Landfill extension developments in Hong Kong : a study of agenda setting and policy dynamics

published_or_final_versionPolitics and Public AdministrationMasterMaster of Public Administratio

What Does Economics Assume About People’s Knowledge? Who knows?

The purpose of the paper is to explore, from an assessment viewpoint, the ideas below. Economics, as a social science, has always considered sets of individuals with assumed characteristics, namely the level of knowledge, although in an implicit way in most of the cases. In this sense, an influential approach in Economics assumed that society, as a global set of individuals, was characterised by a certain level of knowledge that, indeed, could be associated with the one of its representative agent. In fact, an attentive recall of the evolution of these matters in Economics will immediately recognise that, since the very first economic models of the government, it was assumed that the level of knowledge of society, represented by a set of voters, was not the same as the one of the agent being elected, i.e. the government. The irrelevance of the difference in the level of knowledge of economic agents was soon abandoned after some seminal works of Hayek and Friedman. More recently, the viewpoint of Economics has changed by focusing on the characteristics (e.g. knowledge) of individuals, who may interact in sub-sets of society. From this point of view is clearly relevant, given the close connection with the assumed level of knowledge, to distinguish the adaptive behaviour from the rational one, as well as the full rational from the bounded rationality behaviour by people. Quite recent developments in the Economics of Knowledge, i.e. the so-called learning models, have been considered as more realistic approaches to model the process by which individuals acquire knowledge, for instance from other individuals that are, themselves, acquiring knowledge

Tree management and the greening of the environment in Hong Kong : a study of collaborative governance

published_or_final_versionPolitics and Public AdministrationMasterMaster of Public Administratio

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy v. group psychoeducation for people with generalised anxiety disorder: randomised controlled trial

Background: Research suggests that an 8-week mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) course may be effective for generalised anxiety disorder (GAD). Aims: To compare changes in anxiety levels among participants with GAD randomly assigned to MBCT, cognitive–behavioural therapy-based psychoeducation and usual care. Method: In total, 182 participants with GAD were recruited (trial registration number: CUHK_CCT00267) and assigned to the three groups and followed for 5 months after baseline assessment with the two intervention groups followed for an additional 6 months. Primary outcomes were anxiety and worry levels. Results: Linear mixed models demonstrated significant group × time interaction (F(4,148) = 5.10, P = 0.001) effects for decreased anxiety for both the intervention groups relative to usual care. Significant group × time interaction effects were observed for worry and depressive symptoms and mental health-related quality of life for the psychoeducation group only. Conclusions: These results suggest that both of the interventions appear to be superior to usual care for the reduction of anxiety symptoms

The Use of Modified Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction and Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy Program for Family Caregivers of People Living with Dementia: A Feasibility Study

Purpose The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a modified mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) program for reducing the stress, depressive symptoms, and subjective burden of family caregivers of people with dementia (PWD). Methods A prospective, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial design was adopted. Fifty-seven participants were recruited from the community and randomized into either the modified MBSR group (n = 27) or modified MBCT group (n = 26), receiving seven face-to-face intervention sessions for more than 16 weeks. Various psychological outcomes were measured at baseline (T0), immediately after intervention (T1), and at the 3-month follow-up (T2). Results Both interventions were found to be feasible in view of the high attendance (more than 70.0%) and low attrition (3.8%) rates. The mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) results showed positive within-group effects on perceived stress (p = .030, Cohen's d = 0.54), depressive symptoms (p = .002, Cohen's d = 0.77), and subjective caregiver burden (p < .001, Cohen's d = 1.12) in both interventions across the time points, whereas the modified MBCT had a larger effect on stress reduction, compared with the modified MBSR (p = .019). Conclusion Both the modified MBSR and MBCT are acceptable to family caregivers of PWD. Their preliminary effects were improvements in stress, depressive symptoms, and subjective burden. The modified MBCT may be more suitable for caregivers of PWD than the MBSR. A future clinical trial is needed to confirm their effectiveness in improving the psychological well-being of caregivers of PWD

Dense Cranial Electroacupuncture Stimulation for Major Depressive Disorder—A Single-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Study

BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggest that electroacupuncture possesses therapeutic benefits for depressive disorders. The purpose of this study was to determine whether dense cranial electroacupuncture stimulation (DCEAS) could enhance the antidepressant efficacy in the early phase of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: In this single-blind, randomized, controlled study, patients with MDD were randomly assigned to 9-session DCEAS or noninvasive electroacupuncture (n-EA) control procedure in combination with fluoxetine (FLX) for 3 weeks. Clinical outcomes were measured using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17), Clinical Global Impression-severity (CGI-S), and Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS) as well as the response and remission rates. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients were randomly assigned to n-EA (n = 35) and DCEAS (n = 38), of whom 34 in n-EA and 36 in DCEAS group were analyzed. DCEAS-treated patients displayed a significantly greater reduction from baseline in HAMD-17 scores at Day 3 through Day 21 and in SDS scores at Day 3 and Day 21 compared to patients receiving n-EA. DCEAS intervention also produced a higher rate of clinically significant response compared to n-EA procedure (19.4% (7/36) vs. 8.8% (3/34)). The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: DCEAS is a safe and effective intervention that augments the antidepressant efficacy. It can be considered as an additional therapy in the early phase of SSRI treatment of depressed patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN88008690