Managing international branch campuses: what do we know? [forthcoming]

peer-reviewedOver the last decade, the growth of the international branch campus (IBC) has been one of the most striking developments in the internationalisation of higher education. There are now over 200 IBCs across the world, mostly in the Middle East and East and South‐east Asia. Despite the growing numbers of IBCs and the considerable financial and reputational risk they pose to their home universities, relatively little is known about the challenges of managing these foreign outposts. This paper reviews the growing, but still fragmented, literature in this increasingly important sector of higher education. It finds that managers of IBCs are faced with a range of challenges, which primarily stem from dealing with key stakeholder groups: students, staff, home and host country quality regulators, the home university and the host government, as well as the IBC's local joint venture partners. It concludes that further work is required to better understand the factors which influence and constrain IBC managers in balancing the competing interests of stakeholders.ACCEPTEDpeer-reviewe

Housing improvements for health and associated socio-economic outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The well established links between poor housing and poor health indicate that housing improvement may be an important mechanism through which public investment can lead to health improvement. Intervention studies which have assessed the health impacts of housing improvements are an important data resource to test assumptions about the potential for health improvement. Evaluations may not detect long term health impacts due to limited follow-up periods. Impacts on socio-economic determinants of health may be a valuable proxy indication of the potential for longer term health impacts. OBJECTIVES: To assess the health and social impacts on residents following improvements to the physical fabric of housing. SEARCH METHODS: Twenty seven academic and grey literature bibliographic databases were searched for housing intervention studies from 1887 to July 2012 (ASSIA; Avery Index; CAB Abstracts; The Campbell Library; CINAHL; The Cochrane Library; COPAC; DH-DATA: Health Admin; EMBASE; Geobase; Global Health; IBSS; ICONDA; MEDLINE; MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; NTIS; PAIS; PLANEX; PsycINFO; RIBA; SCIE; Sociological Abstracts; Social Science Citations Index; Science Citations Index expanded; SIGLE; SPECTR). Twelve Scandinavian grey literature and policy databases (Libris; SveMed+; Libris uppsök; DIVA; Artikelsök; NORART; DEFF; AKF; DSI; SBI; Statens Institut for Folkesundhed; Social.dk) and 23 relevant websites were searched. In addition, a request to topic experts was issued for details of relevant studies. Searches were not restricted by language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies which assessed change in any health outcome following housing improvement were included. This included experimental studies and uncontrolled studies. Cross-sectional studies were excluded as correlations are not able to shed light on changes in outcomes. Studies reporting only socio-economic outcomes or indirect measures of health, such as health service use, were excluded. All housing improvements which involved a physical improvement to the fabric of the house were included. Excluded interventions were improvements to mobile homes; modifications for mobility or medical reasons; air quality; lead removal; radon exposure reduction; allergen reduction or removal; and furniture or equipment. Where an improvement included one of these in addition to an included intervention the study was included in the review. Studies were not excluded on the basis of date, location, or language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were independently screened and critically appraised by two review authors. Study quality was assessed using the risk of bias tool and the Hamilton tool to accommodate non-experimental and uncontrolled studies. Health and socio-economic impact data were extracted by one review author and checked by a second review author. Studies were grouped according to broad intervention categories, date, and context before synthesis. Where possible, standardized effect estimates were calculated and statistically pooled. Where meta-analysis was not appropriate the data were tabulated and synthesized narratively following a cross-study examination of reported impacts and study characteristics. Qualitative data were summarized using a logic model to map reported impacts and links to health impacts; quantitative data were incorporated into the model. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies which reported quantitative or qualitative data, or both, were included in the review. Thirty-three quantitative studies were identified. This included five randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 10 non-experimental studies of warmth improvements, 12 non-experimental studies of rehousing or retrofitting, three non-experimental studies of provision of basic improvements in low or mIddle Income countries (LMIC), and three non-experimental historical studies of rehousing from slums. Fourteen quantitative studies (42.4%) were assessed to be poor quality and were not included in the synthesis. Twelve studies reporting qualitative data were identified. These were studies of warmth improvements (n = 7) and rehousing (n = 5). Three qualitative studies were excluded from the synthesis due to lack of clarity of methods. Six of the included qualitative studies also reported quantitative data which was included in the review.Very little quantitative synthesis was possible as the data were not amenable to meta-analysis. This was largely due to extreme heterogeneity both methodologically as well as because of variations in the intervention, samples, context, and outcome; these variations remained even following grouping of interventions and outcomes. In addition, few studies reported data that were amenable to calculation of standardized effect sizes. The data were synthesised narratively.Data from studies of warmth and energy efficiency interventions suggested that improvements in general health, respiratory health, and mental health are possible. Studies which targeted those with inadequate warmth and existing chronic respiratory disease were most likely to report health improvement. Impacts following housing-led neighbourhood renewal were less clear; these interventions targeted areas rather than individual households in most need. Two poorer quality LMIC studies reported unclear or small health improvements. One better quality study of rehousing from slums (pre-1960) reported some improvement in mental health. There were few reports of adverse health impacts following housing improvement. A small number of studies gathered data on social and socio-economic impacts associated with housing improvement. Warmth improvements were associated with increased usable space, increased privacy, and improved social relationships; absences from work or school due to illness were also reduced.Very few studies reported differential impacts relevant to equity issues, and what data were reported were not amenable to synthesis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Housing investment which improves thermal comfort in the home can lead to health improvements, especially where the improvements are targeted at those with inadequate warmth and those with chronic respiratory disease. The health impacts of programmes which deliver improvements across areas and do not target according to levels of individual need were less clear, but reported impacts at an area level may conceal health improvements for those with the greatest potential to benefit. Best available evidence indicates that housing which is an appropriate size for the householders and is affordable to heat is linked to improved health and may promote improved social relationships within and beyond the household. In addition, there is some suggestion that provision of adequate, affordable warmth may reduce absences from school or work.While many of the interventions were targeted at low income groups, a near absence of reporting differential impacts prevented analysis of the potential for housing improvement to impact on social and economic inequalities