| 1. |
- Glasbey, JC, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Sloot, Frea, et al.
(författare)
-
Inventory of current EU paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of Medical Screening. - : SAGE Publications. - 0969-1413 .- 1475-5793. ; 22:2, s. 55-64
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To examine the diversity in paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes in Europe. Methods: Themes for comparison of screening programmes derived from literature were used to compile three questionnaires on vision, hearing, and public health screening. Tests used, professions involved, age, and frequency of testing seem to influence sensitivity, specificity, and costs most. Questionnaires were sent to ophthalmologists, orthoptists, otolaryngologists, and audiologists involved in paediatric screening in all EU full-member, candidate, and associate states. Answers were cross-checked. Results: Thirty-nine countries participated; 35 have a vision screening programme, 33 a nation-wide neonatal hearing screening programme. Visual acuity (VA) is measured in 35 countries, in 71% of these more than once. First measurement of VA varies from three to seven years of age, but is usually before age five. At age three and four, picture charts, including Lea Hyvarinen, are used most; in children over four, Tumbling-E and Snellen. As first hearing screening test, otoacoustic emission is used most in healthy neonates, and auditory brainstem response in premature newborns. The majority of hearing testing programmes are staged; children are referred after 1–4 abnormal tests. Vision screening is performed mostly by paediatricians, ophthalmologists, or nurses. Funding is mostly by health insurance or state. Coverage was reported as >95% in half of countries, but reporting was often not first-hand. Conclusion: Largest differences were found in VA charts used (12), professions involved in vision screening (10), number of hearing screening tests before referral (1–4), and funding sources (8).
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Kehoe, Laura, et al.
(författare)
-
Make EU trade with Brazil sustainable
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Science. - : American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). - 0036-8075 .- 1095-9203. ; 364:6438, s. 341-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Palialexis, A., et al.
(författare)
-
Monitoring biodiversity for the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Lessons learnt from evaluating the official reports
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Marine Policy. - : Elsevier BV. - 0308-597X. ; 128
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Evaluating environmental policies creates opportunities for harmonising and refining their implementation using a heuristic approach, and considering the knowledge gaps in understanding the complex environmental processes. The European Union's (EU) Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) is an ambitious legislation that brings together state, pressure, and impact Descriptors of the marine environment, and is built on an ecosystem-based approach to management. Ultimately, the Directive aims to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) and sustainable use of marine resources. The EU Member States’ (MS) reporting obligations for biodiversity monitoring were evaluated, to produce the first EU-wide overview of how monitoring programmes across EU waters are organised. Marine biodiversity monitoring is essential for the management of anthropogenic activities that affect the state of marine ecosystems, to support the understanding of complex marine systems, to determine GES, and to evaluate the effectiveness of the established measures. The EU MS put great effort into adapting their established biodiversity monitoring activities for the existing policy requirements, and to plan new monitoring programmes from the emerging needs of this ambitious policy. The monitoring reports provide a unique source of information, and this evaluation could lead to improve MS’ reporting, and harmonise implementation of the policy. Moreover, the evaluation provides a basis for sharing good practices, innovative monitoring standards, and developing joint monitoring programmes that could greatly facilitate the establishment of cost-efficient and accurate monitoring. As such, the recommendations from this policy evaluation could be relevant to any environmental management framework worldwide. © 2021 The Authors
|
|
