The Experts below are selected from a list of 478029 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Marialaura Silva - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
influenza vaccination Policy Making processes in france and the netherlands framework and determinants
Health Policy, 2016Co-Authors: Marialaura Silva, Lionel Perrier, John Paget, Anne Mosnier, Valerie Buthion, Jean Cohen, Hansmartin SpathAbstract:Abstract Objectives Target groups for seasonal influenza vaccination are nationally defined based on several factors. However, few studies have explored the Policy-Making processes at the country-level. We investigated key differences in the Policy-Making process for the development of vaccination recommendations between France (FR) and The Netherlands (NL). This paper presents preliminary results on the evidence used in the decision-Making process and focuses on the interactions between the experts and stakeholders. Methods A documentary analysis identified the stakeholders of this process as governmental authorities, research institutions, associations, and manufacturers. This qualitative study included at least one expert from each stakeholder group. Thirty-three semi-structured interviews were performed in 2013 (16 FR, 17 NL). We used NVivo10® to perform a thematic content analysis on the data. Results National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) were the key stakeholders in the development of recommendations. There was no systematic standard evaluation of evidence during the decision-Making process in both countries. Likewise, voting was not systematic, although it did occur more often in FR. A declaration of interests was obligatory in both countries. Experts with no conflicts of interest were rare because many depend on private funding for their research on influenza vaccination. Conclusions The transparency of the NITAGs’ procedures for the development of recommendations should be improved. We believe improvements might be achieved by the systematic standard evaluation of evidence, consistent voting, clear declarations of interest, and increased public funding for vaccination research.
-
influenza vaccination Policy Making processes in france and the netherlands framework and determinants
Research Papers in Economics, 2016Co-Authors: Marialaura Silva, Lionel Perrier, John Paget, Anne Mosnier, Valerie Buthion, Jean Cohen, Hansmartin SpathAbstract:Target groups for seasonal influenza vaccination are nationally defined based on several factors. However, few studies have explored the Policy-Making processes at the country-level. We investigated key differences in the Policy-Making process for the development of vaccination recommendations between France (FR) and The Netherlands (NL). This paper presents preliminary results on the evidence used in the decision-Making process and focuses on the interactions between the experts and stakeholders. (This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
Hansmartin Spath - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
influenza vaccination Policy Making processes in france and the netherlands framework and determinants
Health Policy, 2016Co-Authors: Marialaura Silva, Lionel Perrier, John Paget, Anne Mosnier, Valerie Buthion, Jean Cohen, Hansmartin SpathAbstract:Abstract Objectives Target groups for seasonal influenza vaccination are nationally defined based on several factors. However, few studies have explored the Policy-Making processes at the country-level. We investigated key differences in the Policy-Making process for the development of vaccination recommendations between France (FR) and The Netherlands (NL). This paper presents preliminary results on the evidence used in the decision-Making process and focuses on the interactions between the experts and stakeholders. Methods A documentary analysis identified the stakeholders of this process as governmental authorities, research institutions, associations, and manufacturers. This qualitative study included at least one expert from each stakeholder group. Thirty-three semi-structured interviews were performed in 2013 (16 FR, 17 NL). We used NVivo10® to perform a thematic content analysis on the data. Results National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) were the key stakeholders in the development of recommendations. There was no systematic standard evaluation of evidence during the decision-Making process in both countries. Likewise, voting was not systematic, although it did occur more often in FR. A declaration of interests was obligatory in both countries. Experts with no conflicts of interest were rare because many depend on private funding for their research on influenza vaccination. Conclusions The transparency of the NITAGs’ procedures for the development of recommendations should be improved. We believe improvements might be achieved by the systematic standard evaluation of evidence, consistent voting, clear declarations of interest, and increased public funding for vaccination research.
