Designing a health system for equity

The key discussions about the relationship between health and equity have understandably concerned the causal relationship between various social, economic, cultural and environmental determinants of health and the health status of populations by socioeconomic status, class or other divisions that may be used to illustrate health inequalities. (Acheson (1998); "Bringing Britain together" (1998); Kawachi et al (1997); Canada (1997); Dixon (1999); Marmot (1998); Wilkinson (1996); RACP (1999); WHO (1998), Cochrane/Campbell (2000)) Similarly, there has been key discussion about the nature of organizations and their ability to affect and/or respond to change. We know quite a deal about organizations and their structures. And we now have (as we be shown below) an understanding from both practice and theory of the changes needed for organizations to evolve successfully

How to make the rhetoric of joined-up government really work

"Joined-up' government and 'whole-of-government' approaches have evolved over the past two decades from the simple 'one-stop-shop' concept to much more formal organisational structures mandated at the highest levels. In many cases, the participants in these developments were learning on the job, as they responded to community and political demands for better service delivery and more accountability. This paper looks back at some of those developments and proposes a schema to assess and place policies, strategies and programs

Cold Pavement and Two People

In lieu of an abstract, below is the essay\u27s first paragraph. On that brisk February evening Elizabeth and I stood side by side on the Greyhound station waiting platform. It was so cold I thought my feet and fingertips would freeze. I could see no reason why everyone had to wait so long to board the bus. Although I wasn\u27t enjoying it at all, it didn\u27t seem to bother Elizabeth; she seemed very comfortable as she held tightly onto my arm. It struck me as if zero, waiting, and our coming separation weren\u27t in her mind at all; I knew she was trying not to think of them. I felt bad that I would be back home in fifteen minutes and she had a twelve-hour bus ride ahead of her. In spite of being very cold and impatient, I thought of these things. I knew my love for her was as cold as the pavement and empty air around us. This was the reason that I shivered heavily underneath my coat and gloves. I knew why she did not shiver as she stood so straight in her high heels. I knew why she held my arm more tightly and that she was probably looking at me and smiling. I just couldn\u27t look in her eyes very long. Everytime l did her love seemed to come forth in that look, and I knew it must return injured; it had never met what it had itself

Getting research into policy : lots of ideas but how do we make it happen? Insights from the policy experience

Evidence and health policy discussions to date have largely focused on the relationship between those generating research evidence and policy decision-makers and how improving this relationship will increase research use in policy development. All too often policy makers are perceived as the problem, not understanding or seeing the importance of research evidence. Policy makers do have a responsibility to source and use available evidence, as do researchers to the sharp and meaningful production and syntheses of policy relevant research evidence. This takes more than improved communication mechanisms between individual researcher and policy makers. Evidence-informed policy making is a science in its own right requiring the development and application of methods that conceptualise, synthesise and exchange research evidence. Policy organisations need to develop as receptor sites for research and its application to day-to-day decision-making, this is a significant program of work if it is to be done well and affect the evidence culture of organisations

NASA's CubeQuest Challenge - From Ground Tournaments to Lunar and Deep Space Derby

The First Flight of NASA's Space Launch System will feature 13 CubeSats that will launch into cis-lunar space. Three of these CubeSats are winners of the CubeQuest Challenge, part of NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) Centennial Challenge Program. In order to qualify for launch on EM-1, the winning teams needed to win a series of Ground Tournaments, periodically held since 2015. The final Ground Tournament, GT-4, was held in May 2017, and resulted in the Top 3 selection for the EM-1 launch opportunity. The Challenge now proceeds to the in-space Derbies, where teams must build and test their spacecraft before launch on EM-1. Once in space, they will compete for a variety of Communications and Propulsion-based challenges. This is the first Centennial Challenge to compete in space and is a springboard for future in-space Challenges. In addition, the technologies gained from this challenge will also propel development of deep space CubeSats

Capacity building : just rhetoric, or a way forward in addressing health inequality?

Issue addressed: It is time to move beyond defining the problem of health inequality to taking action. The response required is complex and calls for system wide action. It is in this context that a discussion of increasing the capacity of the health system to respond to health inequality is both timely and essential. Methods: This paper looks at a capacity building framework that has been developed by the New South Wales Health Department and provides an example of a number of projects that have applied capacity building strategies. Conclusion: Addressing health inequality presents a significant challenge to health promotion practitioners. Emerging capacity building theory provides direction for strategies to build the capacity of a health system to address equity. It proposes a set of practical actions using the five focus areas of organisational development, workforce development, resource allocation, partnerships and leadership. So what?: A capacity building approach by itself will not provide the mandate and framework for the action that needs to be taken to address health inequality, but it helps to ensure that once potential solutions are identified the health system has the capacity to respond

Bumper 3 Update for IADC Protection Manual

The Bumper code has been the standard in use by NASA and contractors to perform meteoroid/debris risk assessments since 1990. It has undergone extensive revisions and updates [NASA JSC HITF website; Christiansen et al., 1992, 1997]. NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) has applied BUMPER to risk assessments for Space Station, Shuttle, Mir, Extravehicular Mobility Units (EMU) space suits, and other spacecraft (e.g., LDEF, Iridium, TDRS, and Hubble Space Telescope). Bumper continues to be updated with changes in the ballistic limit equations describing failure threshold of various spacecraft components, as well as changes in the meteoroid and debris environment models. Significant efforts are expended to validate Bumper and benchmark it to other meteoroid/debris risk assessment codes. Bumper 3 is a refactored version of Bumper II. The structure of the code was extensively modified to improve maintenance, performance and flexibility. The architecture was changed to separate the frequently updated ballistic limit equations from the relatively stable common core functions of the program. These updates allow NASA to produce specific editions of the Bumper 3 that are tailored for specific customer requirements. The core consists of common code necessary to process the Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris (MMOD) environment models, assess shadowing and calculate MMOD risk. The library of target response subroutines includes a board range of different types of MMOD shield ballistic limit equations as well as equations describing damage to various spacecraft subsystems or hardware (thermal protection materials, windows, radiators, solar arrays, cables, etc.). The core and library of ballistic response subroutines are maintained under configuration control. A change in the core will affect all editions of the code, whereas a change in one or more of the response subroutines will affect all editions of the code that contain the particular response subroutines which are modified. Note that the Bumper II program is no longer maintained or distributed by NASA

Bumper Code Update: Russian Segment

No abstract availabl