Search results1 – 10 of 52
When introducing new health technologies, decision makers must integrate research evidence with local operational management information to guide decisions about whether…
When introducing new health technologies, decision makers must integrate research evidence with local operational management information to guide decisions about whether and under what conditions the technology will be used. Multi‐criteria decision analysis can support the adoption or prioritization of health interventions by using criteria to explicitly articulate the health organization's needs, limitations, and values in addition to evaluating evidence for safety and effectiveness. This paper seeks to describe the development of a framework to create agreed‐upon criteria and decision tools to enhance a pre‐existing local health technology assessment (HTA) decision support program.
The authors compiled a list of published criteria from the literature, consulted with experts to refine the criteria list, and used a modified Delphi process with a group of key stakeholders to review, modify, and validate each criterion. In a workshop setting, the criteria were used to create decision tools.
A set of user‐validated criteria for new health technology evaluation and adoption was developed and integrated into the local HTA decision support program. Technology evaluation and decision guideline tools were created using these criteria to ensure that the decision process is systematic, consistent, and transparent.
This framework can be used by others to develop decision‐making criteria and tools to enhance similar technology adoption programs.
The development of clear, user‐validated criteria for evaluating new technologies adds a critical element to improve decision‐making on technology adoption, and the decision tools ensure consistency, transparency, and real‐world relevance.
This chapter argues that corporate social responsibility (CSR) and even corporate sustainability and responsibility will be insufficient to generate the transformation…
This chapter argues that corporate social responsibility (CSR) and even corporate sustainability and responsibility will be insufficient to generate the transformation needed for businesses, economies, and societies to deal with potentially existential sustainability, climate change, and inequality crises. A new socio-economic narrative needs to be created to underpin thinking about economies, societies, and nature. After briefly looking at CSR today, the paper discusses the power that the neoliberal narrative has in shaping understanding of the roles and purposes of businesses. It then argues for a new narrative emphasizing well-being, dignity, and sustainability, an economy in service to life, as an alternative, highlighting the powerful role that memes, core units of culture, play in shaping narratives.
The institution of food and cookery exhibitions and the dissemination of practical knowledge with respect to cookery by means of lectures and demonstrations are excellent things in their way. But while it is important that better and more scientific attention should be generally given to the preparation of food for the table, it must be admitted to be at least equally important to insure that the food before it comes into the hands of the expert cook shall be free from adulteration, and as far as possible from impurity,—that it should be, in fact, of the quality expected. Protection up to a certain point and in certain directions is afforded to the consumer by penal enactments, and hitherto the general public have been disposed to believe that those enactments are in their nature and in their application such as to guarantee a fairly general supply of articles of tolerable quality. The adulteration laws, however, while absolutely necessary for the purpose of holding many forms of fraud in check, and particularly for keeping them within certain bounds, cannot afford any guarantees of superior, or even of good, quality. Except in rare instances, even those who control the supply of articles of food to large public and private establishments fail to take steps to assure themselves that the nature and quality of the goods supplied to them are what they are represented to be. The sophisticator and adulterator are always with us. The temptations to undersell and to misrepresent seem to be so strong that firms and individuals from whom far better things might reasonably be expected fall away from the right path with deplorable facility, and seek to save themselves, should they by chance be brought to book, by forms of quibbling and wriggling which are in themselves sufficient to show the moral rottenness which can be brought about by an insatiable lust for gain. There is, unfortunately, cheating to be met with at every turn, and it behoves at least those who control the purchase and the cooking of food on the large scale to do what they can to insure the supply to them of articles which have not been tampered with, and which are in all respects of proper quality, both by insisting on being furnished with sufficiently authoritative guarantees by the vendors, and by themselves causing the application of reasonably frequent scientific checks upon the quality of the goods.
The Milk and Cream Standards Committee, of which Lord WENLOCK is Chairman, have commenced to take evidence, and at the outset have been met by the difficulty which must necessarily attach to the fixing of a legal standard for most food products. The problem, which is applicable also to other food materials, is to fix a standard for milk, cream and butter which shall be fair and just both to the producer and the consumer. The variation in the composition of these and other food products is well known to be such that, while standards may be arrived at which will make for the protection of the public against the supply of grossly‐adulterated articles, standards which shall insure the supply of articles of good quality cannot possibly be established by legal enactments. If the Committee has not yet arrived at this conclusion we can safely predict that they will be compelled to do so. A legal standard must necessarily be the lowest which can possibly be established, in order to avoid doing injustice to producers and vendors. The labours of the Committee will no doubt have a good effect in certain directions, but they cannot result in affording protection and support to the vendor of superior products as against the vendor of inferior ones and as against the vendor of products which are brought down by adulteration to the lowest legal limits. Neither the labours of this committee nor of any similar committee appointed in the future can result in the establishment of standards which will give a guarantee to the consumer that he is receiving a product which has not been tampered with and which is of high, or even of fair, quality.