-
influenza vaccination Policy Making processes in france and the netherlands framework and determinants
Research Papers in Economics, 2016Co-Authors: Marialaura Silva, Lionel Perrier, John Paget, Anne Mosnier, Valerie Buthion, Jean Cohen, Hansmartin SpathAbstract:Target groups for seasonal influenza vaccination are nationally defined based on several factors. However, few studies have explored the Policy-Making processes at the country-level. We investigated key differences in the Policy-Making process for the development of vaccination recommendations between France (FR) and The Netherlands (NL). This paper presents preliminary results on the evidence used in the decision-Making process and focuses on the interactions between the experts and stakeholders. (This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
Lionel Perrier - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
influenza vaccination Policy Making processes in france and the netherlands framework and determinants
Health Policy, 2016Co-Authors: Marialaura Silva, Lionel Perrier, John Paget, Anne Mosnier, Valerie Buthion, Jean Cohen, Hansmartin SpathAbstract:Abstract Objectives Target groups for seasonal influenza vaccination are nationally defined based on several factors. However, few studies have explored the Policy-Making processes at the country-level. We investigated key differences in the Policy-Making process for the development of vaccination recommendations between France (FR) and The Netherlands (NL). This paper presents preliminary results on the evidence used in the decision-Making process and focuses on the interactions between the experts and stakeholders. Methods A documentary analysis identified the stakeholders of this process as governmental authorities, research institutions, associations, and manufacturers. This qualitative study included at least one expert from each stakeholder group. Thirty-three semi-structured interviews were performed in 2013 (16 FR, 17 NL). We used NVivo10® to perform a thematic content analysis on the data. Results National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) were the key stakeholders in the development of recommendations. There was no systematic standard evaluation of evidence during the decision-Making process in both countries. Likewise, voting was not systematic, although it did occur more often in FR. A declaration of interests was obligatory in both countries. Experts with no conflicts of interest were rare because many depend on private funding for their research on influenza vaccination. Conclusions The transparency of the NITAGs’ procedures for the development of recommendations should be improved. We believe improvements might be achieved by the systematic standard evaluation of evidence, consistent voting, clear declarations of interest, and increased public funding for vaccination research.
-
influenza vaccination Policy Making processes in france and the netherlands framework and determinants
Research Papers in Economics, 2016Co-Authors: Marialaura Silva, Lionel Perrier, John Paget, Anne Mosnier, Valerie Buthion, Jean Cohen, Hansmartin SpathAbstract:Target groups for seasonal influenza vaccination are nationally defined based on several factors. However, few studies have explored the Policy-Making processes at the country-level. We investigated key differences in the Policy-Making process for the development of vaccination recommendations between France (FR) and The Netherlands (NL). This paper presents preliminary results on the evidence used in the decision-Making process and focuses on the interactions between the experts and stakeholders. (This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
Karim Ismaili - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
contextualizing the criminal justice Policy Making process
Criminal Justice Policy Review, 2006Co-Authors: Karim IsmailiAbstract:This article is an attempt at improving the knowledge base on the criminal justice Policy-Making process. As the criminological subfield of crime Policy leads more criminologists to engage in Policy analysis, understanding the Policy-Making environment in all of its complexity becomes more central to criminology. This becomes an important step toward theorizing the Policy process. To advance this enterprise, Policy-oriented criminologists might look to theoretical and conceptual frameworks that have established histories in the political and Policy sciences. This article presents a contextual approach to examine the criminal justice Policy-Making environment and its accompanying process. The principal benefit of this approach is its emphasis on addressing the complexity inherent to Policy contexts. For research on the Policy process to advance, contextually sensitive methods of Policy inquiry must be formulated and should illuminate the social reality of criminal justice Policy Making through the accumula...
Maha Ali - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
using media to impact health Policy Making an integrative systematic review
Implementation Science, 2017Co-Authors: Lama Boukarroum, Fadi Eljardali, Nour Hemadi, Yasmine Faraj, Utkarsh Ojha, Maher Shahrour, Andrea Darzi, Maha AliAbstract:Media interventions can potentially play a major role in influencing health policies. This integrative systematic review aimed to assess the effects of planned media interventions—including social media—on the health Policy-Making process. Eligible study designs included randomized and non-randomized designs, economic studies, process evaluation studies, stakeholder analyses, qualitative methods, and case studies. We electronically searched Medline, EMBASE, Communication and Mass Media Complete, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the WHO Global Health Library. We followed standard systematic review methodology for study selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment. Twenty-one studies met our eligibility criteria: 10 evaluation studies using either quantitative (n = 7) or qualitative (n = 3) designs and 11 case studies. None of the evaluation studies were on social media. The findings of the evaluation studies suggest that media interventions may have a positive impact when used as accountability tools leading to prioritizing and initiating Policy discussions, as tools to increase Policymakers’ awareness, as tools to influence Policy formulation, as awareness tools leading to Policy adoption, and as awareness tools to improve compliance with laws and regulations. In one study, media-generated attention had a negative effect on Policy advocacy as it mobilized opponents who defeated the passage of the bills that the media intervention advocated for. We judged the confidence in the available evidence as limited due to the risk of bias in the included studies and the indirectness of the evidence. There is currently a lack of reliable evidence to guide decisions on the use of media interventions to influence health Policy-Making. Additional and better-designed, conducted, and reported primary research is needed to better understand the effects of media interventions, particularly social media, on health Policy-Making processes, and the circumstances under which media interventions are successful. PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015020243
