Suchergebnisse

Report of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Long Term Care, 2006 This report was finalised by the working group at the end of 2005 and submitted to Government in January 2006. While the reportâ?Ts proposals were not formally endorsed by Government, its analysis and recommendations have informed subsequent decisions, including the Fair Deal policy on Long-Term Nursing Home Care.The principles underpinning the report formed the basis for discussions about long term care with the Social Partners prior to the new national programme negotiations leading to a clear vision articulated in Towards 2016 on a number of priority actions to support older people to participate in society in a full and meaningful way. Click here to download PDF 693kb

The Interagency Working Group on Climate Change and Health (iWGCCH) is an ad hoc group formed by participating federal agencies and organizations at the invitation of the National institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) following the January 2009 'Workshop on a Research Agenda for Managing the Health Risks of Climate Change, ' sponsored by the Institute of Medicine Roundtable on Environmental Health Sciences, research, and medicine. This report identifies gaps in knowledge of the consequences for human health of climate change, and suggests research to address them. The content, views, and perspectives presented in this report are solely those of the authors, and do not reflect the official views, policies, or implied endorsement of any of the individual participating federal agencies or organizations.

Protecting Our Future: Report of the Working Group on Elder Abuse (DOHC, 2002) was a seminal document setting out a framework and programme of work in relation to elder abuse. Prior to Protecting Our Future, the issue of elder abuse had not been explicitly articulated as a priority of health and social policy. The report included recommendations in 13 wide-ranging areas: the link to wider policy; policy on elder abuse; staff structure; legislation; impaired capacity; carers; awareness, education and training; financial abuse; advocacy; implementation; research and education; reporting abuse. It also recommended that progress in implementing Protecting Our Future should be reviewed. Download document here Download Action Plan here

"In June 1995, the WHO Regional Office for Europe established a Working Group on Health Promotion Evaluation in cooperation with three government agencies: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, United States, Health Canada, Health Education Authority, United Kingdom. The Working Group had three objectives: to provide guidance to policy-makers and practitioners to foster the use of appropriate methods for health promotion evaluation, to examine the current range of evaluation methods, both quantitative and qualitative, and to provide guidance to policy-makers and practitioners to increase the quality of health promotion evaluations." - p. 3 ; report of the WHO European Working Group on Health Promotion Evaluation. ; Publisher's no. EUR/ICP/IVST 05 01 03.

Abstract Introduction: Approaches to economic evaluations of stroke therapies are varied and inconsistently described. An objective of the European Stroke Organisation (ESO) Health Economics Working Group is to standardise and improve the economic evaluations of interventions for stroke. Methods: The ESO Health Economics Working Group and additional experts were contacted to develop a protocol and a guidance document for data collection for economic evaluations of stroke therapies. A modified Delphi approach, including a survey and consensus processes, was used to agree on content. We also asked the participants about resources that could be shared to improve economic evaluations of interventions for stroke. Results: Of 28 experts invited, 16 (57%) completed the initial survey, with representation from universities, government, and industry. More than half of the survey respondents endorsed 13 specific items to include in a standard resource use questionnaire. Preferred functional/quality of life outcome measures to use for economic evaluations were the modified Rankin Scale (14 respondents, 88%) and the EQ-5D instrument (11 respondents, 69%). Of the 12 respondents who had access to data used in economic evaluations, 10 (83%) indicated a willingness to share data. A protocol template and a guidance document for data collection were developed and are presented in this article. Conclusion: The protocol template and guidance document for data collection will support a more standardised and transparent approach for economic evaluations of stroke care.