Dutch experiences in new partnerships between science and practice in health promotion:Toward a fourth-generation university

For a long time already, attempts have been made to bridge the gap between research and practice. In this respect, society demands that universities should have a bigger social impact. University and society/societal organizations should work together (co-create) during the entire research process, from the articulation of the research question until the implementation of the results. There is controversy about the question whether it is possible for universities to work together with practice and at the same time to retain the academic quality standards. First, this article deals with the question what characteristics are important for universities in order to be able to work together with practice. In this respect, the Dutch scientist Steinbuch came up with a tantalizing idea arguing that universities may take a next step and develop into ‘fourth generation universities’. Second, it is described how a process of co-creation between university and the health promotion practice has been developed, bottom up, at Tranzo, Scientific Center for Care and Wellbeing, Tilburg University, the Netherlands. The ideas developed by Steinbuch and the results of the bottom up processes in Tilburg are combined. Consequences of the Tilburg experiences for the characteristics of a fourth-generation university are discussed as well as consequences for the role of universities in society

New microfluidic chip targeting phosphoproteomes

Comunicaciones a congreso

Predicting initial client engagement with community mental health services by routinely measured data

Engagement is a determinant of how well a person will respond to professional input. This study investigates whether, in practice, routinely measured data predict initial client engagement with community mental health services. Engagement, problem severity, client characteristics, and duration before the first contact were measured at team entrance with clients (n = 529) of three community mental health teams. Regression analysis was used to predict engagement. Gender, age, referrer, having children, having a partner, and ethnicity showed a minor relationship with engagement. Higher problem severity measured by the team members with the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales, being referred for having psychiatric problems and/or causing severe and long-lasting trouble (as ‘assessed’ by the often non-professional referrer), and a longer duration between enrollment and the first conversation with a client, were indicative for a lower engagement. The final model explained 19.2 % of the variance in engagement. It can be concluded that initial client engagement with community mental health services can be predicted, in part, by routinely measured data. The findings can be used by community mental healthcare teams to create an awareness system

Ethical considerations for alcohol researchers in their relation towards policy makers

Alcohol policy research all over the world is often funded by national or local governments. Researchers involved may be confronted with several ethical questions. These questions can have quite a different character. Ethical questions may have a severe character that can be quite “clear” for the researchers involved. Miller et al. [1] for instance recently studied interference of funders, like governments or industrial and charitable organizations, in addiction research. Results show that activities occur such as censorship of research outputs, interference with the wording in reports and articles and interventions in when and how findings are released. Governments funding policy research may interfere in a way as described by Miller et al. [1]. but also less obvious ethical issues may occur: What if the research question is formulated in a “questionable” or “suggestive” way? What if policy makers deliberately ignore results of scientific research? The purpose of this contribution is to elaborate on these less obvious ethical issues, not primarily to give clear-cut answers but to raise consciousness and stimulate reflection and debate among researchers and policy makers