Knowledge is power: In a world shaped by science, what obligation do scientists have to the public?
In: Ethics in science and environmental politics: ESEP ; publication organ of the Eco-Ethics International Union, Volume 9, p. 25-28
ISSN: 1611-8014
7 results
Sort by:
In: Ethics in science and environmental politics: ESEP ; publication organ of the Eco-Ethics International Union, Volume 9, p. 25-28
ISSN: 1611-8014
In: Survey review, Volume 20, Issue 152, p. 94-104
ISSN: 1752-2706
Background: Engaging the community in decisions-making is recognised as important for improving public health, and is recommended in global alcohol strategies, and in national policies on controlling alcohol availability. Yet there is little understanding of how to engage communities to influence decision-making to help reduce alcohol-related harms. We sought to identify and understand mechanisms of community engagement in decision-making concerning the local alcohol environment in England. Methods: We conducted case studies in three local government areas in England in 2018, purposively selected for examples of community engagement in decisions affecting the local alcohol environment. We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with residents, workers, local politicians and local government practitioners, and analysed documents linked to engagement and alcohol decision-making. Results: Four rationales for engaging the community in decision-making affecting the alcohol environment were identified: i) as part of statutory decision-making processes; ii) to develop new policies; iii) as representation on committees; and iv) occurring through relationship building. Many of the examples related to alcohol licensing processes, but also local economy and community safety decision-making. The impact of community inputs on decisions was often not clear, but there were a few instances of engagement influencing the process and outcome of decision-making relating to the alcohol environment. Conclusions: While influencing statutory licensing decision-making is challenging, community experiences of alcoholrelated harms can be valuable 'evidence' to support new licensing policies. Informal relationship-building between communities and local government is also beneficial for sharing information about alcohol-related harms and to facilitate future engagement. However, care must be taken to balance the different interests among diverse community actors relating to the local alcohol environment, and extra support is needed for those with least capacity to engage but who face more burden of alcohol-related harms, to avoid compounding existing inequalities.
BASE
Background: Engaging the community in decisions-making is recognised as important for improving public health, and is recommended in global alcohol strategies, and in national policies on controlling alcohol availability. Yet there is little understanding of how to engage communities to influence decision-making to help reduce alcohol-related harms. We sought to identify and understand mechanisms of community engagement in decision-making concerning the local alcohol environment in England. Methods: We conducted case studies in three local government areas in England in 2018, purposively selected for examples of community engagement in decisions affecting the local alcohol environment. We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with residents, workers, local politicians and local government practitioners, and analysed documents linked to engagement and alcohol decision-making. Results: Four rationales for engaging the community in decision-making affecting the alcohol environment were identified: i) as part of statutory decision-making processes; ii) to develop new policies; iii) as representation on committees; and iv) occurring through relationship building. Many of the examples related to alcohol licensing processes, but also local economy and community safety decision-making. The impact of community inputs on decisions was often not clear, but there were a few instances of engagement influencing the process and outcome of decision-making relating to the alcohol environment. Conclusions: While influencing statutory licensing decision-making is challenging, community experiences of alcohol-related harms can be valuable 'evidence' to support new licensing policies. Informal relationship-building between communities and local government is also beneficial for sharing information about alcohol-related harms and to facilitate future engagement. However, care must be taken to balance the different interests among diverse community actors relating to the local alcohol environment, and extra support is needed for ...
BASE
: Cumulative impact policies (CIPs) are widely used in UK local government to help regulate alcohol markets in localities characterised by high density of outlets and high rates of alcohol related harms. CIPs have been advocated as a means of protecting health by controlling or limiting alcohol availability. We use a comparative qualitative case study approach (n=5 English local government authorities, 48 participants) to assess how CIPs vary across different localities, what they are intended to achieve, and the implications for local-level alcohol availability. We found that the case study CIPs varied greatly in terms of aims, health focus and scale of implementation. However, they shared some common functions around influencing the types and managerial practices of alcohol outlets in specific neighbourhoods without reducing outlet density. The assumption that this will lead to alcohol harm-reduction needs to be quantitatively tested.
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 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