The Experts below are selected from a list of 150 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Simon Szreter - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Industrialization and health
British Medical Bulletin, 2004Co-Authors: Simon SzreterAbstract:Throughout history and prehistory trade and economic growth have always entailed serious population health challenges. The post-war orthodoxies of demographic and epidemiological transition theory and the Washington consensus have each encouraged the view that industrialization necessarily changes all this and that modern forms of rapid economic growth will reliably deliver enhanced population health. A more careful review of the historical demographic and anthropometric evidence demonstrates that this is empirically false, and a fallacious oversimplification. All documented Developed Nations endured the ‘four Ds’ of disruption, deprivation, disease and death during their historic industrializations. The well-documented British historical case is reviewed in detail to examine the principal factors involved. This shows that political and ideological divisions and conflict—and their subsequent resolution in favour of the health interests of the working-class majorities—were key factors in determining whether industrialization exerted a positive or negative net effect on population health. Industrialization refers to a process which has occurred in the history of all economically ‘Developed’ Nation states and which remains an aspiration for most of the governments of those many populations which remain today relatively unDeveloped. Through industrialization the economy of a country is dramatically transformed so that the means whereby it produces material commodities is increasingly mechanized since human or animal labour is increasingly replaced by other, predominantly mineral sources of energy in direct application to the production of useful commodities 1 . Industrialization is a special case of the near-universal phenomenon of human trade and economic change. It refers to a period of marked intensification of such activity, which in all known cases has resulted in an irreversible change in a country’s economy, after which the production and interNational trading of commodities remains permanently at a much higher level of intensity. This is largely because the factorial increase in productive capacities made possible by the technological shift in power supply simultaneously entails a wide range of accompanying transformations in the social relations of work, trade, communications, consumption and human settlement patterns and so, inevitably, also implies profound cultural, ideological and political change.
P. Phartiyal - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Reinvigorating the Role of Science in Democracy
PLOS Biology, 2013Co-Authors: Andrew A Rosenberg, Michael Halpern, Seth Shulman, Celia Wexler, P. PhartiyalAbstract:Good policy decisions require reasonable and robust debate grounded in the best possible information. And yet, it is no secret that political discourse around the world, with the United States as a prime example, has become increasingly, and even bitterly, partisan. Many governments with parliamentary systems are formed by fragile coalitions, and political discourse is heated. In the United States, spending on lobbying and campaigns is at an all-time high [1], giving special interests immense access to lawmakers. The public approval rating of the U.S. Congress stands at an all-time low [2], but disapproval of government is by no means confined to the American electorate [3]. In too many cases, science and scientific advice have been marginalized in public policy debates around the world, ranging from natural resource use (e.g., fisheries, forestry) to environmental impacts (e.g., climate, air, water, mining, or transportation) to public health and safety (e.g., pharmaceuticals, tobacco use, food and product safety). In the United States, where the new Center for Science and Democracy (www.ucsusa.org/center-for-science-and-democracy/) at the Union of Concerned Scientists will be focusing our efforts, misinformation on scientific issues abounds, from local city councils to the halls of the U.S. Congress, fueled by a never-ending news cycle in which anyone with an internet connection can pose as an expert. Instead of seeking the best available science, elected officials seek analyses that support the policies they wish to put forward. To make matters worse, even scientific and technical facts that are accepted as established knowledge in virtually every other Developed Nation are commonly dismissed in American discourse, on topics as diverse as climate change and the safety of vaccines. When decision makers cannot agree on even the basic facts underlying a problem and the science itself is politicized, good policy outcomes become significantly less likely. Regrettably, these developments come at a time when the public and decision makers face some of the most complex and daunting problems in our history: mitigating and adapting to the impacts of global warming, finding sustainable ways to feed, power, and transport ourselves, and reducing the threat of catastrophic war. Against this backdrop, the U.S. government's inability to implement sound policies on even the most straightforward science-based issues such as climate change is particularly troubling. When we allow policy makers to treat scientific advice, based upon a well-Developed and transparent scientific process, as just another special-interest opinion, we jeopardize not only the opportunity to make good policy decisions, but also our health, environment, and quality of life. We possess the intellectual capacity and infrastructure to restore science to its rightful place in democratic decision making. So, what steps do we need to take toward this end?
