UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation: From a Topic of Possible Discussion to Approval by the General Assembly

By no means a Pulitzer Prize winner, for those interested enough to inquire, the story of the creation of the Model Law is remarkable. The purpose of this Note is to give a snapshot of how, what began in the shadow of Arbitration as a possible work topic considered by the Commission . . . Conciliation, in the space of two and one-half years became the Model Law. As a secondary and intentional focus of this note, this author (conceding his own bias) hopes to allow the Secretariat of UNCITRAL to enjoy its well-deserved moment in the spotlight for its monumental efforts in the creation of the Model Law

Digital Memories Based Mobile User Authentication for IoT

The increasing number of devices within the IoT is raising concerns over the efficiency and exploitability of existing authentication methods. The weaknesses of such methods, in particular passwords, are well documented. Although alternative methods have been proposed, they often rely on users being able to accurately recall complex and often unmemorable information. With the profusion of separate online accounts, this can often be a difficult task. The emerging digital memories concept involves the creation of a repository of memories specific to individuals. We believe this abundance of personal data can be utilised as a form of authentication. In this paper, we propose our digital memories based two-factor authentication mechanism, and also present our promising evaluation results. Keywords—Digital memories, authentication, IoT, securit

Interventions encouraging the use of systematic reviews by health policymakers and managers: A systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Systematic reviews have the potential to inform decisions made by health policymakers and managers, yet little is known about the impact of interventions to increase the use of systematic reviews by these groups in decision making.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We systematically reviewed the evidence on the impact of interventions for seeking, appraising, and applying evidence from systematic reviews in decision making by health policymakers or managers. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Methodology Register, Health Technology Assessment Database, and LISA were searched from the earliest date available until April 2010. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion if the intervention intended to increase seeking, appraising, or applying evidence from systematic reviews by a health policymaker or manager. Minimum inclusion criteria were a description of the study population and availability of extractable data.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>11,297 titles and abstracts were reviewed, leading to retrieval of 37 full-text articles for assessment; four of these articles met all inclusion criteria. Three articles described one study where five systematic reviews were mailed to public health officials and followed up with surveys at three months and two years. The articles reported from 23% to 63% of respondents declaring they had used systematic reviews in policymaking decisions. One randomised trial indicated that tailored messages combined with access to a registry of systematic reviews had a significant effect on policies made in the area of healthy body weight promotion in health departments.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The limited empirical data renders the strength of evidence weak for the effectiveness and the types of interventions that encourage health policymakers and managers to use systematic reviews in decision making.</p

Combating escalating harms associated with pharmaceutical opioid use in Australia: The POPPY II study protocol

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. Introduction Opioid prescribing has increased 15-fold in Australia in the past two decades, alongside increases in a range of opioid-related harms such as opioid dependence and overdose. However, despite concerns about increasing opioid use, extramedical use and harms, there is a lack of population-level evidence about the drivers of long-term prescribed opioid use, dependence, overdose and other harms. Methods and analysis We will form a cohort of all adult residents in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, who initiated prescribed opioids from 2002 using Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme dispensing records. This cohort will be linked to a wide range of other datasets containing information on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, health service use and adverse outcomes (eg, opioid dependence and non-fatal and fatal overdose). Analyses will initially examine patterns and predictors of prescribed opioid use and then apply regression and survival analysis to quantify the risks and risk factors of adverse outcomes associated with prescribed opioid use. Ethics and dissemination This study has received full ethical approval from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Ethics Committee, the NSW Population and Health Services Research Committee and the ACT Health Human Research Ethics Committee. This will be the largest postmarketing surveillance study of prescribed opioids undertaken in Australia, linking exposure and outcomes and examining risk factors for adverse outcomes of prescribed opioids. As such, this work has important translational promise, with direct relevance to regulatory authorities and agencies worldwide. Project findings will be disseminated at scientific conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. We will also conduct targeted dissemination with policy makers, professional bodies and peak bodies in the pain, medicine and addiction fields through stakeholder workshops and advisory groups. Results will be reported in accordance with the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected Data (RECORD) Statement

Age at first alcohol-related hospital separation or emergency department presentation and rate of re-admission: A retrospective data linkage cohort of young Australians

