Data Access Through Data Portability
In: European data protection law review: EdpL, Band 8, Heft 2, S. 221-237
ISSN: 2364-284X
11 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: European data protection law review: EdpL, Band 8, Heft 2, S. 221-237
ISSN: 2364-284X
'Ideology' is, admittedly, a slippery social scientific concept that comes with a heavy load of disparate theoretical baggage. However, we suggest, it is also an indispensable resource for the critical study of contemporary planning practice. In this paper, we attempt to develop a fresh way of approaching the study of ideological dynamics in contemporary planning practice by bringing together a post-foundational understanding of the domain of 'the ideological' with insights from the emerging, multidisciplinary research field of valuation studies and recent developments within critical planning studies. On this basis, the paper proposes an approach that operationalizes the ideological in a strictly functional manner based on empirical observations of the capacity of a statement or concept to defer, displace or diffuse political tensions at a particular time and place. Based on an understanding of ideological functioning as a situational and contextual phenomenon, we conclude that the 'ideological purchase', i.e. the emically perceived ideological use-value of various concepts, will be variable across time and space. Semiotic operators that generate ideological effects, such as linguistic concepts, can thus be perceived by their users to be more or less situationally effective in their ideological function, and hence be of more or less ideological value as tools to resolve tensions between and enable the mobilization of coalitions of actors at various times and places. It should thus be possible to empirically track the fluctuations in the ideological value of concepts, i.e. how well are they perceived by the relevant actors in their own contexts to do the job of staving off conflict and political friction; and further, to analyze what concepts are increasing or decreasing in ideological value at a specific time and place. In the paper we outline this novel approach to the analysis of ideological dynamics in planning and further provide an exploratory application of the approach on field material relating to the shifting ideological value of the concept of 'sustainability' within urban planning and strategy processes in Cambridge (UK) and Sydney (Australia).
BASE
In: Swiss Medical Forum ‒ Schweizerisches Medizin-Forum, Band 10, Heft 33
ISSN: 1424-4020
In: Swiss Medical Forum ‒ Schweizerisches Medizin-Forum, Band 10, Heft 12
ISSN: 1424-4020
In: European data protection law review: EdpL, Band 5, Heft 3, S. 352-366
ISSN: 2364-284X
In: Swiss Medical Forum ‒ Schweizerisches Medizin-Forum, Band 9, Heft 6
ISSN: 1424-4020
In: Minimally invasive neurosurgery, Band 9, Heft 4, S. 121-132
ISSN: 1439-2291
In: Minimally invasive neurosurgery, Band 7, Heft 2, S. 86-95
ISSN: 1439-2291
In: Behavioral medicine, Band 26, Heft 4, S. 149-157
ISSN: 1940-4026
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
BASE
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long- term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
BASE