Suchergebnisse

Climate change is projected to lead to warmer temperatures, especially in southern Africa, where the warming is predicted to be 2°C higher than the global increase. Given the high burden of disease already associated with environmental factors in this region, this temperature increase may lead to grave challenges for human health and quality of life. HIV/AIDS, poverty, food and water insecurity together with inequality and unemployment will further complicate the manner in which we will need to address the challenges of a changing climate. The health impacts are direct, such as increased temperatures leading to heat exhaustion, and indirect, such as likely increases in infectious diseases from contaminated water and changes in the distribution and/or magnitude of vector-borne diseases. The most effective measures for adapting to climate change to ensure healthy populations are to implement basic public health systems and services. These range from a continuous supply of clean water to adequate primary healthcare services. Support for required interventions is required not only from government, but also from healthcare professionals and communities. The need for disease surveillance, data capturing and more focused research is paramount.

Die spanende Endbearbeitung von CFK-Bauteilen erfordert den Einsatz abgestimmter Spanntechnik. Das vorgestellte Forschungsvorhaben thematisiert die Untersuchung und Entwicklung additiv gefertigter hochintegrativer Spannmittel für die spanende Bearbeitung von kohlenstofffaserverstärkten Bauteilen und die Ableitung entsprechender Gestaltungsrichtlinien. Anhand der Gestaltungsrichtlinien wird ein Demonstrator gefertigt und weiterer Handlungsbedarf aufgezeigt.
 
The machining process of CFRP (carbon fiber reinforced polymer) components requires the use of suitable clamping technology. The presented research project is set to tap opportunities for developing additive manufactured clamping systems for the machining of CFRP components and the derivation of corresponding design guidelines. Based on these guidelines, a demonstrator clamping system is manufactured and further action requirements are outlined.

AIMS: The NHS Long Term Plan has a prevention focus and ambition to support patients to self-manage disease through improving health behaviours. An essential requirement of self-management is behaviour change, but many practitioners have not been trained in skills to support behaviour change. 'Healthy Conversation Skills' (HCS) training was developed at the University of Southampton for this purpose. This article reports on a pilot study that aimed to assess the feasibility of primary care practitioners adopting HCS in their routine practice. It describes their experiences and level of competence post-training. METHODS: Health Education England (Wessex) commissioned HCS training for 18 primary care practitioners. Fifteen of these practitioners were subsequently observed in their consultations at one or two time points; face-to-face semi-structured, reflective feedback interviews were conducted immediately following the observations. Practitioners' HCS competence was assessed from the observations and interviews using a previously developed and published coding rubric. The interview data were analysed thematically to understand practitioners' experiences of using the new skills. RESULTS: Practitioners demonstrated competence in embedding the skills into their routine practice following HCS training. They reflected on how patients liked being asked questions, the usefulness of setting SMARTER (Specific, Measured, Action-oriented, Realistic, Timed, Evaluated and Reviewed) goals and the power of listening. They could also identify facilitators of skill use and ways to overcome challenges such as patients with competing priorities and organisational constraints. They found the skills valuable as a way of empowering patients to make changes to manage their own health. CONCLUSIONS: HCS are acceptable to primary care practitioners, can be readily adopted into their routine consultations and are a helpful strategy for supporting patients to make changes. HCS training has the potential to be a sustainable, scalable and ...

The nutritional status of women and men before conception has profound implications for the growth, development and long-term health of their offspring. Evidence of the effectiveness of preconception interventions in improving outcomes for mothers or babies is scarce, though given the large potential health return, relatively low costs and risk of harm, intervention is still warranted. We identify three promising strategies for intervention that are likely to be scalable and to have positive effects on a range of health outcomes: supplementation and fortification; cash transfers; and behaviour change interventions. Based on this, we suggest a model specifying pathways to effect. Pathways are incorporated into a lifecourse framework using individual motivation and receptiveness at different 'preconception action phases' to guide design and targeting of preconception interventions. Interventions with those not planning immediate pregnancy take advantage of settings and implementation platforms outside the maternal and child health arena, since this group is unlikely to be engaged with maternal health services. Interventions to improve women's nutritional status and health behaviours at all preconception action phases need to take account of social and environmental determinants to avoid exacerbating health and gender inequalities, and should be underpinned by a social movement that touches the whole population. A dual strategy that targets specific groups actively planning a pregnancy, while improving the health of the population more broadly, is proposed. The engagement of modern marketing techniques points to a social movement based on an emotional and symbolic connection between improved maternal nutrition and health prior to conception and offspring health. We suggest that speedy and scalable public health benefit might be achieved through strategic engagement with the private sector. Political theory supports the development of an advocacy coalition of groups interested in preconception health, to harness the ...

The 2015 agreement setting forth the UN Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is an important achievement that poses complex and demanding challenges. To adequately address them, judgments must determine contextually and culturally appropriate balances between independently valuable, but often conflicting targets (Singh et al. 2018). Simultaneously, a global coherence across local and regional actions must be ensured, so that local efforts do not destructively interfere with each other, nor overstep limitations in the resources of the planet (Randers et al. 2018). The Global Sustainability Strategy Forum (GSSF) responds to the fact that, after some 40 years sustainability science has produced many insights, but has not really affected our collective behavior with respect to its impact on the environment. Generally, that is deemed to be the result of lack of communication between scientists and the outside world. But might it be that the present practice of science is in itself deficient in producing results that are useful to implement the changes called for? The Forum was established in 2018 with funding from the VW Foundation to identify and address sustainability challenges at the global to regional scales by bringing together, in week-long work-shops, renowned experts in sustainable development and thought leaders in business, government, and civil society from around the world. Under the patronage of Prof. Dr Rita Süssmuth, former President of the German Bundestag, the first Forum was coordinated by Solène Droy with assistance from Paul Skaloud. Moderated by Ilan Chabay (IASS), Sander van der Leeuw (Arizona State University), Ortwin Renn (IASS), 14 panelists convened in Potsdam (Germany) 4-8 March 2019. Eight main lessons emerged from in-depth discussions and reflections towards the end of the forum. They capture some of the main approaches deemed as necessary for science and society to counter patterns and trends of unsustainability and are outlined in this paper. The results were ...

This paper critically reviews the outcomes of internationally-funded interventions aimed at climate change adaptation and vulnerability reduction. It highlights how some interventions inadvertently reinforce, redistribute or create new sources of vulnerability. Four mechanisms drive these maladaptive outcomes: (i) shallow understanding of the vulnerability context; (ii) inequitable stakeholder participation in both design and implementation; (iii) a retrofitting of adaptation into existing development agendas; and (iv) a lack of critical engagement with how 'adaptation success' is defined. Emerging literature shows potential avenues for overcoming the current failure of adaptation interventions to reduce vulnerability: first, shifting the terms of engagement between adaptation practitioners and the local populations participating in adaptation interventions; and second, expanding the understanding of 'local' vulnerability to encompass global contexts and drivers of vulnerability. An important lesson from past adaptation interventions is that within current adaptation cum development paradigms, inequitable terms of engagement with 'vulnerable' populations are reproduced and the multi-scalar processes driving vulnerability remain largely ignored. In particular, instead of designing projects to change the practices of marginalised populations, learning processes within organisations and with marginalised populations must be placed at the centre of adaptation objectives. We pose the question of whether scholarship and practice need to take a post-adaptation turn akin to post-development, by seeking a pluralism of ideas about adaptation while critically interrogating how these ideas form part of the politics of adaptation and potentially the processes (re)producing vulnerability. We caution that unless the politics of framing and of scale are explicitly tackled, transformational interventions risk having even more adverse effects on marginalised populations than current adaptation.