Search results

In this commentary, I highlight a few of the assertions made by McDaniel et al. (2013) about the importance of complexity science guided management practices, and extend these ideas specifically to how we might think about reducing seemingly intractable problems in health care such as patient safety, patient falls, hospital acquired infection, and the rise of chronic illness and obesity. I suggest that such changes will require managers and providers to view health care organizations and patients as complex adaptive systems and include patients as full participants in co-producing their health care.

Science is too important to be left solely to scientists, and so the public need to be involved in the design, funding, delivery and implementation of health research, and in discussions about the ethics of research. Since the 1960s, the United Kingdom and many other countries have included scientists from outside health care in various roles in health care research, as well as nonscientists, ordinary citizens, patients and carers. In the last 20 years, these roles have increased in number and range, but significant challenges remain in ensuring that research is always conducted in an ethical fashion. Errors arise when it is assumed that research is ethical because it has passed a single test rather than being subject to constant vigilance; when academic training on its own is regarded as sufficient to guarantee ethical conduct; when pontification about sophisticated dilemmas ignores fundamental matters of equity and helpfulness and when there is an absence of curiosity about the value positions of others (Boaz et al., 2016). We argue in this chapter that in every setting, citizens have the potential to contribute to ethical debates, whether they assist in establishing priorities for research funding, serve as research funding co-applicants, take the lay member places on Research Ethics Committees and Steering Committees, collect and analyze data or co-author academic papers.

The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the student mental health crisis in Higher Education (HE), and how resilience and grit, two important positive psychological constructs, can be beneficial for university students’ success and wellbeing. As part of a discussion around some of the current approaches to intervening in wellbeing in universities, the chapter provides evidence for the use of PPIs for wellbeing in university students, alongside some of the challenges of implementing these in HE. It also provides an overview of the Thriving Students Framework and presents a case for a multicomponent approach to monitoring and improving educational success. In particular, a wellbeing framework that, alongside resilience, also recognises the importance of strengths, persistence in the face of difficulty, a growth mindset, self-control and mental wellbeing; Academic Tenacity. The implications of utilising this framework for educational attainment in university students are discussed. The Bolton Uni-Stride Scale (BUSS), a single short measure of academic tenacity that combines the attributes enabling measurement and intervention to support university students to thrive, is also presented for educators to use.

Continuously changing networked society chiefly takes more active role in ongoing transformations worldwide. Governments are dealing with numerous organized groups which arise from seemingly nowhere with particular set of requirements to make social change. In a globalized world quickly moving information flows, expanded physical mobility of people formed a new society with increased demand for better life, which cannot be emphasized without greater social responsibility of every actor in society. And this cannot be minded out, since modern society holds crucially powerful tools, such as media and internet, to fight for justice, values, and believes.

Territorial governments, even in most distanced regions, start facing similar challenges as those in crowded cities due to the call from society for greater social responsibility. Only set of stakeholders insignificantly vary in countryside compared to cities when calling for social change; however, the general body consists of variety actions to live better in a socially responsible way. Lately, farmers in countryside as well as local governments, even in post-soviet countries, are more frequently requested to mind the principles of social responsibility from the general public. Scientific literature proposes that it signalizes about the shift from industrial to postindustrial stage of development—knowledge and information age. However, any scientific evidence to disclose the factors that influence farmer's choice to act as a community citizen had not been provided yet. Authors presuppose that particular farmer's background characteristics, such as age, generation, education, or others, might be among the factors that highly shape the way farmers act with local communities as well as territorial governments from social responsibility perspective.

The main aim of this article is to disclose the factors that define social responsibility of agribusiness in their attitudes toward territorial government and local community.

Scientific literature analysis and generalization, survey, interview, and descriptive statistical analysis methods were applied. Data were collected in spring 2017 and autumn 2018 in Lithuanian farms. Research results helped disclose that age, generation, and education are among important factors in changing social responsibility attitudes of agribusiness. Significant dependency was observed among age and most of agribusiness representatives' social responsibility counterparts when dealing with territorial government and local community development.