Search results

This study aims to investigate the potential positive effects of cause-related marketing (CRM) campaigns that show evidence of commitment to espoused causes. It examines whether consumers respond positively when a CRM campaign promises to deliver proof of the espoused cause.

This study adopted the grounded theory approach to conceptualize the promised impact evidence construct. A promised impact evidence scale was developed and validated using robust qualitative and quantitative methods, including item response theory estimates.

The study provides evidence for promised impact evidence as a reflective second-order latent construct. The promised impact evidence scale demonstrates strong internal consistency, reliability and validity. In addition, this study posits that promised impact evidence is an antecedent of advertising trust, purchase intention, advertising credibility and persuasive and selling intent.

This study positioned the promised impact evidence scale against the theoretical underpinnings of the persuasion knowledge model. Specifically, this scale contributes to existing knowledge because it applies the persuasion knowledge model in CRM campaigns by adopting an acceptance focus, as opposed to the rejection focus used in developing persuasion knowledge model scales.

This article briefly outlines some of the debates and discussions currently taking place in public health with regards to what ‘counts’ as evidence, as well as evidence use. This provides the context for describing a new programme of work currently being developed in Scotland by the national health improvement agency, as one of several support functions for the implementation of the Scottish Executive National Programme for Improving Mental Health and Well‐Being. This programme of work is aiming to support evidence into practice and practice into evidence in mental health improvement in Scotland.

Research in the personal social services has historically been something of a side‐show, but various developments are combining to bring it centrestage. Unless these are managed strategically, the danger is that the impact of evidence on practice will remain at the margins. This article describes how Hampshire's Social Services Department has set about developing a strategy to support evidence‐based practice.

Health care has always sought to improve the health of patients, but our interventions do not always do more good than harm. Sometimes ineffective or harmful interventions are used and effective interventions are not used. A key problem has been that decisions are too often based on inadequate evidence or that sound evidence is overlooked. Basing decisions on evidence involves three steps: finding evidence relating to the decision, evaluating it, and acting on it. Evaluating evidence in turn involves assessing its validity, understanding the findings and their implications, and understanding the relevance of the results in the context of local decision‐making. Developing evidence‐based health care is a collective enterprise which, while not easy, is something to which everyone in the health service can contribute.

Given the rapid growth in efforts on misinformation correction, the study aims to test how evidence type and veracity interact with news agreement on the effectiveness of fact-checking on how well a corrective message discount a false news information.

Experimental participants (N = 511) in Hong Kong were exposed to the same news article and then to a piece of corrective information debunking the news article with variation in the types of evidence (numerical vs narrative) and veracity (no verdict vs half false vs entirely false) in 2019.

Among the participants who disagreed with the news article, numerical fact-checking was more effective than narrative fact-checking in discounting the news article. Some evidence of the backfire effect was found among participants for whom the article was attitude incongruent.

When debunking false information with people exposed to attitude-incongruent news, a milder verdict presented in the form of a half-false scale can prompt a more positive perception of the issue at stake than an entirely false scale, implying that a less certain verdict can help in mitigating the backfire effect compared to a certain verdict.

The fire sector within the United Kingdom has identified a need to further develop their systematic use of academic literature and develop mechanisms to include academic knowledge to inform evidence-based policy and practice. By increasing knowledge exchange between the fire sector and academia, the ability to horizon scan and identify future relevant phenomena of interest to the fire sector will be achieved. Consequently, the evidence base and horizon scanning will increase the specificity of techniques, approaches and practices needed to continually improve the safety of the activities completed within the firefighting occupation, and it will also provide priority areas for investment and increase firefighter safety.

This technical paper primarily features an initial scoping review of academic and grey literature and an operational incident data review. This was completed to provide an initial and updated review of disciplines and areas of academia that are actively engaged in research relevant to the fire and rescue service. Consequently, this method sought to identify and examine the various disciplines of academia involved in fire research. This paper then uses that outcome to suggest a model of multidisciplinarity to inform the fire sector.

As a result of the scoping review, each academic discipline was identified and an initial review developed a predetermined set of key search terms. This was established through identifying the most frequently used fire-related terms within each discipline. This allowed for a comprehensive understanding of the breadth of activity and depth of complexity of fire related research within each discipline and an indicative set of key search terms to be developed. Recommendations are formulated to suggest next steps to routinely incorporate the academic knowledge base in the learning process of the fire and rescue services in the United Kingdom.

