scholarly journals Prioritising CAP Intervention Needs: An Improved Cumulative Voting Approach

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 3997
Author(s):  
Roberto Cagliero ◽  
Francesco Bellini ◽  
Francesco Marcatto ◽  
Silvia Novelli ◽  
Alessandro Monteleone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Planning Process ◽  
Strategic Plan ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Agricultural Activities ◽  
Agriculture Policy ◽  
Implementation Model ◽  
National Strategic Plan ◽  
Cumulative Voting ◽  
Regional Authorities

The process to define the 2023–2027 Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) is underway. The implementation model governing the process requires each EU Member State to design a National Strategic Plan to deliver operational actions exploiting the synergies under the two pillars of the policy. Each Plan must be built from an evidence-based needs assessment that undergoes rigorous prioritisation and planning to create comprehensive, integrated, and achievable interventions. In Italy, the success of this planning process requires all interested stakeholders to generate options for the regional authorities who plan, manage, and legislate agricultural activities. This research proposes a decision-making technique, based on the cumulative voting approach, that can be used effectively when multiple persons from different backgrounds and perspectives are engaged in problem-solving and needs prioritisation. The results indicate that the model can be applied both theoretically and practically to prioritise Strategic Plan needs that involve national and regional authorities. Validation of the model allows it to be used in the next consultative processes and for expansion to socioeconomic stakeholders.

BIO19-022: Reducing Patient Waiting Times for Treatment Decision Making, Helps in Improving the Treatment Planning Process

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (3.5) ◽  
pp. BIO19-022
Author(s):  
Naresh Ramarajan ◽  
Farzana Begum ◽  
Gitika Srivastava
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Planning Process ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Waiting Times ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
High Confidence ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Plans

Background: Availability of care is an important characteristic of effective primary healthcare systems. Imbalanced oncologist to patient ratios (∼1600: 1.8 M in India, ∼23,000: 15 M in USA), impedes access to expertise. On average it takes a week or more to get an online expert review from leading cancer hospitals in the United States and in India. Such delays have an important psychosocial impact on the patient and caregivers. Patients worldwide often race to start treatments at non-expert centers and may experience worse health outcomes from lack of expert tumor board review of their cases. This study aimed to examine the impact of Navya, a health services technology, on reducing the patient wait time in real-time treatment decision making. Methods: Navya generates personalized treatment plans that maps 98.8% within NCCN Resource Stratified Guidelines [SABCS 2017, NCCN 2018]. This is vetted on mobile by oncologists at tertiary centers like TMC NCG to provide expert opinion reports to patients. Since 2015, approximately 25,775 patients from 60 countries have reached out for an online opinion. On the ground, 78% of patients received evidence-based treatments recommended by Navya [ASCO 2017]. The Navya system releases preliminary system-generated opinions for patients whose treatment plans fit high confidence based on NCCN Guidelines and prior expert reviews. The mean reduction in time between a system-generated opinion and an expert-reviewed opinion was studied in a prospective cohort of patients between July 1, 2017, and August 30, 2018. Results: 313 patients received a system-generated treatment plan in the study period. Only approximately 10% of these plans were modified by experts to add additional treatment details since these were cases with high confidence in treatment decision-making. Navya delivered a preliminary treatment plan on an average of 86 hours (SD, 153 hours) prior to the expert response time. Of the 313 patients studied, 44% of patients would have waited an additional 3 days longer to receive an expert-reviewed recommendation. Conclusions: Navya’s NCCN and evidence-based treatment plans reduce the patient waiting times for an expert opinion average by 86 hours. This rapid confirmation of the right treatment plan at the time of patient need has potential to relieve patient anxieties at critical junctures in treatment decision-making and helps improve the treatment-planning process.

