Search results

This dissertation examines efforts to integrate a "new" policy sector – forest and forestry – into the European Union (EU). There is currently no legal foundation for a common forest policy and some member states (not least Sweden), as well as parts of the forestry sector, have been strongly opposed to one. At the same time, administrative units and structures within the EU have been created and they and some member states have promoted a common policy. This raises the question how can we understand and explain this? The purpose of this dissertation is to problematise, map and analyse mainly Swedish actors' attitudes to efforts to create a common forest policy within the EU. The study is based on neofunctionalism, which is a classic theory of integration, but it uses newer theorising (from intergovernmentalism and modern versions of neofunctionalism) to address some of the weaknesses of the approach. I investigate the role, preferences and strategies of the main actors. This includes EU institutions and member states. I also map European industry interests and other associations, interest groups and active networks and study their role in the process. In these multi-national settings, I pay particular (although not exclusive) attention to their Swedish members. Within Sweden, I examine how governmental and non-governmental forest actors behave vis-à-vis the EU. The empirical investigation shows that some of Swedish actors, for example the private forest owners' organisation and forest industries associations, have change their preferences and strate gies over time. They have come to believe that whether they like it or not, other policy areas affect forest and forestry both directly and indirectly. Because of this, they now take the position that it is better to promote a limited European forest policy rather than remaining aloof and risk the creation of a much more comprehensive and centralised policy. At the same time (and for now at least), the Swedish government and most party politicians remain opposed to any attempt to formalise a forest policy within the EU. This study contributes new knowledge about how new policy areas become integrated within EU, including knowledge about the roles that different actors can have in such processes. The results are of interest to researchers, decision makers and the interested public. They can also influence thinking about Sweden's influence in, and relation to, EU forest policy. Based on the empirical results, my theoretical conclusion is that organised interests have an important role in the integration process. The integration process of forest and forestry is not driven by one actor, but by many different actors, who operate on different levels and who have different interests. This study shows that forest and forestry-related questions have come to the EU, and they will remain there. The important question for the future is not if there will be some kind of European level policy on forest and forestry, but rather what form European policy will take.

BACKGROUND: Sunbed use increases the risk of skin cancer. The Danish sunbed legislation (2014) did not include an age limit. AIM: To model skin cancer incidences and saved costs from potential effects of structural interventions on prevalence of sunbed use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Survey data from 2015 were collected for 3999 Danes, representative for the Danish population in regards to age, gender and region. Skin cancer incidences were modelled in the Prevent program, using population projections, historic cancer incidence, sunbed use exposure and relative risk of sunbed use on melanoma. RESULTS: If structural interventions like an age limit of 18 years for sunbed use or complete ban had been included in the Danish sunbed legislation in 2014, it would have reduced the annual number of skin cancer cases with 455 or 4177, respectively, while for the entire period, 2014‐2045 the total reductions would be 3730 or 81 887 fewer cases, respectively. The cost savings from an age limit or ban, respectively, are 9 and 129 millions € during 2014‐2045. CONCLUSION: Legislative restrictive measures which could reduce the sunbed use exists. Danish politicians have the opportunity, supported by the population, to reduce the skin cancer incidence and thereby to reduce the future costs of skin cancer.

Background: Population-based cancer survival estimates provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of cancer services and can reflect the prospects of cure. As part of the second phase of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP), the Cancer Survival in High-Income Countries (SURVMARK-2) project aims to provide a comprehensive overview of cancer survival across seven high-income countries and a comparative assessment of corresponding incidence and mortality trends. Methods: In this longitudinal, population-based study, we collected patient-level data on 3·9 million patients with cancer from population-based cancer registries in 21 jurisdictions in seven countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, and the UK) for seven sites of cancer (oesophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, pancreas, lung, and ovary) diagnosed between 1995 and 2014, and followed up until Dec 31, 2015. We calculated age-standardised net survival at 1 year and 5 years after diagnosis by site, age group, and period of diagnosis. We mapped changes in incidence and mortality to changes in survival to assess progress in cancer control. Findings: In 19 eligible jurisdictions, 3 764 543 cases of cancer were eligible for inclusion in the study. In the 19 included jurisdictions, over 1995–2014, 1-year and 5-year net survival increased in each country across almost all cancer types, with, for example, 5-year rectal cancer survival increasing more than 13 percentage points in Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. For 2010–14, survival was generally higher in Australia, Canada, and Norway than in New Zealand, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. Over the study period, larger survival improvements were observed for patients younger than 75 years at diagnosis than those aged 75 years and older, and notably for cancers with a poor prognosis (ie, oesophagus, stomach, pancreas, and lung). Progress in cancer control (ie, increased survival, decreased mortality and incidence) over the study period was evident for stomach, colon, lung (in males), and ovarian cancer. Interpretation: The joint evaluation of trends in incidence, mortality, and survival indicated progress in four of the seven studied cancers. Cancer survival continues to increase across high-income countries; however, international disparities persist. While truly valid comparisons require differences in registration practice, classification, and coding to be minimal, stage of disease at diagnosis, timely access to effective treatment, and the extent of comorbidity are likely the main determinants of patient outcomes. Future studies are needed to assess the impact of these factors to further our understanding of international disparities in cancer survival. Funding: Canadian Partnership Against Cancer; Cancer Council Victoria; Cancer Institute New South Wales; Cancer Research UK; Danish Cancer Society; National Cancer Registry Ireland; The Cancer Society of New Zealand; National Health Service England; Norwegian Cancer Society; Public Health Agency Northern Ireland, on behalf of the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry; The Scottish Government; Western Australia Department of Health; and Wales Cancer Network.

