Suchergebnisse

enth.

Die Besonderheiten des Wirtschaftsgutes Wohnen führen zu Friktionen bezüglich der Koordinations- und Allokationsprozesse des Wohnungsmarktes. Die Autorin überprüft, ob ein Marktversagen auf dem Wohnungsmarkt vorliegt, das als ökonomische Rechtfertigung für staatliche Interventionen herangezogen werden könnte. Im Anschluß daran werden die wohnungspolitischen Instrumente hinsichtlich ihrer Zieladäquanz analysiert. Als geeignete Kriterien werden hierbei die soziale Treffsicherheit und die Effizienz in das Zentrum der Betrachtungen gerückt. In die Analyse wird auch die Wohnungspolitik in Ostdeutschland einbezogen. -- Als Ergebnis ist in Deutschland seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg eine in vielen Punkten ineffiziente und sozial wenig treffsichere Wohnungspolitik festzustellen. Vielmehr verstärken oder erzeugen die staatlichen Regulierungen die Koordinations- und Allokationsstörungen. -- Unter Verwendung der Ansätze der Neuen Institutionenökonomik und der Public-Choice Theorie wird die Neigung zu einer kurzatmigen, diskretionär-interventionistischen Wohnungspolitik als Ergebnis von Interaktionen der beteiligten Akteure erklärt. Annette Mayer entwickelt Lösungsvorschläge, die die dysfunktionalen Anreize und Arbeitsbedingungen der Politiker, Bürokraten und Interessengruppen beheben sollen

Die Studie zu der Bundestagswahl 2002 untersucht das abschließende Wahlergebnis, indem das Zustandekommen der Stimmenverteilung erklärt wird. In einem ersten Schritt werden zunächst Angaben zu der Sitzverteilung im Bundestag von 1961 bis 2002, die Wahlbeteiligung sowie Gewinne und Verluste bei der Bundestagswahl 2002 im Vergleich zu 1998 und die Wahlergebnisse in den Bundesländern präsentiert. Die anschließende Analyse des Wahlausgangs berücksichtigt folgende Faktoren: Alter und Geschlecht, (2) das Wahlverhalten sozialer Gruppen, (3) die Beurteilung und Beliebtheit Kanzlerkandidaten sowie (4) die Einschätzung der parteipolitischen Themen und Kompetenzen seitens der Bevölkerung. In einem abschließenden Fazit werden die Überraschungen und die Konstanz im Wahlverhalten nochmals zusammengefasst. (ICG2)

IntroductionLarge volumes of health data are generated through the interaction of individuals with hospitals, government agencies and health care providers. There is potential in the linkage and sharing of administrative data with private industry to support improved drug and device provision but data sharing is highly contentious.
Objectives and ApproachWe conducted a scoping review of quantitative and qualitative studies examining public attitudes towards the sharing of health data, held by government, with private industry for research and development. We searched four data bases, PubMed, Scopus, Cinahl and Web of Science as well as Google Scholar and Google Advanced. The search was confined to English-only publications since January 2014 but was not geographically limited. We thematically coded included papers.
ResultsWe screened 6788 articles. Thirty-six studies were included primarily from UK and North America. No Australian studies were identified. Across studies, willingness to share non-identified data was generally high with the participant's own health provider (84-91%) and academic researchers (64-93%) but fell if the data was to be shared with private industry (14-53%). There was widespread misunderstanding of the benefits of sharing data for health research. Publics expressed concern about a range of issues including data security, misuse of data and use of data to generate profit. Conditions which would increase public confidence in sharing of data included: strict safeguards on data collection and use including secure storage, opt-in or opt-out consent mechanisms, and good communication through trusted agents.
Conclusion / ImplicationsWe identified a research gap: Australian views on sharing government health data with private industry. The international experience suggests that public scepticism about data sharing with private industry will need to be addressed by good communication about public benefit of data sharing, a strong program of public engagement and information sharing conducted through trusted entities.

Abstract Background During the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, Australian public health officials closed schools as a strategy to mitigate the spread of the infection. This article examines school communities' understanding of, and participation in, school closures and the beliefs and values which underpinned school responses to the closures. Methods We interviewed four school principals, 25 staff, 14 parents and 13 students in five schools in one Australian city which were either fully or partially closed during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Results Drawing on Thompson et al's ethical framework for pandemic planning, we show that considerable variation existed between and within schools in their attention to ethical processes and values. In all schools, health officials and school leaders were strongly committed to providing high quality care for members of the school community. There was variation in the extent to which information was shared openly and transparently, the degree to which school community members considered themselves participants in decision-making, and the responsiveness of decision-makers to the changing situation. Reservations were expressed about the need for closures and quarantine and there was a lack of understanding of the rationale for the closures. All schools displayed a strong duty of care toward those in need, although school communities had a broader view of care than that of the public health officials. Similarly, there was a clear understanding of and commitment to protect the public from harm and to demonstrate responsible stewardship. Conclusions We conclude that school closures during an influenza pandemic represent both a challenge for public health officials and a litmus test for the level of trust in public officials, government and the school as institution. In our study, trust was the foundation upon which effective responses to the school closure were built. Trust relations within the school were the basis on which different values and beliefs were used to develop and justify the practices and strategies in response to the pandemic.

