| 1. |
- Ivanova, M. Y., et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of individual differences, society, and culture on youth-rated problems and strengths in 38 societies
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. - : Wiley. - 0021-9630 .- 1469-7610. ; 63:11, s. 1297-1307
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Clinicians increasingly serve youths from societal/cultural backgrounds different from their own. This raises questions about how to interpret what such youths report. Rescorla et al. (2019, European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 1107) found that much more variance in 72,493 parents' ratings of their offspring's mental health problems was accounted for by individual differences than by societal or cultural differences. Although parents' reports are essential for clinical assessment of their offspring, they reflect parents' perceptions of the offspring. Consequently, clinical assessment also requires self-reports from the offspring themselves. To test effects of individual differences, society, and culture on youths' self-ratings of their problems and strengths, we analyzed Youth Self-Report (YSR) scores for 39,849 11-17 year olds in 38 societies. Methods: Indigenous researchers obtained YSR self-ratings from population samples of youths in 38 societies representing 10 culture cluster identified in the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavioral Effectiveness study. Hierarchical linear modeling of scores on 17 problem scales and one strengths scale estimated the percent of variance accounted for by individual differences (including measurement error), society, and culture cluster. ANOVAs tested age and gender effects. Results: Averaged across the 17 problem scales, individual differences accounted for 92.5% of variance, societal differences 6.0%, and cultural differences 1.5%. For strengths, individual differences accounted for 83.4% of variance, societal differences 10.1%, and cultural differences 6.5%. Age and gender had very small effects. Conclusions: Like parents' ratings, youths' self-ratings of problems were affected much more by individual differences than societal/cultural differences. Most variance in self-rated strengths also reflected individual differences, but societal/cultural effects were larger than for problems, suggesting greater influence of social desirability. The clinical significance of individual differences in youths' self-reports should thus not be minimized by societal/cultural differences, which-while important-can be taken into account with appropriate norms, as can gender and age differences.
|
|
| 2. |
- Ramani-Chander, Anusha, et al.
(författare)
-
Applying systems thinking to identify enablers and challenges to scale-up interventions for hypertension and diabetes in low-income and middle-income countries : protocol for a longitudinal mixed-methods study
- 2022
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 2044-6055. ; 12
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: There is an urgent need to reduce the burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), particularly in low-and middle-income countries, where the greatest burden lies. Yet, there is little research concerning the specific issues involved in scaling up NCD interventions targeting low-resource settings. We propose to examine this gap in up to 27 collaborative projects, which were funded by the Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases (GACD) 2019 Scale Up Call, reflecting a total funding investment of approximately US$50 million. These projects represent diverse countries, contexts and adopt varied approaches and study designs to scale-up complex, evidence-based interventions to improve hypertension and diabetes outcomes. A systematic inquiry of these projects will provide necessary scientific insights into the enablers and challenges in the scale up of complex NCD interventions.Methods and analysis: We will apply systems thinking (a holistic approach to analyse the inter-relationship between constituent parts of scaleup interventions and the context in which the interventions are implemented) and adopt a longitudinal mixed-methods study design to explore the planning and early implementation phases of scale up projects. Data will be gathered at three time periods, namely, at planning (T-P), initiation of implementation (T-0) and 1-year postinitiation (T-1). We will extract project-related data from secondary documents at T-P and conduct multistakeholder qualitative interviews to gather data at T-0 and T-1. We will undertake descriptive statistical analysis of T-P data and analyse T-0 and T-1 data using inductive thematic coding. The data extraction tool and interview guides were developed based on a literature review of scale-up frameworks.Ethics and dissemination: The current protocol was approved by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC number 23482). Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. The study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and more broadly through the GACD network.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Saghatchian, M, et al.
(författare)
-
Towards quality, comprehensiveness and excellence. The accreditation project of the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI)
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Tumori. - : SAGE Publications. - 0300-8916. ; 94:2, s. 164-171
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- There are important gaps in the health status of citizens across Europe, as measured by life expectancy, mortality or morbidity data (Report for the European Commission on the health status of the European Union, 2003). Among the main determinants of the major causes of mortality and morbidity, stated in this report, stands recurrently access to quality healthcare. There is a fundamental need to define quality indicators and set minimal levels of performance quality criteria for healthcare. There is a need to integrate research into healthcare and to provide patients with equity of access to such high quality care. Oncology is a speciality particularly suited to experimenting a first application of accreditation at European level. The Organisation of European Cancer Institutes is a growing network of cancer Centres in Europe. The focus of the OECI is to work with professionals and organisations with regard to prevention, care, research, development, patient's role and education. In order to fulfil its mission, the OECI initiated in 2002 an accreditation project with three objectives: • to develop a comprehensive accreditation system for oncology care, taking into account prevention, care, research, education and networking. • to set an updated database of cancer centres in Europe, with exhaustive information on their resources and activities (in care, research, education and management) • to develop a global labelling tool dedicated to comprehensive cancer centres in Europe, designating the various types of cancer structures, and the comprehensive cancer centres of reference and Excellence. An accreditation tool has been established, defining standards and criteria for prevention, care, research, education and follow-up activities. A quantitative database of cancer centres is integrated in the tool, with a questionnaire, that provides an overall view of the oncological landscape in OECI cancer centres in Europe. Data on infrastructures, resources and activities have been collected. This OECI accreditation tool will be launched in autumn 2008 for all cancer centres in Europe. It serves as a basis for the development of the labelling tool for cancer structures in Europe, with a focus on Comprehensiveness and Excellence labels. Quality assessment and improvement is a critical need in Europe and is addressed by the OECI for cancer care in Europe. Accreditation is a well accepted process and is feasible. Standards and criteria as well as an accreditation tool have been developed. The OECI questionnaire gives an accurate vision of cancer institutions throughout Europe, helping assessing the needs and providing standards. The accreditation project is a long-term complete and voluntary process with external and internal added value, an active process of sharing information and experience that should help the whole cancer community reach comprehensiveness and excellence.
|
|
