best practice
Recently Published Documents





2022 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-29
Becky Allen ◽  
Andrew Stephen McGough ◽  
Marie Devlin

Artificial Intelligence and its sub-disciplines are becoming increasingly relevant in numerous areas of academia as well as industry and can now be considered a core area of Computer Science [ 84 ]. The Higher Education sector are offering more courses in Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence than ever before. However, there is a lack of research pertaining to best practices for teaching in this complex domain that heavily relies on both computing and mathematical knowledge. We conducted a literature review and qualitative study with students and Higher Education lecturers from a range of educational institutions, with an aim to determine what might constitute best practices in this area in Higher Education. We hypothesised that confidence, mathematics anxiety, and differences in student educational background were key factors here. We then investigated the issues surrounding these and whether they inhibit the acquisition of knowledge and skills pertaining to the theoretical basis of artificial intelligence and machine learning. This article shares the insights from both students and lecturers with experience in the field of AI and machine learning education, with the aim to inform prospective pedagogies and studies within this domain and move toward a framework for best practice in teaching and learning of these topics.

2022 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Sally Mackay ◽  
Sarah Gerritsen ◽  
Fiona Sing ◽  
Stefanie Vandevijvere ◽  
Boyd Swinburn

Abstract Background The INFORMAS [International Network for Food and Obesity/Non-communicable Diseases (NCDs) Research, Monitoring and Action Support] Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI) was developed to evaluate the degree of implementation of widely recommended food environment policies by national governments against international best practice, and has been applied in New Zealand in 2014, 2017 and 2020. This paper outlines the 2020 Food-EPI process and compares policy implementation and recommendations with the 2014 and 2017 Food-EPI. Methods In March–April 2020, a national panel of over 50 public health experts participated in Food-EPI. Experts rated the extent of implementation of 47 “good practice” policy and infrastructure support indicators compared to international best practice, using an extensive evidence document verified by government officials. Experts then proposed and prioritized concrete actions needed to address the critical implementation gaps identified. Progress on policy implementation and recommendations made over the three Food-EPIs was compared. Results In 2020, 60% of the indicators were rated as having “low” or “very little, if any” implementation compared to international benchmarks: less progress than 2017 (47%) and similar to 2014 (61%). Of the nine priority actions proposed in 2014, there was only noticeable action on one (Health Star Ratings). The majority of actions were therefore proposed again in 2017 and 2020. In 2020 the proposed actions were broader, reflecting the need for multisectoral action to improve the food environment, and the need for a mandatory approach in all policy areas. Conclusions There has been little to no progress in the past three terms of government (9 years) on the implementation of policies and infrastructure support for healthy food environments, with implementation overall regressing between 2017 and 2020. The proposed actions in 2020 have reflected a growing movement to locate nutrition within the wider context of planetary health and with recognition of the social determinants of health and nutrition, resulting in recommendations that will require the involvement of many government entities to overcome the existing policy inertia. The increase in food insecurity due to COVID-19 lockdowns may provide the impetus to stimulate action on food polices.

2022 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Azhar Farooqi ◽  
Karan Jutlla ◽  
Raghu Raghavan ◽  
Andrew Wilson ◽  
Mohammud Shams Uddin ◽  

Abstract Background It is recognised that Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) populations are generally underrepresented in research studies. The key objective of this work was to develop an evidence based, practical toolkit to help researchers maximise recruitment of BAME groups in research. Methods Development of the toolkit was an iterative process overseen by an expert steering group. Key steps included a detailed literature review, feedback from focus groups (including researchers and BAME community members) and further workshops and communication with participants to review the draft and final versions. Results Poor recruitment of BAME populations in research is due to complex reasons, these include factors such as inadequate attention to recruitment strategies and planning, poor engagement with communities and individuals due to issues such as cultural competency of researchers, historical poor experience of participating in research, and lack of links with community networks. Other factors include language issues, relevant expertise in research team and a lack of adequate resources that might be required in recruitment of BAME populations. Conclusions A toolkit was developed with key sections providing guidance on planning research and ensuring adequate engagement of communities and individuals. Together with sections suggesting how the research team can address training needs and adopt best practice. Researchers highlighted the issue of funding and how best to address BAME recruitment in grant applications, so a section on preparing a grant application was also included. The final toolkit document is practical, and includes examples of best practice and ‘top tips’ for researchers.

