Search results

The purpose of this paper is to analyze how staff and managers in health and social care organizations use scientific evidence when making decisions about the organization of care practices.

Document analysis and repeated interviews (2008-2010) with staff (n=39) and managers (n=26) in health and social care organizations. The respondents were involved in a randomized controlled study about testing a continuum of care model for older people.

Scientific evidence had no practical function in the social care organization, while it was a prioritized source of information in the health care organization. This meant that the decision making regarding care practices was different in these organizations. Social care tended to rely on ad hoc practice-based information and political decisions when organizing care, while health care to some extent also relied in an unreflected manner on the scientific knowledge.

The study illustrates several difficulties that might occur when managers and staff try to consider scientific evidence when making complicated decisions about care practices.

The SARS epidemic in 2003 and the COVID-19 pandemic had a disruptive impact on countries around the world and highlight the importance of using scientific evidence to inform policy decisions and priorities during crises. The purpose of this article is to reflect upon the term “following the science” and examines the differences between SARS in 2003 and COVID-19.

This study is exploratory, adopts a qualitative approach and reflects on the synthesis of scientific evidence into advice informing government decisions on health interventions. Random sampling of the literature was used to avoid bias and was guided by the keywords.

It considers preparedness activities and the need for these to be integral in the design of future planning. It argues that simulation exercises be intrinsically linked to all aspects of crisis management and provide the opportunity to use the scientific evidence base as part of preparedness planning. The article concludes that more transparency in the use of scientific advice in strategic decision-making would support building more resilience into health emergency preparedness through an integrated systems approach.

This article contributes to the literature on the evaluation of the “following the science” approach and its implementation. It also contributes to the limited literature on simulation exercising to deal with health crises, like pandemics and identifies potential areas for further research or work on developing an integrated systems approach to pandemic preparedness.

This essay is a review of the recent literature on the methodology of economics, with a focus on three broad trends that have defined the core lines of research within the discipline during the last two decades. These trends are: (a) the philosophical analysis of economic modelling and economic explanation; (b) the epistemology of causal inference, evidence diversity and evidence-based policy and (c) the investigation of the methodological underpinnings and public policy implications of behavioural economics. The final output is inevitably not exhaustive, yet it aims at offering a fair taste of some of the most representative questions in the field on which many philosophers, methodologists and social scientists have recently been placing a great deal of intellectual effort. The topics and references compiled in this review should serve at least as safe introductions to some of the central research questions in the philosophy and methodology of economics.

Purpose – To examine the rhetorical use of scientific medical evidence and diagnoses statistics in claims of an epidemic of childhood autism spectrum disorder.

Methodology/approach – Qualitative analysis of the content and dissemination of claims in several venues for social problems construction, including popular media, peer-reviewed scientific literature, and the Internet.

Findings – Rhetorical use of etiological evidence, both scientific and experiential, positing a causal link between medical interventions (e.g., vaccines), environmental toxins, and autism is prominent across several arenas for social problems construction. Claims and counterclaims involve statements amiable to or critical of evidence and its relationship to the scientific method. Presentation of diagnoses statistics and covariation with vaccination regimens are integral as a rhetorical device in claims of a true change in prevalence.

Contribution to the field – Elucidates how the medicalization of childhood developmental disabilities and increased lay involvement (e.g., parents) in the social problems process were vital for the proliferation of attention and resources directed to autism presently. The fundamental scientific method and the lack of sufficient, valid scientific evidence are not integral to the continuation of the movement that posits vaccines cause autism. The content of these claims is unfettered on the Internet as an arena for claimsmaking, allowing a lay social movement to continue that often stands in opposition to recognized scientific authority and evidence.

Criminology both as a field of study and as a practice draws on a broad range of disciplines from the social, behavioural, human, natural and medical sciences. However, over recent times, the natural and medical sciences have been dismissed, overlooked and even ridiculed, largely since the rise of critical criminology and related contemporary conflict and social harm approaches from the 1960s onwards. This has led to a chasm emerging between the study of criminology and the practice of criminology such as within a policing context. This paper aims to provide a review of an emerging forensic biological method, that of neuroscience, within a criminological context, to illustrate the importance of criminology embracing and reawakening its natural and medical science roots.

The paper draws on a conceptual design to realign criminology with the full range of disciplines used to inform its theory and application.

Through illustrating the role of forensic neuroscience, the paper reawakens the scientific method and inquiry of criminology reflecting the importance of the discipline being, and remaining, multi- and trans-disciplinary in nature. The paper, while reflecting on the limitations of scientific method and inquiry, outlines the strengths this approach to criminology engenders, promoting and delivering a scientific-based research agenda that aims to support industry partners in the prevention, disruption and reduction of crime, disorder and threats to public security.

