BARRIERS TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

*Bayartsengel Damdinjav, Chuck Davis, Steven Jones, Zach Long, Claudia Risner, Sydney Sheppard, Christina Slentz Climate change is the global challenge of the twenty-first century, a threat that carries dire environmental, social, security, and economic implications for every region of the world. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the primary driver of climate change is the increase in greenhouse gas emissions attributed to human activities. Although climate change must be met with a comprehensive global response in order to effectively address the effects of harmful greenhouse gases (GHG), these efforts depend on the actions taking place within nations. The United States, the greatest per-capita emitter of GHG, and China, that produces the largest amount of GHG overall, bear a good deal of responsibility for the problem. The United States, in particular, with its rejection of the Kyoto Protocol and its inability to craft a viable climate change agenda, has failed to offer the leadership needed to secure meaningful reductions in GHG. This essay seeks to establish perspective by profiling the political, social, and economic circumstances within six nations (three advanced industrial countries and three newly modernizing countries) and the European Union (EU) in order to better understand the dynamics involved in achieving a global solution to climate change.Case Studies1.- European UnionThe European Union has led the push for climate change regulationsto curb emissions 30% by 2030 and 80%-95% by 2050. To reach that goal, it has invested significant funds targetting 20% of the EU budget from 2014-2020 towards climate related measures. The EU believes that climate change policies will not only preserve the planet for generations to come but will also create greater long-term health and economic benefits. This position can be attributed to the lack of politicization of climate change in the EU allowing politicians to advocate forward thinking policies without the constant fear of political or electoral retribution. Furthermore, the close proximity of EU member states and their relatively small size creates an “all in this together” mentality allowing them to harness their resources to compete with larger world powers.2.- United KingdomWidely acknowledged as one of the foremost countries addressing climate change, the United Kingdom moved definitively to establish a science-based framework for approaching this global phenomenon even prior to the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992. This de-politicizing effort is revealed in the staunch support of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher, whose instrumental leadership set this critical tone and aided in the formation of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990, and Tony Blair, who seized his 2005 G-8 presidential term as an opportunity to promote the reduction of GHG through mitigation technologies, sustainable energy, and adaptation strategies. The UK has fostered domestic integration of climate and energy policies to reduce ill effects at home as well as international cooperation in the form of a post-Kyoto strategy and the ongoing European Union’s Emission Trading Scheme (ETS), designed to blend climate change collaborative goals of equity distribution and cost effectiveness.3.- CanadaCanada’s efforts to address climate change can be best described as leaping forward, stepping back and, finally, standing in place. An original early proponent for mitigation since 1975, under the Chrétien administration in the 1990s, the country committed to relatively aggressive reductions - - a 30% decrease over projected 2010 emissions - - as part of the Kyoto Protocol. However, a clear implementation plan proved elusive until 2005, at which time “Project Green” successfully established meaningful initiatives. Although temporarily rolled back the following year under the more business-friendly Harper administration, a brief surge in climate change public awareness subsequently forced the return of some mitigation initiatives. Currently, climate change policy stagnation is largely explained by prioritizing economic growth over environmental concernsparticularly in the wake of the 2008 Credit Crisis.It is further complicated by Canada’s neighbor to the south - - the administration of President Barack Obama who supports addressing GHG emissions and a clean energy future.4.- AustraliaAustralia’s international position on climate change reflects its domestic policy agenda. For the first 10-years of the Kyoto Protocol, 1997-2007, Australia was a climate change laggard based on both its refusal to ratify the agreement and its largely symbolic GHG reduction policies. In 2007, Australia ratified the Protocol and implemented stringent abatement policies but is now reversing course. What caused the shifts Down Under? Two domestic factors, electoral interests and political leadership, are most influential. Compared to economic growth, voters’ prioritization of environmental issues rose until 2007 and then declined. The political leadership within the Coalition government (1996-2007, reelected in 2013) favors business and the fossil fuel industry, and is skeptical of climate change. This stands in contrast to the Labor Party (2007-2013) that favors GHG emissions reductions. So, although Australia has committed internationally to a 5% reduction of 2000 level emissions by 2020, it still lacks a consistent domestic policy to achieve this goal. Russia Russia experienced massive industrial decline in the immediate aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991. Despite the fact that there has been a significant reduction of GHG emissions, Russia still ranks third on the list of the largest greenhouse gas emitters in the world. Problems caused by climate change in recent decades include public health risks, increased recurrence, intensity and duration of droughts in some regions, extreme precipitation patterns, floods, and over-moisturized soil and permafrost degradation