Evaluation Of Management Interventions Research Articles

Seeking clarity on transparency in fisheries governance and management

Calls for greater transparency in fisheries are becoming increasingly common. They promise better evaluation of management interventions, more participatory decision-making, effective monitoring and surveillance, and sustainable and equitable exploitation of shared resources. However, there is often a lack of clarity regarding what is meant by ‘transparency’ and how it is best achieved. This term is often used interchangeably, by both decision-makers and civil society, and sometimes inappropriately when a more specific term may be called for. This can lead to the propagation of sweeping assumptions and reductive views on what fisheries transparency is, what it can achieve, what the costs and benefits will be, and to whom. As such, attempts to realize the benefits that transparency promises for fisheries often struggle once they are systematically applied from concept through legislation to practice. This paper explores the various manifestations of transparency in the context of fisheries governance and management as well as its limitations. Subsequently, to provide clarity and broaden the transparency-related discourse, a simple framework is presented of the multifaceted nature of transparency in fisheries. This exploration is crucial because, when harnessed correctly, transparency has the potential to support a more sustainable and equitable future. However, realizing this potential requires deeper appreciation of the intricacies of transparency beyond surface-level interpretations.

The English Version of the Health Profession Communication Collective Efficacy Scale (HPCCE Scale) by Capone and Petrillo, 2012.

Communication is a crucial component in all steps of the health care process. Therefore, it is important to have knowledge about the communication skills of the whole health organization. From the socio-cognitive perspective, collective efficacy beliefs are the main indicators of the capacity of functioning of the system. This work aimed to contribute to the validation of the English version of Health Profession Communication Collective Efficacy Scale (HPCCE scale) a self-report questionnaire measuring hospital doctors’ beliefs to succeed as a group to meet the needs of internal and external communication and of communication with patients, examining the structure, reliability and convergent validity. This study was a cross-sectional investigation conducted using snowball sampling. The participants were 287 doctors working at different hospitals in UK. Explorative factor analyses and Rasch analysis confirmed the one-factor solution. Results revealed high internal reliability. The HPCCE scale correlated positively with Social Self-Efficacy. The English version of HPCCE is a valid instrument to measure communication efficacy beliefs in hospital, involving different type of doctors. It can contribute to the implementation and evaluation of management interventions in a health organization aimed at its optimization.

Economic evaluation of community acquired pneumonia management strategies: Asystematic review of literature.

BackgroundCommunity-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Efficient use of resources is fundamental for best use of money among the available and novel treatment options for the management of pneumonia. The objective of this study was to systematically review the economic analysis of management strategies of pneumonia.MethodsA systematic search was performed using Academic Search Complete, MEDLINE, EconLit, Global health, MEDLINE complete and Embase databases using specific subject headings or key words in May 2018 without restricting publication year. All search results were recorded and any type of economic evaluation for management of CAP was included for detailed review. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used for quality appraisal.ResultsNineteen studies met the inclusion criteria; ten studies were trial based, five conducted analysis using model based techniques and the rest of the studies were either based on observational, record review or pre-post intervention studies. Most of the studies conducted cost-effectiveness analysis (n = 15) and compared different combinations of antimicrobials. Most were based on developed countries (n = 17), considered adult age groups (n = 16) and used a provider perspective (n = 14). Nine studies reported dominant alternatives (lower cost with higher benefit). Sensitivity analysis was performed by the majority of studies (n = 15). Fourteen studies were assessed as either being excellent, very good or good quality, with no relationship found between publication year and study quality. Methodological variation, type of microbial used, perspective, costs and outcome measures limit the compatibility among the results of the included studies.ConclusionEconomic evaluation of interventions for management of CAP to date supports cost-effectiveness of studied interventions. However, evidence relates largely to antimicrobials choice in older populations in developed countries. Parallel economic evaluation of different management strategies of CAP is recommended for both developed and developing countries to support rigorous and robust comparative economic analysis within health care systems.PROSPERO registration no: CRD42018097174