The Experts below are selected from a list of 317733 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Robyn L Keast - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
creating Change in Government to address the social determinants of health how can efforts be improved
BMC Public Health, 2014Co-Authors: Gemma Carey, Bradley Robert Crammond, Robyn L KeastAbstract:The evidence base for the impact of social determinants of health has been strengthened considerably in the last decade. Increasingly, the public health field is using this as a foundation for arguments and actions to Change Government policies. The Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach, alongside recommendations from the 2010 Marmot Review into health inequalities in the UK (which we refer to as the ‘Fairness Agenda’), go beyond advocating for the redesign of individual policies, to shaping the Government structures and processes that facilitate the implementation of these policies. In doing so, public health is drawing on recent trends in public policy towards ‘joined up Government’, where greater integration is sought between Government departments, agencies and actors outside of Government. In this paper we provide a meta-synthesis of the empirical public policy research into joined up Government, drawing out characteristics associated with successful joined up initiatives. We use this thematic synthesis as a basis for comparing and contrasting emerging public health interventions concerned with joined-up action across Government. We find that HiAP and the Fairness Agenda exhibit some of the characteristics associated with successful joined up initiatives, however they also utilise ‘Change instruments’ that have been found to be ineffective. Moreover, we find that – like many joined up initiatives – there is room for improvement in the alignment between the goals of the interventions and their design. Drawing on public policy studies, we recommend a number of strategies to increase the efficacy of current interventions. More broadly, we argue that up-stream interventions need to be ‘fit-for-purpose’, and cannot be easily replicated from one context to the next.
-
creating Change in Government to address the social determinants of health how can efforts be improved
QUT Business School, 2014Co-Authors: Gemma Carey, Bradley Robert Crammond, Robyn L KeastAbstract:Background - The evidence base for the impact of social determinants of health has been strengthened considerably in the last decade. Increasingly, the public health field is using this as a foundation for arguments and actions to Change Government policies. The Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach, alongside recommendations from the 2010 Marmot Review into health inequalities in the UK (which we refer to as the ‘Fairness Agenda’), go beyond advocating for the redesign of individual policies, to shaping the Government structures and processes that facilitate the implementation of these policies. In doing so, public health is drawing on recent trends in public policy towards ‘joined up Government’, where greater integration is sought between Government departments, agencies and actors outside of Government. Methods - In this paper we provide a meta-synthesis of the empirical public policy research into joined up Government, drawing out characteristics associated with successful joined up initiatives. - We use this thematic synthesis as a basis for comparing and contrasting emerging public health interventions concerned with joined-up action across Government. Results - We find that HiAP and the Fairness Agenda exhibit some of the characteristics associated with successful joined up initiatives, however they also utilise ‘Change instruments’ that have been found to be ineffective. Moreover, we find that – like many joined up initiatives – there is room for improvement in the alignment between the goals of the interventions and their design. Conclusion - Drawing on public policy studies, we recommend a number of strategies to increase the efficacy of current interventions. More broadly, we argue that up-stream interventions need to be ‘fit-for-purpose’, and cannot be easily replicated from one context to the next.
Gemma Carey - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
creating Change in Government to address the social determinants of health how can efforts be improved
BMC Public Health, 2014Co-Authors: Gemma Carey, Bradley Robert Crammond, Robyn L KeastAbstract:The evidence base for the impact of social determinants of health has been strengthened considerably in the last decade. Increasingly, the public health field is using this as a foundation for arguments and actions to Change Government policies. The Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach, alongside recommendations from the 2010 Marmot Review into health inequalities in the UK (which we refer to as the ‘Fairness Agenda’), go beyond advocating for the redesign of individual policies, to shaping the Government structures and processes that facilitate the implementation of these policies. In doing so, public health is drawing on recent trends in public policy towards ‘joined up Government’, where greater integration is sought between Government departments, agencies and actors outside of Government. In this paper we provide a meta-synthesis of the empirical public policy research into joined up Government, drawing out characteristics associated with successful joined up initiatives. We use this thematic synthesis as a basis for comparing and contrasting emerging public health interventions concerned with joined-up action across Government. We find that HiAP and the Fairness Agenda exhibit some of the characteristics associated with successful joined up initiatives, however they also utilise ‘Change instruments’ that have been found to be ineffective. Moreover, we find that – like many joined up initiatives – there is room for improvement in the alignment between the goals of the interventions and their design. Drawing on public policy studies, we recommend a number of strategies to increase the efficacy of current interventions. More broadly, we argue that up-stream interventions need to be ‘fit-for-purpose’, and cannot be easily replicated from one context to the next.
-
creating Change in Government to address the social determinants of health how can efforts be improved
QUT Business School, 2014Co-Authors: Gemma Carey, Bradley Robert Crammond, Robyn L KeastAbstract:Background - The evidence base for the impact of social determinants of health has been strengthened considerably in the last decade. Increasingly, the public health field is using this as a foundation for arguments and actions to Change Government policies. The Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach, alongside recommendations from the 2010 Marmot Review into health inequalities in the UK (which we refer to as the ‘Fairness Agenda’), go beyond advocating for the redesign of individual policies, to shaping the Government structures and processes that facilitate the implementation of these policies. In doing so, public health is drawing on recent trends in public policy towards ‘joined up Government’, where greater integration is sought between Government departments, agencies and actors outside of Government. Methods - In this paper we provide a meta-synthesis of the empirical public policy research into joined up Government, drawing out characteristics associated with successful joined up initiatives. - We use this thematic synthesis as a basis for comparing and contrasting emerging public health interventions concerned with joined-up action across Government. Results - We find that HiAP and the Fairness Agenda exhibit some of the characteristics associated with successful joined up initiatives, however they also utilise ‘Change instruments’ that have been found to be ineffective. Moreover, we find that – like many joined up initiatives – there is room for improvement in the alignment between the goals of the interventions and their design. Conclusion - Drawing on public policy studies, we recommend a number of strategies to increase the efficacy of current interventions. More broadly, we argue that up-stream interventions need to be ‘fit-for-purpose’, and cannot be easily replicated from one context to the next.