in the northern regions. However, the climate change issue does not constitute a priority for Russian authorities. Several internal factors, such as a well-rooted skepticism within the Russian scientific community towards anthropogenic global warming, low environmental awareness among Russian citizens, and the priority given to the country’s economic restoration, suggests that Russian climate policy is to a great extent being driven by the pursuit of benefits in areas other than that of environmental policy.ChinaOne of the best ways to summarize China’s approach to climate change is via a domestic politics model. Decisionmakers involved in China’s climate change policy belong to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and there is little or no foreign influence over them. Among these decision makers, the most influential have managed to frame the issue as one of sovereignty and economic development. These hardliners see climate change as an issue that threatens China’s sovereignty and its right to develop economically. As such, it has taken a stance of not joining any multilateral agreement until the U.S. does so. Thus, China’s right to develop economically is assured. Domestically, China has made progress developing solar and wind technology for domestic use and for foreign markets. However, it continues to use fossil fuels, especially coal,to ensure that it develops along the lines deemed acceptable to the CCP.IndiaIndia’s position on climate change is guided by two priorities - - namely, sustainable development and the elimination of poverty. With a growing economy that demands more energy for growth, there are hundreds of millions of people without access to electricity in India. Energy use and consequently greenhouse gas emissions will grow substantially in the coming decades. As a modernizing country, India is not bound to any GHG emission reduction goals under the Kyoto Protocol. However, it has established a National Action Plan on Climate Change and implemented a combination of mitigation and adaptation policies to reduce the country’s contributions to climate change. These policies include energy conservation, promotion of renewable energy, abatement of air pollution among others. While India’s development will require growth in energy use, the country must work to reduce the energy intensity of its production processes.Comparative AnalysisOn the basis of political, economic and social factors, a comparative analysis of the case studies reveals three key groupings: supporters of international climate change policy that involves implementing significant carbon mitigation reduction requirements; fickle hesitators who, if cooperative, face major reduction requirements; and unburdened supporters who face little-to-no mitigation requirements. The EU and the UK, as a climate change leader, fall into the first category, politically defined as highly democratic and economically and regionally integrated. The EU and the UK have softened views on sovereignty, have historically utilized the market for political/social ends, and normatively seek international cooperation as a means of reducing risk.For Canada and Australia,reduced support for international action on climate change is largely based on modern era socio-political attitudes and a perceived threat to their economic viability. Stemming from strong political views on state sovereignty, they are historically less likely to cooperate on international initiatives and, unlike the economically integrated EU and UK, are not willing to constrain markets in the name of political or social ends. These nations traditionally prefer individualistic as opposed to collective responses to major issues and consequently see cooperative action as risky.The newly modernizing countries of China, India and Russia exhibit different degrees of democracy and are not economically integrated nor fully industrialized. While highly centralized political authority is helpful in making international level commitments, enforcement capacity is hindered domestically. Willingness to cooperate is generally conditional upon gaining financial assistance and technical support needed for development. For China and Russia, the first priority is maintaining state authority and social well-being for the sake of stability. Environmental policy is put forward only when these priorities are not threatened. For India, the focus centers on lifting its population out of poverty that takes precedence over international climate change cooperation.ConclusionOverall, countries willing to cooperate internationally and make sacrifices to mitigate the causes of climate change perceive a lower economic and political threat for doing so than countries that refuse. In fact, the supporters of international climate change policy are more likely to view global warming as an all-encompassing economic, political, and social threat rather than as a discrete environmental threat. Having said this, they also see potential opportunities in assuming the role of early adaptors to climate change.Countries reluctant to support international cooperation face domestic political barriers that the comparative analysis above indicates is due primarily to economic perceptions and viability. Some countries that have rejected a commitment to international cooperation have, in fact, implemented national or sub-state abatement policies. At the same time, others ignore the threat entirely.In short, differences in behavior toward climate change indicates that not all countries perceive the threat the same. The task for climate change leaders, therefore, is to maintain their resolve to educate global populations such that perceptions of economic risk become less significant than perceptions of climate change risk. At the same time, they must offer best practices of reducing compliance costs and sharing knowledgeto build a clean energy agenda in order to ensure a sustainable global solution to climate change. *Students in the Graduate Program in International StudiesOld Dominion University, USAUnder the Direction of Professor Glen Sussma