2022 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 956
Meta Thurid Lotz ◽  
Robin Barkhausen ◽  
Andrea Herbst ◽  
Matthias Pfaff ◽  
Antoine Durand ◽  

It is becoming increasingly clear that linear modes of production and consumption are unsustainable. A circular economy would help to minimize both environmental and social problems. As a result, the concept is gaining momentum in the political discourse. However, current policies do not seem sufficient to transform linear value chains to circular ones. This paper compares the potentials of and prerequisites for a circular economy along two important value chains. As a best practice example, the legal framework along the battery value chain is analyzed. This analysis is used to derive recommendations for how to improve the legal framework along the building value chain. We find that the battery value chain is already addressed by targeted instruments and the instruments addressing the building value chain have to be aligned and their credibility improved through mandatory requirements. A value chain-specific approach to develop the legal framework is promising for key sectors, while both general frameworks and value chain-specific instruments are required to fully exploit the CE for every product.

2022 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 926
Tymon Zielinski ◽  
Izabela Kotynska-Zielinska ◽  
Carlos Garcia-Soto

In this paper, we discuss the importance of the efficient communication of science results to citizens across the world. In order for people to absorb information, we need to understand the principles and apply the best available means to facilitate the process of increasing global awareness of the changes. This explicitly applies to the verification of how we appeal to people with respect to various environmental issues and, hence, how we can modernize the educational approaches to challenge the global change. We state that, in order to follow the philosophy of sustainable development goals with respect to ocean issues, we need an attractive alternative to the existing areas of consumption. We also state that the ocean issues are at the core of any process aiming to secure sustainability. New methods and tools of education and scientific communication, especially those which are offered by non-formal approaches, are necessary, and we present here some of the activities of the EU4Ocean coalition as best practice examples.

2022 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Min Hu ◽  
Wen Chen ◽  
Winnie Yip

Abstract Background Although management is important in healthcare, low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have little experience measuring the competence of hospital management. While improving hospital management is the main focus of hospital reform in China, few studies have empirically documented the baseline situation to inform policy design. Methods We assessed the management practices of county-level hospitals in Guizhou in southwest China during 2015. We used the Development World Management Survey (D-WMS) instrument to interview 273 managers in 139 hospitals. We scored the management practices of the sampled hospitals, overall and in four dimensions (operations, monitoring, targets, personnel management) and three processes (implementation, usage, monitoring). We then converted the scores to the WMS scale and compared these with data from two other LMICs and seven high-income countries (HICs). Results On a scale of 1 (‘worst practice’) to 5 (‘best practice’), the mean (SD) hospital D-WMS scores were 2.57 (0.46) overall; 2.71 (0.48), 2.64 (0.58), 2.40 (0.64), and 2.56 (0.40) for operation, monitoring, target, and personnel, respectively; and 2.43 (0.48), 2.62 (0.48), and 2.66 (0.47) for implementation, usage, and monitoring, respectively. After conversion to WMS scores, China ranked seventh of 10 countries, after six HICs and higher than one HIC and two other LMICs (Brazil and India). China ranked higher than the two LMICs in each of the four dimensional scores. Conclusions Chinese county-level hospitals should improve their low quality of management by prioritizing target-setting and process implementation, particularly in personnel management. Meanwhile, modern management training should be given to most clinical managers.

2022 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 885
Monique H. van den Dries ◽  
Miyuki J. H. Kerkhof ◽  
Sunniva T. Homme

The EU_CUL research network project, which is a collaboration of academics in heritage studies and in pedagogy, explored the use of cultural heritage for fostering social responsibility in higher education (Erasmus + project. In this context, research was conducted on inspirational examples and best practices in heritage management that include social and other societal values of heritage. This included award winning heritage practices in Europe. Heritage awards have, as a good practice assessment methodology, the potential to promote particular implemented practices. They can therefore help us find out what is considered ‘best practices’ in heritage management. An analysis of these practices also enables us to identify patterns, trends and potential biases. Sub-questions posed were: what is considered a ‘best practice’ in heritage awards? What kind of practices get these prizes and recognitions? What kinds of heritage are included and get the most attention? To what extent is the diversity of heritage, values and individuals in Europe represented? This chapter will discuss the results of this analysis of heritage awards and critically discuss the patterns that emerge and how this relates to governance and leadership in heritage management. The research is limited to Europe, it focuses on EAA and Europa Nostra, thus national prizes were not included.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document