Two-sector disequilibrium growth
In: European Journal of Political Economy, Band 10, Heft 2, S. 373-388
13 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: European Journal of Political Economy, Band 10, Heft 2, S. 373-388
In: European journal of political economy, Band 10, Heft 2, S. 373
ISSN: 0176-2680
In: Journal of economics, Band 57, Heft 2, S. 131-146
ISSN: 1617-7134
In: Journal of economics, Band 53, Heft 2, S. 185-203
ISSN: 1617-7134
SSRN
Working paper
The Sustainable Development Goals, the global development agenda for 2015 through 2030, will require unprecedented mobilization of resources to support their implementation. Their predecessor, the Millennium Development Goals, focused on a limited number of concrete, global human development targets that can be monitored by statistically robust indicators. The Millennium Development Goals set the stage for global support of ambitious development goals behind which the world must rally. The Sustainable Development Goals bring forward the unfinished business of the Millennium Development Goals and go even further. Because of the transformative and sustainable nature of the new development agenda, all possible resources must be mobilized if the world is to succeed in meeting its targets. Thus, the potential for Islamic finance to play a role in supporting the Sustainable Development Goals is explored in this paper. Given the principles of Islamic finance that support socially inclusive and development promoting activities, the Islamic financial sector has the potential to contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. The paper examines the role of Islamic financial institutions, capital markets, and the social sector in promoting strong growth, enhanced financial inclusion, and intermediation, reducing risks and vulnerability of the poor and more broadly contributing to financial stability and development.
BASE
In: World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 8463
SSRN
Working paper
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous exposure injuries from devices used for blood collection or for injections expose healthcare workers to the risk of blood borne infections such as hepatitis B and C, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Safety features such as shields or retractable needles can possibly contribute to the prevention of these injuries and it is important to evaluate their effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of safety medical devices aiming to prevent percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel versus no intervention or alternative interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHSEED, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, Nioshtic, CISdoc and PsycINFO (until 11 November 2016). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCT), controlled before and after studies (CBA) and interrupted time‐series (ITS) designs of the effect of safety engineered medical devices on percutaneous exposure injuries in healthcare staff. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two of the authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. We synthesized study results with a fixed‐effect or random‐effects model meta‐analysis where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs with 1838 participants, two cluster‐RCTs with 795 participants and 73,454 patient days, five CBAs with approximately 22,000 participants and eleven ITS with an average of 13.8 data points. These studies evaluated safe modifications of blood collection systems, intravenous (IV) systems, injection systems, multiple devices, sharps containers and legislation on the implementation of safe devices. We estimated the needlestick injury (NSI) rate in the control groups to be about one to five NSIs per 1000 person‐years. There were only two studies from low‐ or middle‐income countries. The risk of bias was high in 20 of 24 studies. Safe blood collection systems: We found one RCT that found a safety engineered blood gas syringe having no ...
BASE
In: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/9/194
Abstract Background- The aim of the study was to develop quality indicators that can be used for quality assessment of registries of occupational diseases in relation to preventive policy on a national level. The research questions were: 1. Which indicators determine the quality of national registries of occupational diseases with respect to their ability to provide appropriate information for preventive policy? 2. What are the criteria that can distinguish low quality from high quality? Methods- First, we performed a literature search to assess which output of registries can be considered appropriate for preventive policy and to develop a set of preliminary indicators and criteria. Second, final indicators and criteria were assessed and their content validity was tested in a Delphi study, for which experts from the 25 EU Member States were invited. Results- The literature search revealed two different types of information output to be appropriate for preventive policy: monitor and alert information. For the evaluation of the quality of the monitor and alert function we developed ten indicators and criteria. Sixteen of the twenty-five experts responded in the first round of the Delphi study, and eleven in the second round. Based on their comments, we assessed the final nine indicators: the completeness of the notification form, coverage of registration, guidelines or criteria for notification, education and training of reporting physicians, completeness of registration, statistical methods used, investigation of special cases, presentation of monitor information, and presentation of alert information. Except for the indicator "coverage of registration" for the alert function, all the indicators met the preset requirements of content validity. Conclusion- We have developed quality indicators and criteria to evaluate registries for occupational diseases on the ability to provide appropriate information for preventive policy on a national level. Together, these indicators form a tool which can be used for quality improvement of registries of occupational diseases.