The 2008 Presidential Campaign

The 2008 campaign for the presidency has provided American citizens with surprises as well as opportunities in terms of choosing a new president. The long primary season that ran from January to June resulted in nominees - - John McCain (R) and Barack Obama (D) - - who were not the likely winners of their respective parties. As far as Democrats were concerned, Hillary Clinton was the front-runner and heir apparent to the Democratic nomination. On the Republican side, John McCain’s faltering campaign in the early months of the primary season suggested that Republicans would end up selecting another nominee. All in all, the primary season provided Americans with a host of candidates one of whom might serve as a “first” - - the first African-American (Barack Obama) the first woman (Hillary Clinton), the first Hispanic (Bill Richardson), the first Morman (Mitt Romney) or the oldest nominee (John McCain).Both parties had a variety of candidates vying for the nomination of their party but it was the Democratic party that provided the most interest among citizens and media pundits alike. The primary contest between Obama and Clinton would test the mettle of both candidates as they crisscrossed the country in their respective attempt to capture delegates for the summer convention. In the end, Obama squeaked out a victory in one of the closest contests in party history. Two questions became inevitable at this point - - namely, would Hillary Clinton campaign for Obama and would supporters of Clinton, especially female voters, support Obama. On the Republican side, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul were pushed aside, one by one, by a resurgent McCain campaign.Both Obama and McCain have supporters and opponents. While targeting traditional Democratic constituencies, Obama has also focused on the youthful cohort, young people 18-29 years old who have traditionally been ignored or neglected by major party candidates. Obama, however, pursued a campaign similar to that of Bill Clinton in 1992 when he too sought the support of young people. As noted in a recent article in Time Magazine (January 31, 2008), Obama is looking forward to a “youthquake” to help him win the White House. What the Clinton campaign of 1992 and the Obama campaign of 2008 have in common is the likelihood of a very close election and therefore the need to attract and recruit all segments of the American electorate. Of course, as has happened in other campaigns, young people have failed to register to vote and/or have failed to turn up on election day. Critics have argued that Obama lacks executive experience in general and in foreign policy in particular. McCain has a following among those who like his “maverick” approach to politics and willingness to buck even his own party when necessary. He was also a POW during the Vietnam War that has given him sympathy among citizens and members of the armed forces. On the other hand, McCain has been in a similar situation as George Bush (the father) - - namely conservatives who idolized Ronald Reagan were not so eager to give their support to Bush (the father) and two decades later, they have had second thoughts about the conservative credentials of McCain.Obama’s and McCain’s choice of running mate added excitement to the presidential contest. The junior senator from Illinois selected the longtime senator from Delaware, Joe Biden, as his running mate. By choosing Biden, Obama added a senator who had valuable experience in two very important aspects of American Politics - - namely, a legislator who had a clear understanding about the operation of the U.S. Senate and one who had foreign policy experience. In contrast, John McCain, who some thought would choose Romney to shore up his lack of expertise on economic matters, chose instead Sarah Palin, a relatively unknown governor of Alaska as his partner in the presidential contest. By choosing Palin, McCain shook up the race by attempting to bolster his support among conservatives with a very conservative running mate and to appeal to female voters by adding a woman to the Republican ticket for the first time in history. While Biden was well known among politicos and media pundits, Palin was a novelty - - unknown and therefore the likely target of media attention. Where Democrats questioned and criticized McCain’s choice of Palin, Republicans, especially conservative Republicans, were very enthusiastic about her which helped to bolster the McCain-Palin ticket in the short term. Inevitably, however, both vice-presidential candidates were scrutinized since both carried “baggage” into the presidential contest. Biden has a history of verbal errors and has been criticized for “plagiarizing” comments used by other public officials. Palin has been accused of heavy-handed politics even by fellow Republicans in Alaska and with less than 50 days left in the run up to the election, she is involved in a troubling scandal involving allegations that she used her power as governor to fire the “top cop” in Alaska because he refused to fire an Alaska state trooper who divorced Palin’s sister.One of the fascinating aspects of the 2008 presidential campaign is the involvement of a large number of young people - - the so-called Millenium generation - - who have been mobilized in a way not seen since young people worked to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 in the early 1970s. Although about 55% of young people voted in the 1972 presidential election, voter turnout among members of the youthful cohort has declined over the years (except for a slight upward bump in 1992) dropping to 32% during the 2000 presidential election. However, young people once again began to show interest in the electoral process and their participation increased in the 2004 and 2006 elections to about 42%. What makes this demographic important is that young people 18-29 make up approximately 44 million potential voters - - about 20% of the American electorate. Both issues and technology have played a role in energizing young people. The economy and jobs, along with terrorism and the war in Iraq, constitute the major issues identified by them in recent polls, the same issues of concern to older voters. Where younger and older voters diverge is found in the types of technology used by young voters and employed by the Obama campaign, in particular, to reach out to them. This form of communication includes Facebook and YouTube among others. It is interesting to note that young people are not a solid block with about a third identifying as Democrats, a third identifying as Republicans and a third identifying as Independents. If the youthful cohort is paying more attention to this election and has demonstrated an upward turn in participation as shown by increased turnout in the 2008 primary season, young people have the potential to play an important role in the 2008 presidential election. In fact, three out of four young people, 18-29, feel that the country is headed in the wrong direction, an indicator not good for the legacy of the Bush administration or the prospects of the McCain campaign, at least among this youthful constituency.Eight years ago, the Bush Administration inherited a balanced budget, a budget surplus and a country at peace. However, life in the U.S. changed on 9/11 but more importantly in March 2003 with the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, the economy has deteriorated with huge budget and trade deficits, home foreclosures, infrastructure needs and the collapse of financial institutions. Against a backdrop of a very unpopular Republican president, a country at war and economic deterioration, the McCain-Obama presidential contest has taken on added importance making the 2008 presidential election very consequential for the American electorate.As the McCain and Obama campaigns are engaged in the race for the presidency, each candidate will have the opportunity to speak directly to the American people in three debates. It is very likely that the first debate on September 26 in Oxford, Mississippi will draw a large audience tuning in to watch and compare the candidates. Moreover, the one and only debate taking place in St. Louis, Missouri on October 2 between vice presidential candidates, Biden and Palin, will also draw a large audience in an effort to better understand and evaluate the candidates who might be only a heart beat away from becoming president.By September 2008 the race between Obama and McCain is considered very close as reflected by national polls and the electoral college map of states. While national polls are interesting they are not helpful since the U.S. does not select its president by the popular vote. Instead, we need to look at each state and where it falls in terms of its electoral vote allotment. In short, the country is still divided in terms of red and blue states although each campaign is trying to flip some states to their side.By mid-September, according to Cable News Network (CNN), Obama has 223 electoral votes from states that are strongly on his side or leaning toward him while McCain has 200 electoral votes from states that are strongly on his side or leaning toward him. With 538 electoral votes in play, Obama or McCain will need to secure 270 of these votes to win the election.Although there are some states where there is the possibility of reversal from one party to the other, the real focus of attention is on the handful of competitive or “battleground” states that include mid-Atlantic Virginia that hasn’t voted Democratic since supporting Lyndon Johnson in 1964 but now finds itself with the McCain and Obama camps currently locked in a tight race. Large electoral states in play include Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Western states that are important to both Obama and McCain are Colorado and Nevada. Small but not to be ignored is New Hampshire in the New England region of the U.S. The important point is that, taken together, these states have 115 electoral votes that are important to winning the White House.As the 2008 presidential campaign unfolds, the results will be important not only for American citizens but also for the international community. Professor of Political Science Old Dominion University Norfolk, Virginia US

