Suchergebnisse

AbstractIn an era of pressure on government resources, nonprofits can serve an important role in the provision of services to the public. However, without clear and quantifiable estimates of their impact, it is difficult for policymakers to justify allocating governmental resources toward these services. This is especially the case for ephemeral opportunities that arise without substantial advance notice or a special program that occurs only once (contrasted to programs that nonprofits provide on a continuing basis). This research note presents economic impact estimates for a unique example of a remarkable effort involving numerous entities from the government, for‐profit, and nonprofit sectors. Our contribution is to exemplify methods that might be used to assess the economic impact of ephemeral or one‐time events. Of course, each situation is unique, so the judgment of the analyst is always a key input. Using three survey‐generated data points per respondent, nonprofits can replicate the methods of this study to assess the economic impact of special events herein. With estimates such as the ones examined herein, policymakers can contrast the benefits of special events with their costs in order to determine if such events are worthwhile investments.

Introduction: Smoke-free legislation has been instrumental in reducing secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure in public places. However, the evidence of the impact of institutional smoke-free policies in settings such as healthcare and defence is weaker. Specifically, the literature on the effect of smoke-free policies in military settings has not yet been synthesised. Methods: This review aimed to identify, critically appraise and synthesise the available evidence to evaluate the effect of defence smoke-free policies on SHS exposure. Eight electronic databases (eg, EMBASE, MEDLINE) were searched from inception to June 2020. We included English-language studies on smoke-free policies introduced in a defence setting, assessing their impact on SHS exposure (primary outcome) and healthcare utilisation, smoking behaviours and defence efficiency (secondary outcomes). Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I. Synthesis without meta-analysis was conducted using vote counting of direction of effect. Results: The search retrieved 4503 citations of which eight met inclusion criteria; two controlled and six uncontrolled before-and-after studies. The evidence, although low-quality, from one study indicated reduced SHS exposure following the introduction of a defence smoke-free policy. For secondary outcomes the review found mixed results, with the quit rate being the one outcome favouring smoke-free policies. The cumulative confidence of evidence is uncertain and therefore reliable conclusions cannot be drawn from these studies. Conclusions: A research gap exists for high-quality studies on the impact of defence smoke-free policies which should use comparators and, if possible, randomisation. Policy-makers should introduce institutional smoke-free policies in defence settings within an evaluative framework to generate such evidence.

This paper reports on research in population ecology and suggests ways it might be useful in explaining spatial dynamics of states, groups, and world-systems. In particular it focuses on how and why populations at opposite of ends of Afroeurasia come to rise and fall simultaneously over long periods of time. We call for exploration of research in population ecology for understanding world-system evolution and suggest directions for possible future research.