Introduction: Alcohol is a leading risk factor for death and disease in young people. We compare age-specific characteristics of young people who experience their first (‘index’) alcohol-related hospitalisation or emergency department (ED) presentation, and whether age at index predicts 12-month rates of readmission. Methods: We used a retrospective linked-data cohort of 10,300 people aged 12–20 years with an index alcohol-related hospital and/or ED record in New South Wales, Australia from 2005 to 2013. Age group (early adolescent [12–14 years], late adolescent [15–17 years], young adult [18–20 years]) and diagnosis fields were used in logistic regression analyses and to calculate incidence rates with adjustment for year of index event, sex, socioeconomic disadvantage and residence remoteness. Results: People who experienced their index event in early adolescence (adjusted relative risk ratio [ARRR] 0.45 [95% confidence interval 0.39, 0.52]) or late adolescence (ARRR 0.82 [0.74, 0.90]) were less likely to be male compared to young adults. Early adolescents (ARRR 0.60 [0.51, 0.70]) and late adolescents (ARRR 0.84 [0.76, 0.93]) were less likely to have a hospitalisation index event. Early adolescents (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.40 [1.15, 1.71]) and late adolescents (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.16 [1.01, 1.34]) were more likely than young adults to have a subsequent 12-month non-poisoning injury ED presentation. Discussion and Conclusions: We identified preventable hospital events in young people who have previously experienced an alcohol-related ED presentation or hospitalisation, with age-specific characteristics and outcomes that can be used to inform future health policy and service planning

A knowledge management tool for public health: health-evidence.ca

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The ultimate goal of knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) activities is to facilitate incorporation of research knowledge into program and policy development decision making. Evidence-informed decision making involves translation of the best available evidence from a systematically collected, appraised, and analyzed body of knowledge. Knowledge management (KM) is emerging as a key factor contributing to the realization of evidence-informed public health decision making. The goal of health-evidence.ca is to promote evidence-informed public health decision making through facilitation of decision maker access to, retrieval, and use of the best available synthesized research evidence evaluating the effectiveness of public health interventions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The systematic reviews that populate health evidence.ca are identified through an extensive search (1985-present) of 7 electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, BIOSIS, and SportDiscus; handsearching of over 20 journals; and reference list searches of all relevant reviews. Reviews are assessed for relevance and quality by two independent reviewers. Commonly-used public health terms are used to assign key words to each review, and project staff members compose short summaries highlighting results and implications for policy and practice.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>As of June 2010, there are 1913 reviews in the health-evidence.ca registry in 21 public health and health promotion topic areas. Of these, 78% have been assessed as being of strong or moderate methodological quality. Health-evidence.ca receives approximately 35,000 visits per year, 20,596 of which are unique visitors, representing approximately 100 visits per day. Just under half of all visitors return to the site, with the average user spending six minutes and visiting seven pages per visit. Public health nurses, program managers, health promotion workers, researchers, and program coordinators are among the largest groups of registered users, followed by librarians, dieticians, medical officers of health, and nutritionists. The majority of users (67%) access the website from direct traffic (e.g., have the health-evidence.ca webpage bookmarked, or type it directly into their browser).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Consistent use of health-evidence.ca and particularly the searching for reviews that correspond with current public health priorities illustrates that health-evidence.ca may be playing an important role in achieving evidence-informed public health decision making.</p

The Use of Research Evidence in Public Health Decision Making Processes: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: The use of research evidence to underpin public health policy is strongly promoted. However, its implementation has not been straightforward. The objectives of this systematic review were to synthesise empirical evidence on the use of research evidence by public health decision makers in settings with universal health care systems. METHODS: To locate eligible studies, 13 bibliographic databases were screened, organisational websites were scanned, key informants were contacted and bibliographies of included studies were scrutinised. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Data were synthesised as a narrative review. FINDINGS: 18 studies were included: 15 qualitative studies, and three surveys. Their methodological quality was mixed. They were set in a range of country and decision making settings. Study participants included 1063 public health decision makers, 72 researchers, and 174 with overlapping roles. Decision making processes varied widely between settings, and were viewed differently by key players. A range of research evidence was accessed. However, there was no reliable evidence on the extent of its use. Its impact was often indirect, competing with other influences. Barriers to the use of research evidence included: decision makers' perceptions of research evidence; the gulf between researchers and decision makers; the culture of decision making; competing influences on decision making; and practical constraints. Suggested (but largely untested) ways of overcoming these barriers included: research targeted at the needs of decision makers; research clearly highlighting key messages; and capacity building. There was little evidence on the role of research evidence in decision making to reduce inequalities. CONCLUSIONS: To more effectively implement research informed public health policy, action is required by decision makers and researchers to address the barriers identified in this systematic review. There is an urgent need for evidence to support the use of research evidence to inform public health decision making to reduce inequalities