Search results

The voices of children and young people have been largely neglected in discussions of the extent to which the internet takes into account their needs and concerns. This paper aims to highlight young people’s lived experiences of being online.

Results are drawn from the UnBias project’s youth led discussions, “Youth Juries” with young people predominantly aged between 13 and 17 years.

Whilst the young people are able to use their agency online in some circumstances, many often experience feelings of disempowerment and resignation, particularly in relation to the terms and conditions and user agreements that are ubiquitous to digital technologies, social media platforms and other websites.

Although changes are afoot as part of the General Data Protection Regulation (herein the GDPR) to simplify the terms and conditions of online platforms (European Union, 2016), it offers little practical guidance on how it should be implemented to children. The voices and opinions of children and young people are put forward as suggestions for how the “clear communication to data subjects” required by Article 12 of the GDPR in particular should be implemented, for example, recommendations about how terms and conditions can be made more accessible.

Children and young people are an often overlooked demographic of online users. This paper argues for the importance of this group being involved in any changes that may affect them, by putting forward recommendations from the children and young people themselves.

We can by no means join in the pæan of self‐satisfaction which is sounded in the Library Association Record for January. There it is urged that three important months have passed since the Conference, and that they have been fruitful in energetic work and that the harvest is visible in the Council notes published in the same number. We have read them with sympathetic and critical care, but while we see evidence that some of the points raised at the Library Association Conference in October have been considered, we see very few results have been achieved. Questions we would ask are these:—

Our nineteenth volume opens with this page in circumstances as unsettled and uncertain as any in the history of this or any other journal. In defiance of prophecy the European conflict drags its colossal slow length wearily along, bearing with it the hopes and fears of the whole human race. It is not to be wondered at that the aims for which we strive have not made great strides in the year that has just closed. Important as we recognize literature and its distribution to be, the pressing material needs of the people often cause them to lose sight of the invincible fact that the freedom of the human spirit, its intellectual and humane expansion, are, after all is said, the ultimate aims of the war. It will not be of abiding service to the British race if in conquering the Germans we sacrifice beyond redemption all those sources of sweetness and light which have been the outcome of centuries of British endeavour. We do not fear that such sacrifice will be demanded of us, but the logic of material facts demonstrates that all who care for schools, libraries, museums, art galleries, music, and all other agencies for the moral and spiritual uplifting of men, must be on their guard against the well‐meaning but ignorant encroachments of those who would rather “save money” by abolishing them, than, for example, by foregoing their own individual luxuries.

The only comprehensive list of British medical libraries hitherto available has been that in The Aslib directory 1928, and there is an extended account of those in London in Reginald Rye, The students' guide to the libraries of London (3rd ed., 1927), pp. 362–77. The new list, here put forward, is intended to bring the information from those two books of reference up to date, after nearly twenty years. British libraries are briefly listed among ‘Medical libraries outside North America’ in the Medical Library Association's A handbook of medical library practice, ed. Janet Doe, Chicago, American library association 1943, chapter 1, appendix 2, pages 41–64. The meagre information in that list, if contrasted with the detailed documentation of American and Canadian libraries in successive issues of the American medical directory, accentuates the need for us to know ourselves better. Several, perhaps many, medical librarians have had to compile lists of kindred libraries for their own convenience. A list which I had thus prepared seemed to Aslib to offer adequate basis for a Directory of British medical libraries, and in order to complete it Aslib issued a questionnaire in the autumn of 1944 to libraries known to possess medical collections and to hospitals, medical societies, and medical institutions throughout the British Isles. The information obtained from the generous response to this questionnaire is epitomized in the list which follows. I am responsible for all omissions and errors and I hope that those who detect any will supply corrections and additions so that this preliminary list may be revised and become a definitive Directory.

Australian states have embraced clinical networking as a mechanism for managing, organising and improving the quality of care. Using these individualised state approaches to clinical networks, in this paper the authors aim to examine this Australasian “experimentation” and present lessons for other health systems.

The paper draws on current knowledge from the literature on clinical networks. The 2010 Inaugural Australasian Clinical Networks Conference also serves as a primary resource, as well as the authors' extensive discussions with policy‐makers, managers and clinicians in Australasian systems.

Key themes from the literature include: network type (mandated or natural, and hybrids); network purpose; the importance of network objectives; drivers of network success and barriers; the need for consumer engagement; and the difficulty of evaluating network effectiveness. Policy challenges include the establishment of networks for some specialty areas and not others; how to develop common standards across networks; and the need for performance metrics to assess network impact on patient outcomes. Australian networks report difficulties with achieving greater involvement of rural clinicians and indigenous populations, and with private sector clinical engagement. There are challenges too with implementation, at service level, of models of care and recommendations.

Clinical networks are becoming a fundamental vehicle for clinical improvement and change across complex organisational and professional boundaries. How to nurture and sustain effective clinical networks is of import to every health system and the authors invite stakeholders in health systems to network and share their empirical research on clinical networks to assist with distinguishing the evidence from the rhetoric.