Suchergebnisse

This capstone project compares Manitoba and Alaska health care reform policy in the context of northern Indigenous Health. Additionally, this paper compares northern Manitoba and Alaska Physician Assistant utilization rates. Two questions are investigated: (i) ) Will the current primary care reform policy improve access barriers to primary care for northern and remote Indigenous communities in Manitoba and if not, what other options might be available? (ii) Are Physician Assistants utilized within northern and remote Indigenous communities in Manitoba to address current service delivery challenges? Indigenous people in Manitoba experience significant health inequities as reflected in health indicators published in government documents and academic papers. Despite Manitoba's primary care reform policy and in light of a recent Auditor-General's report on northern health care, current systems do not appear to be addressing these issues and access barriers exist. A review of the literature using internet search engines by key words was performed. Important government and health websites were reviewed. Key informants were sought who had expertise in Indigenous health care, health system reform and current Physician Assistant policy and training. The topics examined were: Indigenous sociopolitical perspective, the effects of racism and colonization on Canadian Indigenous people, current health care issues and health care reform initiatives in Manitoba. The following are four significant findings of this study: (i) it is not yet known if current primary health care reform policy will improve access barriers for northern and remote Indigenous communities in Manitoba due in part to the complexity of the federal/provincial/Indigenous peoples arrangement and because there is no pre or post data for the selected health indicator (ii) an option called the "Nuka System of Care" exists, is culturally relevant, is structured to address access barriers related to jurisdictional discrepancies and staffing shortages and has ...

This article integrates self-efficacy theory with decision latitude theory to generate a typology of workload management strategies used by knowledge workers working under conditions of high job demands. We then propose that physical and emotional fatigue should differentially influence usage of these workload management strategies based on anticipated differences in their effects on selfefficacy. We discuss theoretical and practical implications of our model with regards to knowledge workers who often face ongoing challenging job demands.

The Joint Task Force (JTF) for Science Monitoring And Reliable Telecommunications (SMART) Subsea Cables will facilitate integration of sensors into commercial submarine telecommunications cables for climate monitoring and disaster warning. Our vision is a planetary scale array monitoring ocean heat and circulation and sea-level rise and revolutionizing real-time warning systems for earthquake and tsunami disaster mitigation. This is enabled by the trans-ocean cable infrastructure linking society together: 1.4 million km of cable, 20,000 repeaters every 70 km hosting the sensors, constantly being refreshed over 10–25 years, without interfering with telecom. Initial sensors are ocean bottom temperature, pressure and seismic acceleration. System suppliers are on board, the first major SMART project is funded and underway in Portugal (2020), and seven others are in various stages of planning and funding—a perfect example of the Blue Economy in action for the UN Decade. JTF will provide coordination between ocean science, operational oceanography, hazard early warning centers, industry, and relevant government agencies. SMART cables will create profound opportunities for innovation—requiring people with appropriate depth and breadth of expertise. JTF will facilitate SMART cable projects that will catalyze and include education, training, and outreach programs to build necessary capacity

Despite increased research on team leadership, little is known about the conditions under which coaching versus directive forms of team leadership are more effective, or the processes through which team leadership styles influence team outcomes. In the present study, the authors found that coaching leadership was more effective than directive leadership when the team leader was highly charismatic and less effective than directive leadership when the team leader lacked charisma. Directive leadership was more effective than coaching leadership when team members were high in self-efficacy and less effective than coaching leadership when team members lacked self-efficacy. The moderating effects of leader charisma and team member self-efficacy were mediated through motivational pathways involving team member effort.

This Article reviews the authority of federal and state governments to manage wildlife on federal lands. It first describes the most common assertions made by state governments regarding state powers over wildlife and then analyzes the relevant powers and limitations of the United States Constitution and federal land laws, regulations, and polices. Wildlife-specific provisions applicable within the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, National Forest System, Bureau of Land Management, the special case of Alaska, and the National Wilderness Preservation System are covered, as is the Endangered Species Act. We reviewed an extensive collection of cases of conflict between federal and state agencies in wildlife management on federal land These cases show how federal land laws, regulations, and polices are frequently appeared by federal agencies in an inconsistent and sometimes even unlawful fashion. They also demonstrate how commonalities found in state wildlife governance, such as sources of funding and adherence to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, often exacerbate conflict over wildlife management on federal lands. Federal land management agencies have an obligation, and not just the discretion, to manage and conserve fish and wildlife on federal lands. We debunk the myth that "the states manage wildlife and federal land agencies only manage wildlife habitat" The myth is not only wrong from a legal standpoint, but it leads to fragmented approaches to wildlife conservation, unproductive battles over agency turf and an abdication of federal responsibility over wildlife. Another problem exposed is how the states assert wildlife ownership to challenge the constitutional powers, federal and laws, and supremacy of the United States. While the states do have a responsibility to manage wildlife as a sovereign trust for the benefit of their citizens, most states have not addressed the conservation obligations inherent in trust management; rather, states wish to use the notion of sovereign ownership as a one way ratchet-a source of unilateral power but not of public responsibility. Furthermore, the states' trust responsibilities or wildlife are subordinate to the federal government's statutory and trust obligations over federal lands and their integral resources The Article finishes by reviewing the ample opportunities that already exist in federal land laws for constructive intergovernmental cooperation in wildlife management. Unfortunately, many of these processes are not used to their full potential, and states sometimes use them solely as a means of challenging federal authority rather than a means of solving common problems. Intergovernmental cooperation must be a mutual and reciprocal process, meaning that state agencies need to constructively participate in existing federal processes, and federal agencies should be provided meaningful opportunities to participate in, and influence, state decision making affecting federal lands and wildlife.