Unraveling the geometry of the New England oroclines (eastern Australia): Constraints from magnetic fabrics

The southern New England Orogen (NEO) in eastern Australia is characterized by tight curvatures(oroclines), but the exact geometry of the oroclines and their kinematic evolution are controversial. Here we present new data on the anisotropy ofmagnetic susceptibility (AMS), which provide a petrofabric proxy for the finite strain associated with the oroclines.We focus on a series of preoroclinal Devonian-Carboniferous fore-arc basin rocks, which are aligned parallel to the oroclinal structure, and by examining structural domains, we test whether or not the magnetic fabric is consistent with the strain axes. AMS data show a first-order consistency with the shape of the oroclines, characterized, in most of structural domains, by subparallelism between magnetic lineations, “structural axis” and bedding. With the exception of the Gresford and west Hastings domains, our results are relatively consistent with the existence of the Manning and Nambucca (Hastings) Oroclines. Reconstruction of magnetic lineations to a prerotation (i.e., pre–late Carboniferous) stage, considering available paleomagnetic results, yields a consistent and rather rectilinear NE-SW predeformation fore-arc basin. This supports the validity of AMS as a strain proxy in complex orogens, such as the NEO. In the Hastings Block, magnetic lineations are suborthogonal to bedding, possibly indicating a different deformational historywith respect to the rest of the NEO

Psychological approaches to understanding and promoting recovery in psychosis and bipolar disorder:a mixed-methods approach

BackgroundRecovery in mental health is a relatively new concept, but it is becoming more accepted that people can recover from psychosis. Recovery-orientated services are recommended for adult mental health, but with little evidence base to support this. ObjectivesTo facilitate understanding and promotion of recovery in psychosis and bipolar disorder (BD), in a manner that is empowering and acceptable to service users. MethodThere were six linked projects using qualitative and quantitative methodologies: (1) developing and piloting a service user-defined measure of recovery; (2) a Delphi study to determine levels of consensus around the concept of recovery; (3) examination of the psychological factors associated with recovery and how these fluctuate over time; (4) development and evaluation of cognitive–behavioural approaches to guided self-help including a patient preference trial (PPT); (5) development and evaluation of cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) for understanding and preventing suicide in psychosis including a randomised controlled trial (RCT); and (6) development and evaluation of a cognitive–behavioural approach to recovery in recent onset BD, including a RCT of recovery-focused cognitive–behavioural therapy (RfCBT). Service user involvement was central to the programme. ResultsMeasurement of service user-defined recovery from psychosis (using the Subjective Experience of Psychosis Scale) and BD (using the Bipolar Recovery Questionnaire) was shown to be feasible and valid. The consensus study revealed a high level of agreement among service users for defining recovery, factors that help or hinder recovery and items which demonstrate recovery. Negative emotions, self-esteem and hope predicted recovery judgements, both cross-sectionally and longitudinally, whereas positive symptoms had an indirect effect. In the PPT, 89 participants entered the study, three were randomised, 57 were retained in the trial until 15-month follow-up (64%). At follow-up there was no overall treatment effect on the primary outcome (Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery total; p = 0.82). In the suicide prevention RCT, 49 were randomised and 35 were retained at 6-month follow-up (71%). There were significant improvements in suicidal ideation [Adult Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire; treatment effect = –12.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) –24.3 to –0.14], Suicide Probability Scale (SPS; treatment effect = –7.0, 95% CI –15.5 to 0) and hopelessness (subscale of the SPS; treatment effect = –3.8, 95% CI –7.3 to –0.5) at follow-up. In the RCT for BD, 67 participants were randomised and 45 were retained at the 12-month follow-up (67%). Recovery score significantly improved in comparison with treatment as usual (TAU) at follow-up (310.87, 95% CI 75.00 to 546.74). At 15-month follow-up, 32 participants had experienced a relapse of either depression or mania (20 TAU vs. 12 RfCBT). The difference in time to recurrence was significant (estimated hazard ratio 0.38, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.78; p < 0.006). ConclusionsThis research programme has improved our understanding of recovery in psychosis and BD. Key findings indicate that measurement of recovery is feasible and valid. It would be feasible to scale up the RCTs to assess effectiveness of our therapeutic approaches in larger full trials, and two of the studies (CBT for suicide prevention in psychosis and recovery in BD) found significant benefits on their primary outcomes despite limited statistical power, suggesting definitive trials are warranted. FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme

Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation

A1 Introduction to the 8(th) Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation: Optimizing Personal and Population Health David Chambers, Lisa Simpson D1 Discussion forum: Population health D&I research Felicia Hill-Briggs D2 Discussion forum: Global health D&I research Gila Neta, Cynthia Vinson D3 Discussion forum: Precision medicine and D&I research David Chambers S1 Predictors of community therapists’ use of therapy techniques in a large public mental health system Rinad Beidas, Steven Marcus, Gregory Aarons, Kimberly Hoagwood, Sonja Schoenwald, Arthur Evans, Matthew Hurford, Ronnie Rubin, Trevor Hadley, Frances Barg, Lucia Walsh, Danielle Adams, David Mandell S2 Implementing brief cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in primary care: Clinicians' experiences from the field Lindsey Martin, Joseph Mignogna, Juliette Mott, Natalie Hundt, Michael Kauth, Mark Kunik, Aanand Naik, Jeffrey Cully S3 Clinician competence: Natural variation, factors affecting, and effect on patient outcomes Alan McGuire, Dominique White, Tom Bartholomew, John McGrew, Lauren Luther, Angie Rollins, Michelle Salyers S4 Exploring the multifaceted nature of sustainability in community-based prevention: A mixed-method approach Brittany Cooper, Angie Funaiole S5 Theory informed behavioral health integration in primary care: Mixed methods evaluation of the implementation of routine depression and alcohol screening and assessment Julie Richards, Amy Lee, Gwen Lapham, Ryan Caldeiro, Paula Lozano, Tory Gildred, Carol Achtmeyer, Evette Ludman, Megan Addis, Larry Marx, Katharine Bradley S6 Enhancing the evidence for specialty mental health probation through a hybrid efficacy and implementation study Tonya VanDeinse, Amy Blank Wilson, Burgin Stacey, Byron Powell, Alicia Bunger, Gary Cuddeback S7 Personalizing evidence-based child mental health care within a fiscally mandated policy reform Miya Barnett, Nicole Stadnick, Lauren Brookman-Frazee, Anna Lau S8 Leveraging an existing resource for technical assistance: Community-based supervisors in public mental health Shannon Dorsey, Michael Pullmann S9 SBIRT implementation for adolescents in urban federally qualified health centers: Implementation outcomes Shannon Mitchell, Robert Schwartz, Arethusa Kirk, Kristi Dusek, Marla Oros, Colleen Hosler, Jan Gryczynski, Carolina Barbosa, Laura Dunlap, David Lounsbury, Kevin O'Grady, Barry Brown S10 PANEL: Tailoring Implementation Strategies to Context - Expert recommendations for tailoring strategies to context Laura Damschroder, Thomas Waltz, Byron Powell S11 PANEL: Tailoring Implementation Strategies to Context - Extreme facilitation: Helping challenged healthcare settings implement complex programs Mona Ritchie S12 PANEL: Tailoring Implementation Strategies to Context - Using menu-based choice tasks to obtain expert recommendations for implementing three high-priority practices in the VA Thomas Waltz S13 PANEL: The Use of Technology to Improve Efficient Monitoring of Implementation of Evidence-based Programs - Siri, rate my therapist: Using technology to automate fidelity ratings of motivational interviewing David Atkins, Zac E. Imel, Bo Xiao, Doğan Can, Panayiotis Georgiou, Shrikanth Narayanan S14 PANEL: The Use of Technology to Improve Efficient Monitoring of Implementation of Evidence-based Programs - Identifying indicators of implementation quality for computer-based ratings Cady Berkel, Carlos Gallo, Irwin Sandler, C. Hendricks Brown, Sharlene Wolchik, Anne Marie Mauricio S15 PANEL: The Use of Technology to Improve Efficient Monitoring of Implementation of Evidence-based Programs - Improving implementation of behavioral interventions by monitoring emotion in spoken speech Carlos Gallo, C. Hendricks Brown, Sanjay Mehrotra S16 Scorecards and dashboards to assure data quality of health management information system (HMIS) using R Dharmendra Chandurkar, Siddhartha Bora, Arup Das, Anand Tripathi, Niranjan Saggurti, Anita Raj S17 A big data approach for discovering and implementing patient safety insights Eric Hughes, Brian Jacobs, Eric Kirkendall S18 Improving the efficacy of a depression registry for use in a collaborative care model Danielle Loeb, Katy Trinkley, Michael Yang, Andrew Sprowell, Donald Nease S19 Measurement feedback systems as a strategy to support implementation of measurement-based care in behavioral health Aaron Lyon, Cara Lewis, Meredith Boyd, Abigail Melvin, Semret Nicodimos, Freda Liu, Nathanial Jungbluth S20 PANEL: Implementation Science and Learning Health Systems: Intersections and Commonalities - Common loop assay: Methods of supporting learning collaboratives Allen Flynn S21 PANEL: Implementation Science and Learning Health Systems: Intersections and Commonalities - Innovating audit and feedback using message tailoring models for learning health systems Zach Landis-Lewis S22 PANEL: Implementation Science and Learning Health Systems: Intersections and Commonalities - Implementation science and learning health systems: Connecting the dots Anne Sales S23 Facilitation activities of Critical Access Hospitals during TeamSTEPPS implementation Jure Baloh, Marcia Ward, Xi Zhu S24 Organizational and social context of federally qualified health centers and variation in maternal depression outcomes Ian Bennett, Jurgen Unutzer, Johnny Mao, Enola Proctor, Mindy Vredevoogd, Ya-Fen Chan, Nathaniel Williams, Phillip Green S25 Decision support to enhance treatment of hospitalized smokers: A randomized trial Steven Bernstein, June-Marie Rosner, Michelle DeWitt, Jeanette Tetrault, James Dziura, Allen Hsiao, Scott Sussman, Patrick O’Connor, Benjamin Toll S26 PANEL: Developing Sustainable Strategies for the Implementation of Patient-Centered Care across Diverse US Healthcare Systems - A patient-centered approach to successful community transition after catastrophic injury Michael Jones, Julie Gassaway S27 PANEL: Developing Sustainable Strategies for the Implementation of Patient-Centered Care across Diverse US Healthcare Systems - Conducting PCOR to integrate mental health and cancer screening