Suchergebnisse

The United States is so culturally blind by virtue of its successful "New World" experience of assimilating foreign cultures that it is unable to recognize the possibility that there are viable competing ideologies to American ideals for the world, including the Islamic world, China, and Latin America. If the United States were more "street smart" on the world scene, it could better identify nuanced subtleties and better leverage allies, who, in turn, are better positioned to further American ideals abroad. ; "June 2006." ; Includes bibliographical references (p. 20-24). ; The world the United States envisions -- Culture clash and interests juxtaposed -- A new world paradigm: U.S. cultural perspective -- Cultural savvy -- Dealing with radical or resurging Islam: an illustrative case -- Centers of gravity -- Implications for the military: education and training -- Conclusion. ; The United States is so culturally blind by virtue of its successful "New World" experience of assimilating foreign cultures that it is unable to recognize the possibility that there are viable competing ideologies to American ideals for the world, including the Islamic world, China, and Latin America. If the United States were more "street smart" on the world scene, it could better identify nuanced subtleties and better leverage allies, who, in turn, are better positioned to further American ideals abroad. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Abstract: The adoption and incentivisation of open and transparent research practices is critical in addressing issues around research reproducibility and research integrity. These practices will require training and funding. Individuals need to be incentivised to adopt open and transparent research practices (e.g., added as desirable criteria in hiring, probation, and promotion decisions, recognition that funded research should be conducted openly and transparently, the importance of publishers mandating the publication of research workflows and appropriately curated data associated with each research output). Similarly, institutions need to be incentivised to encourage the adoption of open and transparent practices by researchers. Research quality should be prioritised over research quantity. As research transparency will look different for different disciplines, there can be no one-size-fits-all approach. An outward looking and joined up UK research strategy is needed that places openness and transparency at the heart of research activity. This should involve key stakeholders (institutions, research organisations, funders, publishers, and Government) and crucially should be focused on action. Failure to do this will have negative consequences not just for UK research, but also for our ability to innovate and subsequently commercialise UK-led discovery.

The adoption and incentivisation of open and transparent research practices is critical in addressing issues around research reproducibility and research integrity. These practices will require training and funding. Individuals need to be incentivised to adopt open and transparent research practices (e.g., added as desirable criteria in hiring, probation, and promotion decisions, recognition that funded research should be conducted openly and transparently, the importance of publishers mandating the publication of research workflows and appropriately curated data associated with each research output). Similarly, institutions need to be incentivised to encourage the adoption of open and transparent practices by researchers. Research quality should be prioritised over research quantity. As research transparency will look different for different disciplines, there can be no one-size-fits-all approach. An outward looking and joined up UK research strategy is needed that places openness and transparency at the heart of research activity. This should involve key stakeholders (institutions, research organisations, funders, publishers, and Government) and crucially should be focused on action. Failure to do this will have negative consequences not just for UK research, but also for our ability to innovate and subsequently commercialise UK-led discovery.

Schizophrenia does not present uniformly among patients and as a result this patient population is characterized by a diversity in the type and amount of healthcare supports needed for daily functioning. Despite this, little work has been completed to understand the heterogeneity that exists among these patients. In this work we used a data-driven approach to identify subgroups of high-cost patients with schizophrenia to identify potentially actionable interventions for the improvement of outcomes and to inform conversations on how to most efficiently allocate resources in an already strained system. Administrative health data was used to conduct a retrospective analysis of "high-cost" adult patients with schizophrenia residing in Alberta, Canada in 2017. Costs were derived from inpatient encounters, outpatient primary care and specialist encounters, emergency department encounters, and drug costs. Latent class analysis was used to group patients based on their unique clinical profiles. Latent class analysis of 1659 patients revealed the following patient groups: (1) young, high-needs males early in their disease course; (2) actively managed middle-aged patients; (3) elderly patients with multiple chronic conditions and polypharmacy; (4) unstably housed males with low treatment rates; (5) unstably housed females with high acute care use and low treatment rates. This taxonomy may be used to inform policy, including the identification of interventions most likely to improve care and reduce health spending for each subgroup.

The adoption and incentivisation of open and transparent research practices is critical in addressing issues around research reproducibility and research integrity. These practices will require training and funding. Individuals need to be incentivised to adopt open and transparent research practices (e.g., added as desirable criteria in hiring, probation, and promotion decisions, recognition that funded research should be conducted openly and transparently, the importance of publishers mandating the publication of research workflows and appropriately curated data associated with each research output). Similarly, institutions need to be incentivised to encourage the adoption of open and transparent practices by researchers. Research quality should be prioritised over research quantity. As research transparency will look different for different disciplines, there can be no one-size-fits-all approach. An outward looking and joined up UK research strategy is needed that places openness and transparency at the heart of research activity. This should involve key stakeholders (institutions, research organisations, funders, publishers, and Government) and crucially should be focused on action. Failure to do this will have negative consequences not just for UK research, but also for our ability to innovate and subsequently commercialise UK-led discovery.