Introduction"The Consensus Statement on Public Involvement and Engagement with Data-Intensive Health Research", recent data breaches, and growing public awareness and controversy associated with secondary use of health data all highlight the need to understand what data sharing the public will support, under what circumstances, for what purposes and with whom.
Objectives and ApproachThis symposium explores methods and findings from public engagement at all stages of data linkage research, beginning with short presentations (~6-8 minutes) on recent work:

Mhairi Aitken: Consensus Statement - principles and an application using deliberative workshops to explore public expectations of public benefits from data-intensive health research
Annette Braunack-Mayer/Felicity Flack: Surveys and citizens' juries: Sharing government data with private industry
Kim McGrail/Mike Burgess: Public deliberations on cross-sector data linkage, and combining public and private sources of data
Alison Paprica: Plain language communication informed by Health Data Research Network Canada's Public Advisory Council.

Half the session will be spent interacting with the audience through live polling. The moderator will post a series of poll question such as "What is the most important thing for meaningful public engagement?" to prompt audience thinking on the topic. After the audience responses are revealed, panelists will share their own views about what they think is the best answer, and the main reason(s) behind their choice. The last 10-15 minutes of the session will be reserved for Q&A and dialogue with the audience.
ResultsWe anticipate that this approach will surface emerging and tacit knowledge from presenters and the audience, and augment that through generative discussion.
Conclusion / ImplicationsSession attendees will leave with a better understanding of the current state of knowledge and ways to talk about that understanding with other researchers, policy makers and the public.

IntroductionLarge administrative datasets are now being used for secondary purposes across a wide range of public sector organisations, including in health and higher education. However, governance, regulation and policy surrounding the use of these datasets are at different stages of development in these sectors. Our aim was to explore similarities and differences in the use of administrative data between the health and higher education sectors to inform policy development.
Objectives and ApproachWe investigated views on the use of administrative data in both the health and higher education sectors. We conducted 18 qualitative in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, to provide insight into the ethical, social and legal issues associated with the use of big data in these settings. The interviews were transcribed and thematically coded.
ResultsParticipants indicated the rapid pace of technological change and large volume of potentially sensitive data collected raises governance, infrastructure and ethical issues in both settings. Common challenges include communication, staff capabilities, delays in access, multiple policies and governance committees, and technical and operational issues. In the health sector, there was clear understanding of the issues and governance structures to address these issues, whereas this understanding was more variable in the higher education sector. Trust in government (to use responsibly and store securely) was raised in the health sector but not in universities.
Conclusion / ImplicationsUnderstanding and use of administrative data are at quite different levels of development in the higher education and health sectors. Higher education needs policy and ethical guidance and higher level governance and greater consultation across the sector. Both sectors would benefit from a national approach to data governance.

BACKGROUND: Outbreaks of infectious disease cause serious and costly health and social problems. Two new technologies – pathogen whole genome sequencing (WGS) and Big Data analytics – promise to improve our capacity to detect and control outbreaks earlier, saving lives and resources. However, routinely using these technologies to capture more detailed and specific personal information could be perceived as intrusive and a threat to privacy. METHOD: making pathogen WGS and linked administrative data available for public health research; using this information in concert with data linkage and machine learning to enhance communicable disease surveillance systems. Fifty participants of diverse backgrounds, mixed genders and ages were recruited by random-digit-dialling and topic-blinded social-media advertising. Each jury was presented with balanced factual evidence supporting different expert perspectives on the potential benefits and costs of technologically enhanced public health research and communicable disease surveillance and given the opportunity to question experts. RESULTS: Almost all jurors supported data linkage and WGS on routinely collected patient isolates for the purposes of public health research, provided standard de-identification practices were applied. However, allowing this information to be operationalised as a syndromic surveillance system was highly contentious with three juries voting in favour, and one against by narrow margins. For those in favour, support depended on several conditions related to system oversight and security being met. Those against were concerned about loss of privacy and did not trust Australian governments to run secure and effective systems. CONCLUSIONS: Participants across all four events strongly supported the introduction of data linkage and pathogenomics to public health research under current research governance structures. Combining pathogen WGS with event-based data surveillance systems, however, is likely to be controversial because of a lack of public trust, ...

Background: Outbreaks of infectious disease cause serious and costly health and social problems. Two new technologies – pathogen whole genome sequencing (WGS) and Big Data analytics – promise to improve our capacity to detect and control outbreaks earlier, saving lives and resources. However, routinely using these technologies to capture more detailed and specific personal information could be perceived as intrusive and a threat to privacy. Method: Four community juries were convened in two demographically different Sydney municipalities and two regional cities in New South Wales, Australia (western Sydney, Wollongong, Tamworth, eastern Sydney) to elicit the views of well-informed community members on the acceptability and legitimacy of: - making pathogen WGS and linked administrative data available for public health research - using this information in concert with data linkage and machine learning to enhance communicable disease surveillance systems Fifty participants of diverse backgrounds, mixed genders and ages were recruited by random-digit-dialling and topic-blinded social-media advertising. Each jury was presented with balanced factual evidence supporting different expert perspectives on the potential benefits and costs of technologically enhanced public health research and communicable disease surveillance and given the opportunity to question experts. Results: Almost all jurors supported data linkage and WGS on routinely collected patient isolates for the purposes of public health research, provided standard de-identification practices were applied. However, allowing this information to be operationalised as a syndromic surveillance system was highly contentious with three juries voting in favour, and one against by narrow margins. For those in favour, support depended on several conditions related to system oversight and security being met. Those against were concerned about loss of privacy and did not trust Australian governments to run secure and effective systems. Conclusions: Participants across ...