services in primary care Jonathan Tobin S28 PANEL: Developing Sustainable Strategies for the Implementation of Patient-Centered Care across Diverse US Healthcare Systems - A comparative effectiveness trial of optimal patient-centered care for US trauma care systems Douglas Zatzick S29 Preferences for in-person communication among patients in a multi-center randomized study of in-person versus telephone communication of genetic test results for cancer susceptibility Angela R Bradbury, Linda Patrick-Miller, Brian Egleston, Olufunmilayo I Olopade, Michael J Hall, Mary B Daly, Linda Fleisher, Generosa Grana, Pamela Ganschow, Dominique Fetzer, Amanda Brandt, Dana Farengo-Clark, Andrea Forman, Rikki S Gaber, Cassandra Gulden, Janice Horte, Jessica Long, Rachelle Lorenz Chambers, Terra Lucas, Shreshtha Madaan, Kristin Mattie, Danielle McKenna, Susan Montgomery, Sarah Nielsen, Jacquelyn Powers, Kim Rainey, Christina Rybak, Michelle Savage, Christina Seelaus, Jessica Stoll, Jill Stopfer, Shirley Yao and Susan Domchek S30 Working towards de-implementation: A mixed methods study in breast cancer surveillance care Erin Hahn, Corrine Munoz-Plaza, Jianjin Wang, Jazmine Garcia Delgadillo, Brian Mittman Michael Gould S31Integrating evidence-based practices for increasing cancer screenings in safety-net primary care systems: A multiple case study using the consolidated framework for implementation research Shuting (Lily) Liang, Michelle C. Kegler, Megan Cotter, Emily Phillips, April Hermstad, Rentonia Morton, Derrick Beasley, Jeremy Martinez, Kara Riehman S32 Observations from implementing an mHealth intervention in an FQHC David Gustafson, Lisa Marsch, Louise Mares, Andrew Quanbeck, Fiona McTavish, Helene McDowell, Randall Brown, Chantelle Thomas, Joseph Glass, Joseph Isham, Dhavan Shah S33 A multicomponent intervention to improve primary care provider adherence to chronic opioid therapy guidelines and reduce opioid misuse: A cluster randomized controlled trial protocol Jane Liebschutz, Karen Lasser S34 Implementing collaborative care for substance use disorders in primary care: Preliminary findings from the summit study Katherine Watkins, Allison Ober, Sarah Hunter, Karen Lamp, Brett Ewing S35 Sustaining a task-shifting strategy for blood pressure control in Ghana: A stakeholder analysis Juliet Iwelunmor, Joyce Gyamfi, Sarah Blackstone, Nana Kofi Quakyi, Jacob Plange-Rhule, Gbenga Ogedegbe S36 Contextual adaptation of the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) in a tobacco cessation study in Vietnam Pritika Kumar, Nancy Van Devanter, Nam Nguyen, Linh Nguyen, Trang Nguyen, Nguyet Phuong, Donna Shelley S37 Evidence check: A knowledge brokering approach to systematic reviews for policy Sian Rudge S38 Using Evidence Synthesis to Strengthen Complex Health Systems in Low- and Middle-Income Countries Etienne Langlois S39 Does it matter: timeliness or accuracy of results? The choice of rapid reviews or systematic reviews to inform decision-making Andrea Tricco S40 Evaluation of the veterans choice program using lean six sigma at a VA medical center to identify benefits and overcome obstacles Sherry Ball, Anne Lambert-Kerzner, Christine Sulc, Carol Simmons, Jeneen Shell-Boyd, Taryn Oestreich, Ashley O'Connor, Emily Neely, Marina McCreight, Amy Labebue, Doreen DiFiore, Diana Brostow, P. Michael Ho, David Aron S41 The influence of local context on multi-stakeholder alliance quality improvement activities: A multiple case study Jillian Harvey, Megan McHugh, Dennis Scanlon S42 Increasing physical activity in early care and education: Sustainability via active garden education (SAGE) Rebecca Lee, Erica Soltero, Nathan Parker, Lorna McNeill, Tracey Ledoux S43 Marking a decade of policy implementation: The successes and continuing challenges of a provincial school food and nutrition policy in Canada Jessie-Lee McIsaac, Kate MacLeod, Nicole Ata, Sherry Jarvis, Sara Kirk S44 Use of research evidence among state legislators who prioritize mental health and substance abuse issues Jonathan Purtle, Elizabeth Dodson, Ross Brownson S45 PANEL: Effectiveness-Implementation Hybrid Designs: Clarifications, Refinements, and Additional Guidance Based on a Systematic Review and Reports from the Field - Hybrid type 1 designs Brian Mittman, Geoffrey Curran S46 PANEL: Effectiveness-Implementation Hybrid Designs: Clarifications, Refinements, and Additional Guidance Based on a Systematic Review and Reports from the Field - Hybrid type 2 designs Geoffrey Curran S47 PANEL: Effectiveness-Implementation Hybrid Designs: Clarifications, Refinements, and Additional Guidance Based on a Systematic Review and Reports from the Field - Hybrid type 3 designs Jeffrey Pyne S48 Linking team level implementation leadership and implementation climate to individual level attitudes, behaviors, and implementation outcomes Gregory Aarons, Mark Ehrhart, Elisa Torres S49 Pinpointing the specific elements of local context that matter most to implementation outcomes: Findings from qualitative comparative analysis in the RE-inspire study of VA acute stroke care Edward Miech S50 The GO score: A new context-sensitive instrument to measure group organization level for providing and improving care Edward Miech S51 A research network approach for boosting implementation and improvement Kathleen Stevens, I.S.R.N. Steering Council S52 PANEL: Qualitative methods in D&I Research: Value, rigor and challenge - The value of qualitative methods in implementation research Alison Hamilton S53 PANEL: Qualitative methods in D&I Research: Value, rigor and challenge - Learning evaluation: The role of qualitative methods in dissemination and implementation research Deborah Cohen S54 PANEL: Qualitative methods in D&I Research: Value, rigor and challenge - Qualitative methods in D&I research Deborah Padgett S55 PANEL: Maps & models: The promise of network science for clinical D&I - Hospital network of sharing patients with acute and chronic diseases in California Alexandra Morshed S56 PANEL: Maps & models: The promise of network science for clinical D&I - The use of social network analysis to identify dissemination