Position ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Science Advice ◽  
Different Types ◽  
The Right ◽  
Governance Processes ◽  
The Impact

AbstractRice, J. C. 2011. Advocacy science and fisheries decision-making. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 68: 2007–2012. Science advice is supposed to meet idealistic standards for objectivity, impartiality, and lack of bias. Acknowledging that science advisors are imperfect at meeting those standards, they nonetheless need to strive to produce sound, non-partisan advice, because of the privileged accountability given to science advice in decision-making. When science advisors cease to strive for those ideals and promote advocacy science, such advice loses the right to that privileged position. There are temptations to shape science advice by using information that “strengthens” the conservation case selectively. Giving in to such temptation, however, dooms the advice; science advice becomes viewed as expressions of the biases of those who provide it rather than reflecting the information on which the advice is based. Everyone, including the ecosystems, loses. There are ways to increase the impact of science advice on decision-making that do not involve perverting science advice into advocacy: peer review by diverse experts, integrating advice on ecological, economic, and social information and outcomes, and focusing advisory approaches on risks, costs, and trade-offs of different types of management error. These approaches allow the science experts to be active, informed participants in the governance processes to aid sound decision-making, not to press for preselected outcomes. Everyone, including the ecosystems, wins.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document