Monday, January 11, 2010

[EQ] Presentation: Why more equal societies almost always do better - Tuesday, 19th January 2010, at 3:00- 5:00 pm Washington DC time

 

 

Presentation

 

Why more equal societies almost always do better

Richard Wilkinson, Professor Emeritus at the University of Nottingham Medical School
 and Honorary Professor at University College London.

Kate Pickett, Professor of Epidemiology at the University of York and a National Institute for Health Research Career Scientist.

 

When:
Tuesday, 19th January 2010, at 3:00– 5:00 pm Washington DC time

Please check the local time in your own town: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meeting.html

Where: in front of your personal or work computer anywhere in the world or at:
PAHO HQ Room 1017
525 23Rd  St. NW Washington DC 20037

Link to participants – Via Internet
https://sas.elluminate.com/m.jnlp?sid=1110&password=M.A4FA308B5F1FA6CD60DB62C0137303

                We will broadcast this session in English via the Elluminate Live!® software using integrated
                VoIP for the audio component

Please connect a few minutes before 3 pm Washington DC time. You must have a headset or speaker and microphone

The event is free and open to interested people. You may attend virtually from your personal or work computer anywhere in the world. In addition to watching live presentations, you will have the option to ask questions and provide comments.

This conference will enable the sharing of good practices and lessons learned.


Welcome

3:00 – 3:20pm  
                    Juan Manuel Sotelo, Manager, External Relations, Resource Mobilization, and Partnerships PAHO/WHO
                    
Jarbas Barbosa, Manager, Health Surveillance and Disease Prevention and Control (HSD) PAHO/WHO
                    Theresa Bernardo, Manager, Knowledge Management and Communications (KMC) PAHO/WHO

 

Presenters


3:20 – 4:00pm

 

Why more equal societies almost always do better

  Where in the developed world do people live the longest? Where do people born at the bottom of the economic ladder have the best shot at climbing up?

In which nations do children do best in school? Which countries send the most people to prison?  Have the teenage pregnancies?  Suffer the most homicides?

The answers matter and are indicative of a society’s overall health and the quality of life for its citizens. 

That is the contention of eminent British epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, authors of The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger.

Presenters

Richard Wilkinson has played a formative role in international research and his work has been published in 10 languages. He studied economic history at the London School of Economics before training in epidemiology and is Professor Emeritus at the University of Nottingham Medical School and Honorary Professor at University College London.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Wilkinson_(public_health)

Kate Pickett, Professor of Epidemiology at the University of York and a National Institute for Health Research Career Scientist. She studied physical anthropology at Cambridge, nutritional sciences at Cornell and epidemiology at Berkeley before spending four years as an Assistant Professor at the University of Chicago.

.


4:00 – 5:00pm


Q&A from Participants

 


Contact Information:

E-mail: Ruglucia@paho.org
Pan American Health Organization PAHO/WHO - Washington D.C.

 

 


PAHO/WHO Website
Equity List - Archives - Join/remove: http://listserv.paho.org/Archives/equidad.html
Twitter http://twitter.com/eqpaho

 

 
    IMPORTANT: This transmission is for use by the intended recipient and it may contain privileged, proprietary or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this transmission to the intended recipient, you may not disclose, copy or distribute this transmission or take any action in reliance on it. If you received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by email to infosec@paho.org, and please dispose of and delete this transmission. Thank you.  

[EQ] Report: Public health, innovation and intellectual property

Public health, innovation and intellectual property


WHO Report of the Expert Working Group on Research and Development Financing

December 23rd, 2009

Available online PDF [19p.] at: http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB126/B126_6Add1-en.pdf

“……..There is persistent and growing concern that the benefits of the advances in health technology are not reaching the poor. The emphasis of the developed world is naturally on the solution of the problems that affect it predominantly. This is in spite of the evidence of the heavy burden of disease on the poor, which in addition to being one of the more egregious manifestations of inequity, could undoubtedly affect overall global stability.

 

There is convincing evidence of the poor bearing a double burden of disease, but there is still no indication of adequate research and development to address the Type II and III diseases.1 This growing focus on the diseases of the poor has led to examination of the relationship between intellectual property rights,2 innovation and public health, and the gap in the innovation cycle with the concern that the commercial incentives provided by intellectual property rights have not resulted in sufficient improvements in public health in developing countries or to access to the benefits of innovations that take place in the developed world…..”

 

1 Type 1 diseases are incident in both rich and poor countries with large numbers of vulnerable populations in each.

Type II diseases are incident in both rich and poor countries but with a substantial proportion of the cases in poor countries.

Type III diseases are those that are overwhelmingly or exclusively incident in developing countries.