Von Meding Jason - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Drivers of Applying Ecological Modernization to Construction Waste Minimization in New South Wales Construction Industry
'University of Technology Sydney (UTS)', 2021Co-Authors: Al-hamadani Sulala, Egbelakin Temitope, Sher Willy, Von Meding JasonAbstract:The application of ecological modernization (EM) (to delink industry growth from environmental damage) to minimize construction waste has not been explored within the construction industry in general, and the New South Wales (NSW) construction industry in particular. This study seeks to identify the drivers of applying EM to construction waste minimisation (CWM) in the industry. Also, to determine the CWM measures that are critical for each of the drivers. A survey was adopted in this study to target stakeholders engaged in the delivery of construction projects in NSW from design to completion. The survey was selected to reach a large number of respondents within a manageable period. A pilot study was conducted to ensure the reliability of the research design before a full-scale data collection was launched. The data from 240 valid responses was analysed using factor analysis, relative importance index and descriptive statistics. The results revealed five important drivers for EM’s application to CWM. These are agents of Change, Government policies, supply chain dynamics, skill-building and technological innovations. The CWM measures that are critical for each of these drivers were also identified. The study provides insights into the application of EM to address the construction industry problem of waste generation as by-product of its growth. It also shows the ability to protect the environment while enabling continuous economic growth. Furthermore, it demonstrates the applicability of EM to minimize the construction waste of NSW construction industry
Bradley Robert Crammond - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
creating Change in Government to address the social determinants of health how can efforts be improved
BMC Public Health, 2014Co-Authors: Gemma Carey, Bradley Robert Crammond, Robyn L KeastAbstract:The evidence base for the impact of social determinants of health has been strengthened considerably in the last decade. Increasingly, the public health field is using this as a foundation for arguments and actions to Change Government policies. The Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach, alongside recommendations from the 2010 Marmot Review into health inequalities in the UK (which we refer to as the ‘Fairness Agenda’), go beyond advocating for the redesign of individual policies, to shaping the Government structures and processes that facilitate the implementation of these policies. In doing so, public health is drawing on recent trends in public policy towards ‘joined up Government’, where greater integration is sought between Government departments, agencies and actors outside of Government. In this paper we provide a meta-synthesis of the empirical public policy research into joined up Government, drawing out characteristics associated with successful joined up initiatives. We use this thematic synthesis as a basis for comparing and contrasting emerging public health interventions concerned with joined-up action across Government. We find that HiAP and the Fairness Agenda exhibit some of the characteristics associated with successful joined up initiatives, however they also utilise ‘Change instruments’ that have been found to be ineffective. Moreover, we find that – like many joined up initiatives – there is room for improvement in the alignment between the goals of the interventions and their design. Drawing on public policy studies, we recommend a number of strategies to increase the efficacy of current interventions. More broadly, we argue that up-stream interventions need to be ‘fit-for-purpose’, and cannot be easily replicated from one context to the next.
-
creating Change in Government to address the social determinants of health how can efforts be improved
QUT Business School, 2014Co-Authors: Gemma Carey, Bradley Robert Crammond, Robyn L KeastAbstract:Background - The evidence base for the impact of social determinants of health has been strengthened considerably in the last decade. Increasingly, the public health field is using this as a foundation for arguments and actions to Change Government policies. The Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach, alongside recommendations from the 2010 Marmot Review into health inequalities in the UK (which we refer to as the ‘Fairness Agenda’), go beyond advocating for the redesign of individual policies, to shaping the Government structures and processes that facilitate the implementation of these policies. In doing so, public health is drawing on recent trends in public policy towards ‘joined up Government’, where greater integration is sought between Government departments, agencies and actors outside of Government. Methods - In this paper we provide a meta-synthesis of the empirical public policy research into joined up Government, drawing out characteristics associated with successful joined up initiatives. - We use this thematic synthesis as a basis for comparing and contrasting emerging public health interventions concerned with joined-up action across Government. Results - We find that HiAP and the Fairness Agenda exhibit some of the characteristics associated with successful joined up initiatives, however they also utilise ‘Change instruments’ that have been found to be ineffective. Moreover, we find that – like many joined up initiatives – there is room for improvement in the alignment between the goals of the interventions and their design. Conclusion - Drawing on public policy studies, we recommend a number of strategies to increase the efficacy of current interventions. More broadly, we argue that up-stream interventions need to be ‘fit-for-purpose’, and cannot be easily replicated from one context to the next.
Kelly L Greenfield - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Governments have the power interpretations of climate Change responsibility and solutions among canadian environmentalists
Organization & Environment, 2012Co-Authors: Mark C J Stoddart, David B Tindall, Kelly L GreenfieldAbstract:The authors examine environmentalists’ attribution of responsibility for addressing climate Change and their beliefs about solutions to this problem. Their analysis is based on responses to open-ended questions completed by 1,227 members of nine different environmental organizations. For these environmental movement participants, the federal Government is seen as most responsible for addressing climate Change. Government leadership is necessary because it has the power to set regulations and lead corporations and citizens toward pro-environmental behavior. However, a substantial number of participants also assert that “individuals are the driving force” in dealing with climate Change. In this framework, individuals can take responsibility either through making lifestyle Changes, or through applying pressure to Government and businesses as citizens and consumers. Corporations are interpreted as unwilling to Change on their own but must be coerced into becoming more environmentally sustainable by a strong s...