targets and enhance D&I research study recruitment for pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV (PrEP) among men who have sex with men Rupa Patel S57 PANEL: Maps & models: The promise of network science for clinical D&I - Network and organizational factors related to the adoption of patient navigation services among rural breast cancer care providers Beth Prusaczyk S58 A theory of de-implementation based on the theory of healthcare professionals’ behavior and intention (THPBI) and the becker model of unlearning David C. Aron, Divya Gupta, Sherry Ball S59 Observation of registered dietitian nutritionist-patient encounters by dietetic interns highlights low awareness and implementation of evidence-based nutrition practice guidelines Rosa Hand, Jenica Abram, Taylor Wolfram S60 Program sustainability action planning: Building capacity for program sustainability using the program sustainability assessment tool Molly Hastings, Sarah Moreland-Russell S61 A review of D&I study designs in published study protocols Rachel Tabak, Alex Ramsey, Ana Baumann, Emily Kryzer, Katherine Montgomery, Ericka Lewis, Margaret Padek, Byron Powell, Ross Brownson S62 PANEL: Geographic variation in the implementation of public health services: Economic, organizational, and network determinants - Model simulation techniques to estimate the cost of implementing foundational public health services Cezar Brian Mamaril, Glen Mays, Keith Branham, Lava Timsina S63 PANEL: Geographic variation in the implementation of public health services: Economic, organizational, and network determinants - Inter-organizational network effects on the implementation of public health services Glen Mays, Rachel Hogg S64 PANEL: Building capacity for implementation and dissemination of the communities that care prevention system at scale to promote evidence-based practices in behavioral health - Implementation fidelity, coalition functioning, and community prevention system transformation using communities that care Abigail Fagan, Valerie Shapiro, Eric Brown S65 PANEL: Building capacity for implementation and dissemination of the communities that care prevention system at scale to promote evidence-based practices in behavioral health - Expanding capacity for implementation of communities that care at scale using a web-based, video-assisted training system Kevin Haggerty, David Hawkins S66 PANEL: Building capacity for implementation and dissemination of the communities that care prevention system at scale to promote evidence-based practices in behavioral health - Effects of communities that care on reducing youth behavioral health problems Sabrina Oesterle, David Hawkins, Richard Catalano S68 When interventions end: the dynamics of intervention de-adoption and replacement Virginia McKay, M. Margaret Dolcini, Lee Hoffer S69 Results from next-d: can a disease specific health plan reduce incident diabetes development among a national sample of working-age adults with pre-diabetes? Tannaz Moin, Jinnan Li, O. Kenrik Duru, Susan Ettner, Norman Turk, Charles Chan, Abigail Keckhafer, Robert Luchs, Sam Ho, Carol Mangione S70 Implementing smoking cessation interventions in primary care settings (STOP): using the interactive systems framework Peter Selby, Laurie Zawertailo, Nadia Minian, Dolly Balliunas, Rosa Dragonetti, Sarwar Hussain, Julia Lecce S71 Testing the Getting To Outcomes implementation support intervention in prevention-oriented, community-based settings Matthew Chinman, Joie Acosta, Patricia Ebener, Patrick S Malone, Mary Slaughter S72 Examining the reach of a multi-component farmers’ market implementation approach among low-income consumers in an urban context Darcy Freedman, Susan Flocke, Eunlye Lee, Kristen Matlack, Erika Trapl, Punam Ohri-Vachaspati, Morgan Taggart, Elaine Borawski S73 Increasing implementation of evidence-based health promotion practices at large workplaces: The CEOs Challenge Amanda Parrish, Jeffrey Harris, Marlana Kohn, Kristen Hammerback, Becca McMillan, Peggy Hannon S74 A qualitative assessment of barriers to nutrition promotion and obesity prevention in childcare Taren Swindle, Geoffrey Curran, Leanne Whiteside-Mansell, Wendy Ward S75 Documenting institutionalization of a health communication intervention in African American churches Cheryl Holt, Sheri Lou Santos, Erin Tagai, Mary Ann Scheirer, Roxanne Carter, Janice Bowie, Muhiuddin Haider, Jimmie Slade, Min Qi Wang S76 Reduction in hospital utilization by underserved patients through use of a community-medical home Andrew Masica, Gerald Ogola, Candice Berryman, Kathleen Richter S77 Sustainability of evidence-based lay health advisor programs in African American communities: A mixed methods investigation of the National Witness Project Rachel Shelton, Lina Jandorf, Deborah Erwin S78 Predicting the long-term uninsured population and analyzing their gaps in physical access to healthcare in South Carolina Khoa Truong S79 Using an evidence-based parenting intervention in churches to prevent behavioral problems among Filipino youth: A randomized pilot study Joyce R. Javier, Dean Coffey, Sheree M. Schrager, Lawrence Palinkas, Jeanne Miranda S80 Sustainability of elementary school-based health centers in three health-disparate southern communities Veda Johnson, Valerie Hutcherson, Ruth Ellis S81 Childhood obesity prevention partnership in Louisville: creative opportunities to engage families in a multifaceted approach to obesity prevention Anna Kharmats, Sandra Marshall-King, Monica LaPradd, Fannie Fonseca-Becker S82 Improvements in cervical cancer prevention found after implementation of evidence-based Latina prevention care management program Deanna Kepka, Julia Bodson, Echo Warner, Brynn Fowler S83 The OneFlorida data trust: Achieving health equity through research & training capacity building Elizabeth Shenkman, William Hogan, Folakami Odedina, Jessica De Leon, Monica Hooper, Olveen Carrasquillo, Renee Reams, Myra Hurt, Steven Smith, Jose Szapocznik, David Nelson, Prabir Mandal S84 Disseminating and sustaining medical-legal partnerships: Shared value and social return on investment James Teufe