This paper provides an initial scoping map of academic literature and disciplines relevant to activities completed in the UK fire sector, which can be used to further develop the evidence base to inform the fire and rescue service of the United Kingdom. It also outlines possible mechanisms and a model to systematically facilitate knowledge exchange between academia and the fire sector by which knowledge exchange could further support the development of evidence-based policy and practice. The broad range of benefits of collaboration between the fire and rescue service and academia are explored.

This paper provides clear evidence as to why fire related research should have an increased priority status to inform the national fire and rescue services learning process and evidence for national policy and guidance development within the UK fire and rescue service. Additionally, recommendations are made to support the consideration of academic evidence in the systematic sector wide learning process.

Previously, the UK fire and rescue service had limited coordinated strategic engagement with academic disciplines to further develop their learning processes in order to produce an evidence base, which is cognisant of academic research to inform practice and guidance. This paper begins the narrowing of that gap by categorising academic literature relevant to fire research into clear disciplines, mapping these to an updated breadth of current activities undertaken by the fire and rescue service across the United Kingdom. The process also details a pilot of the proposed model to support knowledge exchange by producing an academically evidence-based submission to the National Fire Chiefs Council organisational learning process.

The purpose of this article is to outline how far the empirical evidence supports the centrality of leadership in the process of improving underperforming schools.

This article draws on evidence from a contemporary, selected, review of the literature.

The findings show that leadership is the critical factor in the improvement of underperforming schools. Seven new themes, derived from the selected evidence, are presented that illuminate how leaders secure improvement in the most challenging of school contexts.

This review is not a systematic review of the evidence and does not claim to be. It provides a commentary based on selected contemporary evidence and therefore is not comprehensive account of all the relevant evidence pertaining to leading the improvement of underperforming schools. The evidence is derived from sources written in English; therefore, it is fully acknowledged that other sources, in other languages might exist but are not included or reflected.

The practical implications are clearly laid out in the form of seven key themes about leading the improvement of underperforming schools that are of direct practical use.

With so many schools in high poverty areas finding themselves in difficulty, this contemporary review provides new insights about the leadership approaches and practices that continue to make a considerable difference to underperforming schools.

Calls for the development and dissemination of evidence-based programs to support children and families have been increasing for decades, but progress has been slow. This paper aims to argue that a singular focus on evaluation has limited the ways in which science and research is incorporated into program development, and advocate instead for the use of a new concept, “scientific accompaniment,” to expand and guide program development and testing.

A heuristic is provided to guide research–practice teams in assessing the program’s developmental stage and level of evidence.

In an idealized pathway, scientific accompaniment begins early in program development, with ongoing input from both practitioners and researchers, resulting in programs that are both effective and scalable. The heuristic also provides guidance for how to “catch up” on evidence when program development and science utilization are out of sync.

While implementation models provide ideas on improving the use of evidence-based practices, social service programs suffer from a significant lack of research and evaluation. Evaluation resources are typically not used by social service program developers and collaboration with researchers happens late in program development, if at all. There are few resources or models that encourage and guide the use of science and evaluation across program development.

There is growing interest around the world in more effectively linking public payments to the provision of public goods from agriculture. However, published evidence syntheses suggest mixed, weak or uncertain evidence for many agri-environment scheme options. To inform any future “public money for public goods” based policy, further synthesis work is needed to assess the evidence-base for the full range of interventions currently funded under agri-environment schemes. Further empirical research and trials should then focus on interventions for which there is mixed or limited evidence. Furthermore, to ensure the data collected is comparable and can be synthesised effectively, it is necessary to reach agreement on essential variables and methods that can be prioritised by those conducting research and monitoring. Future policy could then prioritise public money for the public goods that can most reliably be delivered, offering better value for taxpayers and improving the provision of ecosystem services from agricultural landscapes.

The intent of this paper is to identify the role that comparable evidence plays in property valuation and how the availability and use of comparable evidence varies between different countries and jurisdictions across Europe.

The paper is an overview of the role of comparable evidence, in all its forms, in property valuation. Through a survey of individuals and professional valuation associations, the relevant importance of different forms of market evidence was assessed and ranked according to the business transparency of the market in question.

The findings of this study helped inform The European Group of Valuers' Associations (TEGOVA) when setting the European Valuation Standards (EVS). The definition of Comparable Evidence should not be so narrow as to only include transactional evidence.

The role of the professional property valuer is to provide value estimates for a range of purposes but when that purpose is to assess Market Value, the importance of pricing to market cannot be over-stated.

This provides guidance on how to identify and use comparable evidence to undertake valuations for Market Value.