The ERA-ENVHEALTH Project: Coordination of National Environment and Health Research Programmes–Environment and Health ERA-NET

Epidemiology ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. S109
Author(s):  
Adrienne Pittman ◽  
Mohssine El Kalhoun ◽  
Salma Elreedy ◽  
Bart Verhagen
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Environment And Health ◽  
Research Programmes ◽  
National Environment ◽  
Project Coordination

Environment and Health Research in China: The State of the Field

2013 ◽  
Vol 214 ◽  
pp. 255-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Holdaway
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Civil Society ◽  
Social Science ◽  
International Collaboration ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Environment And Health ◽  
The Social ◽  
Recent Developments

AbstractIn the context of this symposium, this article reviews social science research in the emerging field of environment and health in China, with a particular focus on the impacts of pollution. It begins with a discussion of the particular nature of China's environment-related health problems, distinguishing the different challenges presented by diseases of poverty, affluence and transition. It then reviews recent developments in policy and civil society with regard to environment and health, and the extent to which work in the social sciences has advanced our knowledge of these and of state–society interactions. The article concludes with some reflections on the need for and challenges of interdisciplinary and international collaboration in this area.

Our Pathway To A Successful Non-Medical Research Strategy – A Culture Shift Five Years On

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 2-2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anju Jaggi ◽  
Anthony Gilbert ◽  
Mindy Cairns ◽  
Rachel Dalton
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Quality Care ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Research Strategy ◽  
Professional Staff ◽  
Research Activity ◽  
Strategic Objective ◽  
Research Programmes

Background/Aims There is increasing evidence that research-active healthcare provider organisations provide better quality care, increased treatment options and improved clinical outcomes. Delivering evidence based clinical care and a high academic profile was identified as a key strategic objective at a tertiary orthopaedic hospital in the UK. Methods In 2013, the organisation appointed a Director of Therapies and a Consultant physiotherapist with protected time to develop a therapies research strategy. Focus groups were held across the directorate (140 staff across all pay bands and grades including non-professional staff) to identify current research activity, barriers and enablers to developing a research active department. Data were analysed thematically and findings used to inform a 5-year research strategy. Results Five key actions were identified: (1) identifying research programmes in clinical teams; (2) research as a key team objective; (3) provide appropriate research training and education; (4) identify talent and research champions; (5) develop external collaborations with appropriate academic and commercial partners. In 2014, a commercial grant was successful and a therapies research coordinator was appointed to support staff training and research processes. In 2016, a 2-year grant received from the hospital charity supported this ongoing role alongside funding with a higher education institute to provide methodological support, writing skills and grant applications. To date, this has resulted in six peer-reviewed articles and further external funding. Novice researchers have been supported resulting in a National Institute for Health Research PhD fellowship and two National Institute for Health Research internships to build capability. Clinical teams have identified research programmes to maximise resources and time. Of the total number of registered projects, 41% of were submitted to national/international scientific conferences compared to only 16% in 2014. Conclusions The key to a successful research strategy in a clinical setting requires clear strategic support, leadership, talent spotting and training. However, dedicated resources and investment is required for delivery of projects to publications.

scholarly journals Models and applications for measuring the impact of health research: update of a systematic review for the Health Technology Assessment programme

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (76) ◽  
pp. 1-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Raftery ◽  
Steve Hanney ◽  
Trish Greenhalgh ◽  
Matthew Glover ◽  
Amanda Blatch-Jones
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Logic Model ◽  
Research Programmes ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Selection Of