Firstly, it is important for criminology as a field of study to (re)engage with its scientific method and inquiry. Secondly, criminology, by engaging in robust scientific method and inquiry, has a significant contribution to make to professional practice and the work of industry professionals. Thirdly, while there are limitations to such scientific method and inquiry, it should not lead to this component of criminology being discarded. Fourthly, there is a need for contemporary research in the area of scientific method and inquiry and its application to criminological contexts, including that of police practice. Finally, by engaging in scientific method and inquiry that is evidence based, a chasm between the field of study and the practice associated with criminology can be addressed.

This paper addresses the gap between criminology as a field of study and as a practice by reengaging with scientific method and inquiry, illustrating the need and value of criminology being and remaining multi- and trans-disciplinary, ensuring professions underpinned by criminology are supported in their practice.

Environmental forensic investigations rely on the collection, analysis and interpretation of evidence from an environmental scene to assist in identifying the party responsible for the introduction of exogenous material. These investigations also try to elucidate if the environment and/or human health have been affected. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Environmental forensic investigations are considered a sub-category of the forensic sciences. The potential scientific evidence is subjected to the same rigour as for other forensic science disciplines, including quality control, accreditation, chain of custody and evidence integrity. The manner in which evidence is analysed and interpreted is also similar. Even though strong similarities can be drawn between environmental forensic investigations and the general forensic sciences, some important differences need to be understood.

Environmental forensic investigations can be more complex than they first appear and identifying, analysing and interpreting scientific evidence is not always straightforward. It is crucial in the comprehension of the complexities of the environmental forensic discipline to understand the intricacies of the investigations, including the limited sample numbers, complex matrices, wide range of exogenous materials encountered, often large size of the scene, changes to the scene and, above all, the potential for degradation or transformation of evidence. In addition, scientific evidence is frequently used to gather intelligence rather than to provide knowledge that can be brought forward to determine guilt or innocence of an accused party.

This paper explores the complexities of the discipline and discusses the difficulties that are encountered during environmental investigations.

This chapter examines whether the view of the jury in cases involving forensic evidence can be changed from that of “naïve automatons” to that of “sophisticated decision makers”; whether the defense and prosecution must provide the jurors with information to help them develop a schema upon which to evaluate the forensic evidence; and whether to remove decision making from the expert forensic scientist and return it to the jury. The chapter uses secondary sources of information collected from criminal cases, the current federal law, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court dealing with expert testimony, studies of how to enable juries confronted with forensic evidence, as well as a framework of learning theory and persuasion games. I argue that expert forensic scientists make errors. Juries are capable of making decisions based on complex forensic evidence if provided the knowledge within which to develop schema to evaluate that evidence. Competition between the defense and prosecution in presenting interpretations of scientifically valid evidence, as well as providing schema to enable the jury to evaluate the information, provides juries with the ability to arrive at a full information decision. Expert nullification of jury decision making should be halted and decision making returned to the jury. The value of this chapter is to integrate learning theory from cognitive psychology with one-shot and extended persuasion games to evaluate the roles of the jury and the expert forensic scientists within the criminal justice system.

Students with special needs include children with impaired attention, disruptive behavior, learning disabilities, and developmental disorders, among many other conditions. When a child has been diagnosed with such a disorder, his or her parents may seek treatment that could assist the child to be more academically and socially successful. Numerous interventions exist for the treatment of childhood disorders; however, these treatment methods differ in the types and amounts of evidence supporting their usefulness and effectiveness (Lilienfeld, 2005).

The article applies the citizen science phenomenon – i.e. lay people involvement in research endeavours aimed at pushing forward scientific knowledge – to healthcare. Attention is paid to initiatives intended to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic as an illustrative case to exemplify the contribution of citizen science to system-wide innovation in healthcare.

A mixed methodology consisting of three sequential steps was developed. Firstly, a realist literature review was carried out to contextualize citizen science to healthcare. Then, an account of successfully completed large-scale, online citizen science projects dealing with healthcare and medicine has been conducted in order to obtain preliminary information about distinguishing features of citizen science in healthcare. Thirdly, a broad search of citizen science initiatives targeted to tackling the COVID-19 pandemic has been performed. A comparative case study approach has been undertaken to examine the attributes of such projects and to unravel their peculiarities.

Citizen science enacts the development of a lively healthcare ecosystem, which takes its nourishment from the voluntary contribution of lay people. Citizen scientists play different roles in accomplishing citizen science initiatives, ranging from data collectors to data analysts. Alongside enabling big data management, citizen science contributes to lay people's education and empowerment, soliciting their active involvement in service co-production and value co-creation.

Citizen science is still underexplored in healthcare. Even though further evidence is needed to emphasize the value of lay people's involvement in scientific research applied to healthcare, citizen science is expected to revolutionize the way innovation is pursued and achieved in the healthcare ecosystem. Engaging lay people in a co-creating partnership with expert scientist can help us to address unprecedented health-related challenges and to shape the future of healthcare. Tailored health policy and management interventions are required to empower lay people and to stimulate their active engagement in value co-creation.

Citizen science relies on the wisdom of the crowd to address major issues faced by healthcare organizations. The article comes up with a state of the art investigation of citizen science in healthcare, shedding light on its attributes and envisioning avenues for further development.