US Politics and Climate Change: Science Confronts Policy

Why is climate change the subject of such vehement political rhetoric in the United States? What explains the policy deadlock that has existed for nearly two decades―and that has resulted in the failure of US leadership in the international arena? Addressing these questions, Glen Sussman and Byron Daynes trace the evolution of US climate change policy, assess how key players―the scientific community, Congress, the president, the judiciary, interest groups, the states, and the public―have responded to climate change, and explore the prospects for effective policymaking in the future. [From Amazon.com]https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/politicalscience_geography_books/1012/thumbnail.jp

White House Politics and the Environment: Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush

Presidents and their administrations since the 1960s have become increasingly active in environmental politics, despite their touted lack of expertise and their apparent frequent discomfort with the issue. In White House Politics and the Environment: Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush, Byron W. Daynes and Glen Sussman study the multitude of resources presidents can use in their attempts to set the public agenda. They also provide a framework for considering the environmental direction and impact of U.S. presidents during the last seven decades, permitting an assessment of each president in terms of how his administration either aided or hindered the advancement of environmental issues… [From Amazon.com]https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/politicalscience_geography_books/1013/thumbnail.jp

American Politics and the Environment, Second Edition

Changing our environmental policy has been at the forefront of many political discussions. But how can we make this change come about? In American Politics and the Environment, Second Edition, Byron W. Daynes, Glen Sussman and Jonathan P. West argue it is critical that we must understand the politics of environmental decision making and how political actors operate within political institutions. Blending behavioral and institutional approaches, each chapter combines discussion of an institution along with sidebars focusing on a particular environmental topic as well as a personal profile of a key decision maker. A central focus of this second edition is the emergence of global climate change as a key issue. Although the scientific community can provide research findings to policy makers, politics can create conflicts, tensions, and delays in the crafting of effective and necessary environmental policy responses. Daynes, Sussman, and West help us understand the role of politics in the policy making process and why institutional players such as the president, Congress, and interest groups succeed or fail in responding to important environmental challenges

American Politics and the Environment, Second Edition

Changing our environmental policy has been at the forefront of many political discussions. But how can we make this change come about? In American Politics and the Environment, Second Edition, Byron W. Daynes, Glen Sussman and Jonathan P. West argue it is critical that we must understand the politics of environmental decision making and how political actors operate within political institutions. Blending behavioral and institutional approaches, each chapter combines discussion of an institution along with sidebars focusing on a particular environmental topic as well as a personal profile of a key decision maker. A central focus of this second edition is the emergence of global climate change as a key issue. Although the scientific community can provide research findings to policy makers, politics can create conflicts, tensions, and delays in the crafting of effective and necessary environmental policy responses. Daynes, Sussman, and West help us understand the role of politics in the policy making process and why institutional players such as the president, Congress, and interest groups succeed or fail in responding to important environmental challenges