 

 *      *     *
This message from the Pan American Health Organization, PAHO/WHO, is part of an effort to disseminate
information Related to: Equity; Health inequality; Socioeconomic inequality in health; Socioeconomic
health differentials; Gender; Violence; Poverty; Health Economics; Health Legislation; Ethnicity; Ethics;
Information Technology - Virtual libraries; Research & Science issues.  [DD/ KMC Area]

“Materials provided in this electronic list are provided "as is". Unless expressly stated otherwise, the findings
and interpretations included in the Materials are those of the authors and not necessarily of The Pan American
Health Organization PAHO/WHO or its country members”.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAHO/WHO Website

Equity List - Archives - Join/remove: http://listserv.paho.org/Archives/equidad.html
Twitter http://twitter.com/eqpaho

    IMPORTANT: This transmission is for use by the intended recipient and it may contain privileged, proprietary or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this transmission to the intended recipient, you may not disclose, copy or distribute this transmission or take any action in reliance on it. If you received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by email to infosec@paho.org, and please dispose of and delete this transmission. Thank you.  

[EQ] Reflection on research evaluation studies, their recurrent themes and challenges

A historical reflection on research evaluation studies,
their recurrent themes and challenges

Sonja Marjanovic, Stephen Hanney, Steven Wooding
2009 RAND Corporation

Available online PDF [55p.] at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2009/RAND_TR789.pdf

“……This report presents a historical reflection on research evaluation studies, their recurrent themes and challenges, and their implications. It critically examines studies of how scientific research drives innovation and socioeconomic benefits.

…First, it provides a predominantly descriptive historical overview of some landmark studies in the research evaluation field, from the late 1950s until the present day, and highlights some of their key contributions. Then, it reflects on the historical overview analytically, in order to discuss some of the methodological developments and recurrent themes in research evaluation studies. The report concludes by discussing the enduring challenges in research evaluation studies and their implications.

 

We emphasise that this report does not address all of the key studies in the research evaluation field. The evaluation literature today is so extensive that a selective approach is necessary to focus on those studies that we feel provide the most valuable insights in the context of biomedical and health research evaluation. However, we do go back in history to revisit some early landmark studies outside of the biomedical or health research sectors, which had a particularly strong influence on informing evaluation thinking, policy and practice…..”

Contents

Summary

CHAPTER 1 A historical overview of research evaluation studies
1.1 Early landmark studies: the 1960s and 1970s
1.2 The evolution of studies concerned with innovation processes and outputs: from the 1980s to the present day
1.2.1 Process-oriented evaluation studies
1.2.2 Output-oriented evaluation studies

CHAPTER 2 Methodological developments:
case study-based approaches and conceptual frameworks in evaluation research
2.1 The Payback framework
2.2 Economic and Social Research Council framework
2.3 Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences framework
2.4 Framework for impact segmentation by audience
2.5 US Agency for Healthcare and Research Quality impact model

CHAPTER 3 Consistent themes in research evaluation studies
3.1 Scientific accountability and justification of investments into research
3.2 Lack of convincing evidence on success factors
3.3 Nature of the innovation process
3.4 Factors influencing innovation processes
3.4.1 Funding mechanisms and research settings
3.4.2 The relative contributions of basic and applied science to innovation
3.4.3 Knowledge-exchange environments
3.5 Diversity and range of benefits from research

CHAPTER 4 Challenges in research evaluation studies
4.1 Apparent contradictions between studies as an artefact of research design
4.1.1 Types of innovations examined
4.1.2 Timeframes
4.2 Biases in the selection of cases
4.3 Lack of clarity and unity in the definitions of concepts
4.4 Challenges to the ability to replicate methodology: unclear descriptions of techniques used for data collection and analysis
4.5 The challenge of setting boundaries in research
4.6 Challenges in the attribution of impacts
4.7 Issues of sector idiosyncrasies

CHAPTER 5 Conclusion

Bibliography

Appendix: A summary of key studies and their insights

 

 *      *     *
This message from the Pan American Health Organization, PAHO/WHO, is part of an effort to disseminate
information Related to: Equity; Health inequality; Socioeconomic inequality in health; Socioeconomic
health differentials; Gender; Violence; Poverty; Health Economics; Health Legislation; Ethnicity; Ethics;
Information Technology - Virtual libraries; Research & Science issues.  [DD/ KMC Area]

“Materials provided in this electronic list are provided "as is". Unless expressly stated otherwise, the findings
and interpretations included in the Materials are those of the authors and not necessarily of The Pan American
Health Organization PAHO/WHO or its country members”.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAHO/WHO Website

Equity List - Archives - Join/remove: http://listserv.paho.org/Archives/equidad.html
Twitter http://twitter.com/eqpaho



    IMPORTANT: This transmission is for use by the intended recipient and it may contain privileged, proprietary or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this transmission to the intended recipient, you may not disclose, copy or distribute this transmission or take any action in reliance on it. If you received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by email to infosec@paho.org, and please dispose of and delete this transmission. Thank you.