BASE
In: The annals of occupational hygiene: an international journal published for the British Occupational Hygiene Society, Band 60, Heft 8, S. 916-935
ISSN: 1475-3162
In: Journal of rational emotive and cognitive behavior therapy, Band 28, Heft 2, S. 57-72
ISSN: 1573-6563
In: http://www.aoemj.com/content/26/1/16
Abstract We developed an evidence-based practice guideline to support occupational safety and health (OSH) professionals in assessing the risk due to lifting and in selecting effective preventive measures for low back pain (LBP) in the Netherlands. The guideline was developed at the request of the Dutch government by a project team of experts and OSH professionals in lifting and work-related LBP. The recommendations for risk assessment were based on the quality of instruments to assess the risk on LBP due to lifting. Recommendations for interventions were based on a systematic review of the effects of worker- and work directed interventions to reduce back load due to lifting. The quality of the evidence was rated as strong (A), moderate (B), limited (C) or based on consensus (D). Finally, eight experts and twenty-four OSH professionals commented on and evaluated the content and the feasibility of the preliminary guideline. For risk assessment we recommend loads heavier than 25 kg always to be considered a risk for LBP while loads less than 3 kg do not pose a risk. For loads between 3–25 kg, risk assessment shall be performed using the Manual handling Assessment Charts (MAC)-Tool or National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) lifting equation. Effective work oriented interventions are patient lifting devices (Level A) and lifting devices for goods (Level C), optimizing working height (Level A) and reducing load mass (Level C). Ineffective work oriented preventive measures are regulations to ban lifting without proper alternatives (Level D). We do not recommend worker-oriented interventions but consider personal lift assist devices as promising (Level C). Ineffective worker-oriented preventive measures are training in lifting technique (Level A), use of back-belts (Level A) and pre-employment medical examinations (Level A). This multidisciplinary evidence-based practice guideline gives clear criteria whether an employee is at risk for LBP while lifting and provides an easy-reference for (in)effective risk reduction measures based on scientific evidence, experience, and consensus among OSH experts and practitioners.
BASE
In: Kuijer , P P FM , Verbeek , J HAM , Visser , B , Elders , L AM , Van Roden , N , Van den Wittenboer , M ER , Lebbink , M , Burdorf , A & Hulshof , C TJ 2014 , ' An Evidence-Based Multidisciplinary Practice Guideline to Reduce the Workload due to Lifting for Preventing Work-Related Low Back Pain ' , Annals of occupational and environmental medicine , vol. 26 , no. 1 , 16 . https://doi.org/10.1186/2052-4374-26-16
We developed an evidence-based practice guideline to support occupational safety and health (OSH) professionals in assessing the risk due to lifting and in selecting effective preventive measures for low back pain (LBP) in the Netherlands. The guideline was developed at the request of the Dutch government by a project team of experts and OSH professionals in lifting and work-related LBP. The recommendations for risk assessment were based on the quality of instruments to assess the risk on LBP due to lifting. Recommendations for interventions were based on a systematic review of the effects of worker- and work directed interventions to reduce back load due to lifting. The quality of the evidence was rated as strong (A), moderate (B), limited (C) or based on consensus (D). Finally, eight experts and twenty-four OSH professionals commented on and evaluated the content and the feasibility of the preliminary guideline. For risk assessment we recommend loads heavier than 25 kg always to be considered a risk for LBP while loads less than 3 kg do not pose a risk. For loads between 3-25 kg, risk assessment shall be performed using the Manual handling Assessment Charts (MAC)-Tool or National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) lifting equation. Effective work oriented interventions are patient lifting devices (Level A) and lifting devices for goods (Level C), optimizing working height (Level A) and reducing load mass (Level C). Ineffective work oriented preventive measures are regulations to ban lifting without proper alternatives (Level D). We do not recommend worker-oriented interventions but consider personal lift assist devices as promising (Level C). Ineffective worker-oriented preventive measures are training in lifting technique (Level A), use of back-belts (Level A) and pre-employment medical examinations (Level A). This multidisciplinary evidence-based practice guideline gives clear criteria whether an employee is at risk for LBP while lifting and provides an easy-reference for (in)effective risk ...
BASE