Ngiap Chuan Tan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
health related quality of life of older asian patients with multimorbidity in primary care in a Developed Nation
Geriatrics & Gerontology International, 2017Co-Authors: Joanne Hui Min Quah, Pei Wang, Nan Luo, Ngiap Chuan TanAbstract:Aim Older adults are susceptible to two or more chronic ailments or multimorbidity. The present study aimed to establish the relationship between multimorbidity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) amongst Asian elderly patients in primary care in a Developed Nation. It also assessed how functional disability and chronic musculoskeletal pain are associated with HRQoL. Methods A cross-sectional study was carried out in a Singapore public primary care clinic. An interviewer-administered questionnaire was used to collect data on chronic disease profile, HRQoL (using the European Quality of Life 5 Dimension), basic activities of daily living, instrumental activities of daily living, musculoskeletal pain and sociodemographic characteristics. The association of multimorbidity, functional disability and chronic musculoskeletal pain with HRQoL was assessed using multivariate linear regression analysis. Results A total of 498 outpatients aged 65 years and older with multimorbidity were enrolled. Their mean age was 73.9 years, and approximately 75% had between two and four chronic conditions. The most commonly reported chronic conditions were hypertension (86.1%), hyperlipidemia (80.7%), diabetes (40.2%) and arthritis (33.3%). The European Quality of Life 5 Dimension index score decreased significantly when the number of comorbidities was more than five. Chronic hip and knee pain, one or more “dependent” activities of daily living dimensions and two or more “dependent” IADL dimensions were independently associated with worse HRQoL. Conclusions Multimorbidity is associated with poorer HRQoL amongst older adults in Singapore. Review of chronic musculoskeletal pain and functional disabilities should be integrated into the comprehensive assessment of older adults in an enhanced model of primary care to improve the HRQoL of these older patients. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2016; ••: ••–••.
Andrew A Rosenberg - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Reinvigorating the Role of Science in Democracy
PLOS Biology, 2013Co-Authors: Andrew A Rosenberg, Michael Halpern, Seth Shulman, Celia Wexler, P. PhartiyalAbstract:Good policy decisions require reasonable and robust debate grounded in the best possible information. And yet, it is no secret that political discourse around the world, with the United States as a prime example, has become increasingly, and even bitterly, partisan. Many governments with parliamentary systems are formed by fragile coalitions, and political discourse is heated. In the United States, spending on lobbying and campaigns is at an all-time high [1], giving special interests immense access to lawmakers. The public approval rating of the U.S. Congress stands at an all-time low [2], but disapproval of government is by no means confined to the American electorate [3]. In too many cases, science and scientific advice have been marginalized in public policy debates around the world, ranging from natural resource use (e.g., fisheries, forestry) to environmental impacts (e.g., climate, air, water, mining, or transportation) to public health and safety (e.g., pharmaceuticals, tobacco use, food and product safety). In the United States, where the new Center for Science and Democracy (www.ucsusa.org/center-for-science-and-democracy/) at the Union of Concerned Scientists will be focusing our efforts, misinformation on scientific issues abounds, from local city councils to the halls of the U.S. Congress, fueled by a never-ending news cycle in which anyone with an internet connection can pose as an expert. Instead of seeking the best available science, elected officials seek analyses that support the policies they wish to put forward. To make matters worse, even scientific and technical facts that are accepted as established knowledge in virtually every other Developed Nation are commonly dismissed in American discourse, on topics as diverse as climate change and the safety of vaccines. When decision makers cannot agree on even the basic facts underlying a problem and the science itself is politicized, good policy outcomes become significantly less likely. Regrettably, these developments come at a time when the public and decision makers face some of the most complex and daunting problems in our history: mitigating and adapting to the impacts of global warming, finding sustainable ways to feed, power, and transport ourselves, and reducing the threat of catastrophic war. Against this backdrop, the U.S. government's inability to implement sound policies on even the most straightforward science-based issues such as climate change is particularly troubling. When we allow policy makers to treat scientific advice, based upon a well-Developed and transparent scientific process, as just another special-interest opinion, we jeopardize not only the opportunity to make good policy decisions, but also our health, environment, and quality of life. We possess the intellectual capacity and infrastructure to restore science to its rightful place in democratic decision making. So, what steps do we need to take toward this end?
Jariah Mohd. Jan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Mapping research collaborations in the business and management field in Malaysia, 1980–2010
Scientometrics, 2013Co-Authors: Sameer Kumar, Jariah Mohd. JanAbstract:This paper examines research collaborations in the field of business and management in Malaysia, a fast-developing economy in Southeast Asia. The country aims to become a Developed Nation by the year 2020, guided by its well-charted Wawasan 2020 or Vision 2020 program. Research and development are important agenda items within this program. Rarely, however, have studies investigated the research collaborations of researchers based in Malaysia from the network perspective. After a manual author disambiguation process, we examined the network of 285 business and management researchers at the individual, institutional, and interNational levels. Author collaborations per paper almost doubled between 2001 and 2010 compared to the period 1980–1990. The popularity of researchers and the strength and diversity of their ties with other researchers had significant effects on their research performance. Furthermore, geographical proximity still mattered in intra-National collaborations. Malaysian institutions more often collaborated intra-institutionally or with foreign partners than with other institutions within Malaysia. The country’s five research universities are among the top-most productive of all institutions in Malaysia. Malaysia’s top interNational partners are all Developed countries, including the US, Australia, Japan, the UK, and Canada. Surprisingly, Malaysia has had relatively little collaboration with ASEAN Nations, of which it is a prominent member and which has an important agenda of educational cooperation within its member states. InterNationally co-authored articles have been cited almost three times more than locally co-authored articles. Based on these results, we suggest an effective co-authorship strategy.