The file associated with this record is under embargo until 6 months after publication, in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy. The full text may be available through the publisher links provided above. ; Introduction: Population-based cancer survival estimates provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of cancer services, and can reflect the prospects of cure. This first study of the ICBP SURVMARK2 project aims to provide a comprehensive overview of cancer survival across high-income countries and a comparative assessment of corresponding incidence and mortality trends. Methods: Data on 3·9 million cancer cases were collected from populationbased cancer registries in 21 jurisdictions in seven countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and the UK) for seven cancer sites (oesophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, pancreas, lung and ovary) diagnosed 1995-2014 and followed up until 31 December 2015. Age-standardized net survival at 1 and 5 years after diagnosis were calculated by site, age group and period of diagnosis. Changes in incidence and mortality rates were mapped to changes in survival to assess progress in cancer control. Results: Over the 1995-2014 period, 1- and 5-year net survival increased in each country across cancer types, with, for example, 5-year rectal cancer survival rising more than 14 percentage points in Denmark, Ireland and the UK. Overall, survival was consistently higher in Australia, Canada and Norway, followed by New Zealand, Denmark, Ireland and the UK. Larger survival improvements were observed for patients aged less than 75 years at diagnosis, most notably for poorer prognosis sites. Progress in cancer control was evident for stomach, colon, lung (in males) and ovarian cancer. Interpretation: The joint evaluation of trends in incidence, mortality and survival indicated progress in four of the seven studied cancers. While cancer survival continues to increase across high-income countries, international disparities persist. While truly valid comparisons require differences in registration practice, classification and coding to be minimal, stage of disease at diagnosis, timely access to effective treatment, and the extent of comorbidity are likely the main determinants of patient outcomes. Funding: Canadian Partnership Against Cancer; Cancer Council Victoria; Cancer Institute New South Wales; Cancer Research UK; Danish Cancer Society; National Cancer Registry Ireland; The Cancer Society of New Zealand; NHS England; Norwegian Cancer Society; Public Health Agency Northern Ireland, on behalf of the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry; The Scottish Government; Western Australia Department of Health; Wales Cancer Network. ; This study was funded by: Canadian Partnership Against Cancer; Cancer Council Victoria; Cancer Institute New South Wales; Cancer Research UK; Danish Cancer Society; National Cancer Registry Ireland; The Cancer Society of New Zealand; NHS England; Norwegian Cancer Society; Public Health Agency Northern Ireland, on behalf of the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry; The Scottish Government; Western Australia Department of Health; Wales Cancer Network. ; Peer-reviewed ; Post-print

BACKGROUND: Population-based cancer survival estimates provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of cancer services and can reflect the prospects of cure. As part of the second phase of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP), the Cancer Survival in High-Income Countries (SURVMARK-2) project aims to provide a comprehensive overview of cancer survival across seven high-income countries and a comparative assessment of corresponding incidence and mortality trends. METHODS: In this longitudinal, population-based study, we collected patient-level data on 3·9 million patients with cancer from population-based cancer registries in 21 jurisdictions in seven countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, and the UK) for seven sites of cancer (oesophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, pancreas, lung, and ovary) diagnosed between 1995 and 2014, and followed up until Dec 31, 2015. We calculated age-standardised net survival at 1 year and 5 years after diagnosis by site, age group, and period of diagnosis. We mapped changes in incidence and mortality to changes in survival to assess progress in cancer control. FINDINGS: In 19 eligible jurisdictions, 3 764 543 cases of cancer were eligible for inclusion in the study. In the 19 included jurisdictions, over 1995-2014, 1-year and 5-year net survival increased in each country across almost all cancer types, with, for example, 5-year rectal cancer survival increasing more than 13 percentage points in Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. For 2010-14, survival was generally higher in Australia, Canada, and Norway than in New Zealand, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. Over the study period, larger survival improvements were observed for patients younger than 75 years at diagnosis than those aged 75 years and older, and notably for cancers with a poor prognosis (ie, oesophagus, stomach, pancreas, and lung). Progress in cancer control (ie, increased survival, decreased mortality and incidence) over the study period was evident for stomach, colon, lung (in males), and ovarian cancer. INTERPRETATION: The joint evaluation of trends in incidence, mortality, and survival indicated progress in four of the seven studied cancers. Cancer survival continues to increase across high-income countries; however, international disparities persist. While truly valid comparisons require differences in registration practice, classification, and coding to be minimal, stage of disease at diagnosis, timely access to effective treatment, and the extent of comorbidity are likely the main determinants of patient outcomes. Future studies are needed to assess the impact of these factors to further our understanding of international disparities in cancer survival. FUNDING: Canadian Partnership Against Cancer; Cancer Council Victoria; Cancer Institute New South Wales; Cancer Research UK; Danish Cancer Society; National Cancer Registry Ireland; The Cancer Society of New Zealand; National Health Service England; Norwegian Cancer Society; Public Health Agency Northern Ireland, on behalf of the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry; The Scottish Government; Western Australia Department of Health; and Wales Cancer Network.