BackgroundThis report reviews approaches and tools for measuring the impact of research programmes, building on, and extending, a 2007 review.Objectives(1) To identify the range of theoretical models and empirical approaches for measuring the impact of health research programmes; (2) to develop a taxonomy of models and approaches; (3) to summarise the evidence on the application and use of these models; and (4) to evaluate the different options for the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme.Data sourcesWe searched databases including Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and The Cochrane Library from January 2005 to August 2014.Review methodsThis narrative systematic literature review comprised an update, extension and analysis/discussion. We systematically searched eight databases, supplemented by personal knowledge, in August 2014 through to March 2015.ResultsThe literature on impact assessment has much expanded. The Payback Framework, with adaptations, remains the most widely used approach. It draws on different philosophical traditions, enhancing an underlying logic model with an interpretative case study element and attention to context. Besides the logic model, other ideal type approaches included constructionist, realist, critical and performative. Most models in practice drew pragmatically on elements of several ideal types. Monetisation of impact, an increasingly popular approach, shows a high return from research but relies heavily on assumptions about the extent to which health gains depend on research. Despite usually requiring systematic reviews before funding trials, the HTA programme does not routinely examine the impact of those trials on subsequent systematic reviews. The York/Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation toolkits provide ways of assessing such impact, but need to be evaluated. The literature, as reviewed here, provides very few instances of a randomised trial playing a major role in stopping the use of a new technology. The few trials funded by the HTA programme that may have played such a role were outliers.DiscussionThe findings of this review support the continued use of the Payback Framework by the HTA programme. Changes in the structure of the NHS, the development of NHS England and changes in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s remit pose new challenges for identifying and meeting current and future research needs. Future assessments of the impact of the HTA programme will have to take account of wider changes, especially as the Research Excellence Framework (REF), which assesses the quality of universities’ research, seems likely to continue to rely on case studies to measure impact. The HTA programme should consider how the format and selection of case studies might be improved to aid more systematic assessment. The selection of case studies, such as in the REF, but also more generally, tends to be biased towards high-impact rather than low-impact stories. Experience for other industries indicate that much can be learnt from the latter. The adoption of researchfish®(researchfish Ltd, Cambridge, UK) by most major UK research funders has implications for future assessments of impact. Although the routine capture of indexed research publications has merit, the degree to which researchfish will succeed in collecting other, non-indexed outputs and activities remains to be established.LimitationsThere were limitations in how far we could address challenges that faced us as we extended the focus beyond that of the 2007 review, and well beyond a narrow focus just on the HTA programme.ConclusionsResearch funders can benefit from continuing to monitor and evaluate the impacts of the studies they fund. They should also review the contribution of case studies and expand work on linking trials to meta-analyses and to guidelines.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research HTA programme.

Umwelt und Gesundheit

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Medicine ◽  
Human Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
General Relationship ◽  
Environment And Health ◽  
History Of ◽  
Broad Variety ◽  
Umwelt Und Gesundheit

The series ‘Health Research. Interdisciplinary Perspectives’ is published annually and focuses on topics relating to all aspects of health. Our aim is to take interdisciplinarity as an aspiration seriously and provide the latest findings on current issues from different disciplinary perspectives. This volume addresses the highly topical subject of the environment and health, considering the general relationship between humans and the environment as well as their specific interdependence and the consequences they have on each other. From the history of environmental medicine to the statutory framework or practical (supra-) regional phenomena that could have an effect on human health, this book takes into account a broad variety of aspects and disciplinary viewpoints. With contributions by Daniela Bayr, Christoph Beck, Josef Cyrys, Athanasios Damialis, Michael Ertl, Verena Fricke, Thomas Fuchs, Ulrich M. Gassner, Michael Gerstlauer, Esther Giemsa, Gertrud Hammel, Jasmin Hartmann, Julia von Hayek, Elke Hertig, Clemens Heuson, Barbara Hoffmann, Claudia Hornberg, Jucundus Jacobeit, Jens Kersten, Franziska Kolek, Bernhard Kuch, Benjamin Kühlbach, Alexandra Manzei, Christa Meisinger, Markus Naumann, Andrea Pauli, Annette Peters, Andreas Philipp, Nora Pösl, Joachim Rathmann, Wolfgang von Scheidt, Alexandra Schneider, Stefanie Seubert, Jens Soentgen, Pia Sperlich, Annette Straub, Claudia Traidl-Hoffmann, Felix Tretter

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document