Search results

The COVID-19 Pandemic Recession has revealed examples of systematic discrimination within a wide range of industries, including banking. Using data from interviews conducted with bank employees in March and April 2020, we explore how private banks exemplify racialized organizations and operate within the broader economic system of racial capitalism that prioritizes pursuit of profits over the interests of their customers. We explain how the banking industry's responses to the pandemic reflect the logic of racial capitalism, and we develop the theme of doubling down to illustrate this logic and to explain the patterns revealed in employees' narratives. Subthemes included pursuit of profits, bureaucratic mundane, forced choices, history limits imagination, and dissonance. We conclude with implications for the banking industry.

On 31 August 2007 the Netherlands Government (NG) decided to fund the Danish Demining Group (DDG) mine action activities in Somaliland, Sudan, and Afghanistan. The funding agreement runs from January 2008 to December 2011 and NG and DDG had preliminary discussions on the continuation of the project. The NG Decision of 31 August 2007 foresees an external evaluation initiated by the grant recipient. The purpose of this evaluation is two-fold: (1) to evaluate progress towards objectives, thus contributing to improving the programme through documenting lessons learned and providing recommendations; and (2) to evaluate and inform NG and DDG on project relevance, and give recommendations regarding a continuation of the project. The specific objectives of the valuation are to ascertain results (outputs and outcomes) and assess the efficiency, effectiveness and relevance of the following projects: 1. Survey, Explosive Ordnance Disposal and Mine Risk Education, in Southern Sudan 2. Mechanical Support to Mine Action, in Afghanistan 3. Support to Ammunition Disposal and Community Liaison/Education Teams, in Somaliland The evaluation of the Sudan project was a desk review, based largely on an evaluation of DDG operations conducted earlier in 2010 by the GICHD on behalf of DDG and Sida. The evaluations in both Afghanistan and Somaliland entailed field missions.

BACKGROUND Financial incentives and audit plus feedback on performance are two strategies commonly used by governments to motivate general practitioners (GP) to undertake specific healthcare activities. However, in recent years, governments have reduced or removed incentive payments without evidence of the potential impact on GP behaviour and patient outcomes. This trial (known as ACCEPt-able) aims to determine whether preventive care activities in general practice are sustained when financial incentives and/or external audit plus feedback on preventive care activities are removed. The activity investigated is annual chlamydia testing for 16- to 29-year-old adults, a key preventive health strategy within this age group. METHODS/DESIGN ACCEPt-able builds on a large cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) that evaluated a 3-year chlamydia testing intervention in general practice. GPs were provided with a support package to facilitate annual chlamydia testing of all sexually active 16- to 29-year-old patients. This package included financial incentive payments to the GP for each chlamydia test conducted and external audit plus feedback on each GP's chlamydia testing rates. ACCEPt-able is a factorial cluster RCT in which general practices are randomised to one of four groups: (i) removal of audit plus feedback-continue to receive financial incentive payments for each chlamydia test; (ii) removal of financial incentive payments-continue to receive audit plus feedback; (iii) removal of financial incentive payments and audit plus feedback; and (iv) continue financial incentive payments and audit plus feedback. The primary outcome is chlamydia testing rate measured as the proportion of sexually active 16- to 29-year-olds who have a GP consultation within a 12-month period and at least one chlamydia test. DISCUSSION This will be the first RCT to examine the impact of removal of financial incentive payments and audit plus feedback on the chlamydia testing behaviour of GPs. This trial is particularly timely and will increase our understanding about the impact of financial incentives and audit plus feedback on GP behaviour when governments are looking for opportunities to control healthcare budgets and maximise clinical outcomes for money spent. The results of this trial will have implications for supporting preventive health measures beyond the content area of chlamydia. TRIAL REGISTRATION The trial has been registered on the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12614000595617 ).

Background: Financial incentives and audit plus feedback on performance are two strategies commonly used by governments to motivate general practitioners (GP) to undertake specific healthcare activities. However, in recent years, governments have reduced or removed incentive payments without evidence of the potential impact on GP behaviour and patient outcomes. This trial (known as ACCEPt-able) aims to determine whether preventive care activities in general practice are sustained when financial incentives and/or external audit plus feedback on preventive care activities are removed. The activity investigated is annual chlamydia testing for 16- to 29-year-old adults, a key preventive health strategy within this age group. Methods/design: ACCEPt-able builds on a large cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) that evaluated a 3-year chlamydia testing intervention in general practice. GPs were provided with a support package to facilitate annual chlamydia testing of all sexually active 16- to 29-year-old patients. This package included financial incentive payments to the GP for each chlamydia test conducted and external audit plus feedback on each GP's chlamydia testing rates. ACCEPt-able is a factorial cluster RCT in which general practices are randomised to one of four groups: (i) removal of audit plus feedback-continue to receive financial incentive payments for each chlamydia test; (ii) removal of financial incentive payments-continue to receive audit plus feedback; (iii) removal of financial incentive payments and audit plus feedback; and (iv) continue financial incentive payments and audit plus feedback. The primary outcome is chlamydia testing rate measured as the proportion of sexually active 16- to 29-year-olds who have a GP consultation within a 12-month period and at least one chlamydia test. Discussion: This will be the first RCT to examine the impact of removal of financial incentive payments and audit plus feedback on the chlamydia testing behaviour of GPs. This trial is particularly timely and will ...