Suchergebnisse

Last December the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) began its latest round of talks in Uruguay. David Ransom here provides a succinct account of the grim realities which have overtaken Uruguay as it turns increasingly towards the local giant, Brazil, itself facing crisis.

Intro -- Book title -- Contents -- Introduction -- The Age of Possibility -- Beyond the Crash-a Green New Deal -- Not As It Seems -- Public Revolt Builds Against Rip-Off Rescue Plans -- No More of the Same -- Goodbye Washington Consensus, Hello Global Social Democracy? -- Naked Emperors -- The Trouble with Interest -- Starting Afresh -- Making Money -- Can Pay, Won't Pay -- Rich Get Poorer, Poor Disappear -- Jobs First -- Equality is Better- For Everyone -- To Live Well -- How to Save the World, Life and Humanity -- How to Take Part in the Economy -- Open Source Anti-Capitalism -- Climate Choices -- Carbon Charade -- Now, a Real Chance to Tackle Global Poverty -- Action, contacts and resources -- Index -- About the New Internationalist.

Presents a collection of essays by such authors as Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, and Evo Morales discussing the economic policies and conditions of the world today.

Die fragilen Ökosysteme des Südpazifik sind durch unterschiedliche Umweltschädigungen bedroht: den Raubbau an Hochseefischen, an Wäldern und Bodenschätzen und durch die Folgen der nuklearen Verseuchung durch Atomtests und die drohenden Folgen der globalen Erwärmung. A. Emberson-Bain berichtet über die Arbeitsbedingungen von Frauen in Thunfischfabriken, D. Ransom spricht mit G. Tetiarahi über die Arbeit der Nichtregierungsorganisation Hiti Tau ("Die Sonne geht auf") und ein kurzer Abriß der Umweltgeschichte der Region wird gegeben. (DÜI-Usc)

Cancer will continue to be a leading cause of ill health and death unless we can capitalize on the potential for 30–40% of these cancers to be prevented. In this light, cancer prevention represents an enormous opportunity for public health, potentially saving much of the pain, anguish, and cost associated with treating cancer. However, there is a challenge for governments, and the wider community, in prioritizing cancer prevention activities, especially given increasing financial constraints. This paper describes a method for identifying cancer prevention priorities. This method synthesizes detailed cancer statistics, expert opinion, and the published literature for the priority setting process. The process contains four steps: assessing the impact of cancer types; identifying cancers with the greatest impact; considering opportunities for prevention; and combining information on impact and preventability. The strength of our approach is that it is straightforward, transparent and reproducible for other settings. Applying this method in Western Australia produced a priority list of seven adult cancers which were identified as having not only the biggest impact on the community but also the best opportunities for prevention. Work conducted in an additional project phase went on to present data on these priority cancers to a public consultation and develop an agenda for action in cancer prevention.

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.