Abstraction: An alternative neurocognitive account of recognition, prediction, and decision making

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie F. Reyna ◽  
David A. Broniatowski
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Software Engineering ◽  
Systems Engineering ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Extensive Literature ◽  
Trace Theory ◽  
Fuzzy Trace Theory ◽  
Abstract Representations ◽  
Technical Systems

Abstract Gilead et al. offer a thoughtful and much-needed treatment of abstraction. However, it fails to build on an extensive literature on abstraction, representational diversity, neurocognition, and psychopathology that provides important constraints and alternative evidence-based conceptions. We draw on conceptions in software engineering, socio-technical systems engineering, and a neurocognitive theory with abstract representations of gist at its core, fuzzy-trace theory.

Debates in Dysphagia Management: How Do You Use Evidence-Based Practice in Your Dysphagia Patient Care?

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 121-123
Author(s):  
Jeri A. Logemann
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Method ◽  
Do So

Evidence-based practice requires astute clinicians to blend our best clinical judgment with the best available external evidence and the patient's own values and expectations. Sometimes, we value one more than another during clinical decision-making, though it is never wise to do so, and sometimes other factors that we are unaware of produce unanticipated clinical outcomes. Sometimes, we feel very strongly about one clinical method or another, and hopefully that belief is founded in evidence. Some beliefs, however, are not founded in evidence. The sound use of evidence is the best way to navigate the debates within our field of practice.

Evidence-based Assessment

2010 ◽  
pp. 76-98
Author(s):  
John Hunsley ◽  
Eric J. Mash
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Assessment ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
The Past ◽  
Specific Assessment ◽  
The Many ◽  
Selection Of ◽  
Made In

Evidence-based assessment relies on research and theory to inform the selection of constructs to be assessed for a specific assessment purpose, the methods and measures to be used in the assessment, and the manner in which the assessment process unfolds. An evidence-based approach to clinical assessment necessitates the recognition that, even when evidence-based instruments are used, the assessment process is a decision-making task in which hypotheses must be iteratively formulated and tested. In this chapter, we review (a) the progress that has been made in developing an evidence-based approach to clinical assessment in the past decade and (b) the many challenges that lie ahead if clinical assessment is to be truly evidence-based.

Statistical formats to optimize evidence-based decision making: A behavioral approach

2014 ◽  
Vol 67 (5) ◽  
pp. 790-794 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iván Arribas ◽  
Irene Comeig ◽  
Amparo Urbano ◽  
José Vila
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Behavioral Approach ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Evidence Based Decision Making

scholarly journals Sustainability Assessment and Agricultural Supply Chains Evidence-Based Multidimensional Analyses as Tools for Strategic Decision-Making—The Case of the Pineapple Supply Chain in Benin

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 2060
Author(s):  
Doriane Desclee ◽  
David Sohinto ◽  
Freddy Padonou
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
Supply Chains ◽  
Agricultural Sector ◽  
Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Strategic Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Agricultural Supply

Contributing to Sustainable Development Goals and Agenda 2030 is a shared objective of all institutions and people. The challenges differ according to the characteristics of every context. In developing countries, strongly dependent on the agricultural sector, agricultural supply chains are recognized as crucial for economic growth and enablers for livelihood improvement. Moreover, sustainable development issues are correlated and can meet in agricultural supply chains. For several decades, parallel to decision-makers, the research community has elaborated sustainability assessment tools. Such tools evolved to fit with actuality, but it is challenging to find decision-making support tools for sustainable development adequate in agricultural supply chains and developing countries contexts. There is a necessity to define evidence-based tools and exhaustive analytical frameworks according to sustainability multidimensionality and strategical tradeoffs necessity. The VCA4D method aims to go beyond the limits of previous methods. It proposes a combination of multidisciplinary analytical tools applied empirically to analyze agricultural supply chains in their context. It provides evidence-based analytical results allowing to identify enablers for strategic sustainable and inclusive interventions. However, to even better meet contextual exhaustiveness’s expectations and indicators’ robustness to lead to relevant interventions, we should insist on a stricter framing of contextual data collection processes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document