Research Question: This research adapted, tested, and evaluated a methodology to set priorities for systematic reviews topics within the Cochrane Collaboration that is sustainable and incorporates the social determinants of health and health equity into the analysis. Background: In 2008 a study was conducted to review, evaluate and compare the methods for prioritization used across the Cochrane Collaboration. Two key findings from that study were: 1) the methods were not sustainable and 2) health equity represented a gap in the process. To address these key findings, the objective of this research was to produce and test a method that is sustainable and incorporates the social determinants of health and health equity into the decision making process. As part of this research, the methods were evaluated to determine the level of success. Methodology: With assistance from experts in the field, a comparative analysis of existing priority setting methods was conducted. The Global Evidence Mapping (GEM) method was selected to be adapted to meet our research objectives. The adapted method was tested with assistance of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group in identifying priorities for Osteoarthritis. The results of the process and the outcomes were evaluated by applying the “Framework for Successful Priority Setting”. Results: This research found that the priority setting method developed is sustainable. Also, the methods succeeded in incorporating the social determinants of health and health equity into the analysis. A key strength of the study was the ability to incorporate the patients’ perspective in setting priorities for review topics. The lack of involvement of disadvantaged groups of the population was identified as a key limitation. Recommendations were put forward to incorporate the strengths of the study into future priority setting exercises within Cochrane and to address the limitations.

Research Question: This research adapted, tested, and evaluated a methodology to set priorities for systematic reviews topics within the Cochrane Collaboration that is sustainable and incorporates the social determinants of health and health equity into the analysis. Background: In 2008 a study was conducted to review, evaluate and compare the methods for prioritization used across the Cochrane Collaboration. Two key findings from that study were: 1) the methods were not sustainable and 2) health equity represented a gap in the process. To address these key findings, the objective of this research was to produce and test a method that is sustainable and incorporates the social determinants of health and health equity into the decision making process. As part of this research, the methods were evaluated to determine the level of success. Methodology: With assistance from experts in the field, a comparative analysis of existing priority setting methods was conducted. The Global Evidence Mapping (GEM) method was selected to be adapted to meet our research objectives. The adapted method was tested with assistance of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group in identifying priorities for Osteoarthritis. The results of the process and the outcomes were evaluated by applying the “Framework for Successful Priority Setting”. Results: This research found that the priority setting method developed is sustainable. Also, the methods succeeded in incorporating the social determinants of health and health equity into the analysis. A key strength of the study was the ability to incorporate the patients’ perspective in setting priorities for review topics. The lack of involvement of disadvantaged groups of the population was identified as a key limitation. Recommendations were put forward to incorporate the strengths of the study into future priority setting exercises within Cochrane and to address the limitations.

Research Question: This research adapted, tested, and evaluated a methodology to set priorities for systematic reviews topics within the Cochrane Collaboration that is sustainable and incorporates the social determinants of health and health equity into the analysis. Background: In 2008 a study was conducted to review, evaluate and compare the methods for prioritization used across the Cochrane Collaboration. Two key findings from that study were: 1) the methods were not sustainable and 2) health equity represented a gap in the process. To address these key findings, the objective of this research was to produce and test a method that is sustainable and incorporates the social determinants of health and health equity into the decision making process. As part of this research, the methods were evaluated to determine the level of success. Methodology: With assistance from experts in the field, a comparative analysis of existing priority setting methods was conducted. The Global Evidence Mapping (GEM) method was selected to be adapted to meet our research objectives. The adapted method was tested with assistance of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group in identifying priorities for Osteoarthritis. The results of the process and the outcomes were evaluated by applying the “Framework for Successful Priority Setting”. Results: This research found that the priority setting method developed is sustainable. Also, the methods succeeded in incorporating the social determinants of health and health equity into the analysis. A key strength of the study was the ability to incorporate the patients’ perspective in setting priorities for review topics. The lack of involvement of disadvantaged groups of the population was identified as a key limitation. Recommendations were put forward to incorporate the strengths of the study into future priority setting exercises within Cochrane and to address the limitations.

Submitted by Fabio Sobreira Campos da Costa (fabio.sobreira@ufpe.br) on 2017-08-01T14:44:54Z No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 811 bytes, checksum: e39d27027a6cc9cb039ad269a5db8e34 (MD5) Dissertação CORRETA 2- com-ficha-catalográfica-e-ata-de-aprovação (1).pdf: 912058 bytes, checksum: e60327bb0a3e4e49e0bbb19c4d7f2696 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-08-01T14:44:54Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 811 bytes, checksum: e39d27027a6cc9cb039ad269a5db8e34 (MD5) Dissertação CORRETA 2- com-ficha-catalográfica-e-ata-de-aprovação (1).pdf: 912058 bytes, checksum: e60327bb0a3e4e49e0bbb19c4d7f2696 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-09-15 / A partir da Constituição de 1988, novas experiências de descentralização política desencadeadas pelos municípios, a exemplo da institucionalização de conselhos gestores de políticas públicas, entre outras iniciativas, foram apontadas como relevantes fatores para democratização do Estado e da sociedade, assim como para o enfrentamento da exclusão social no Brasil pós-regime autoritário. Novos arranjos institucionais são incorporados com a multiplicação de atores e arenas de decisão coletiva. Embora reconhecidas as limitações de ordem estrutural e política do país pós-regime militar, é possível observar alguns avanços a partir das novas institucionalidades de gestão partilhada. Entre eles a priorização dos direitos sociais na agenda pública e a inclusão de atores sociais, historicamente excluídos, no debate destas políticas. No entanto, buscamos identificar, aqui, a partir da análise comparativa das agendas (pautas) de dois Conselhos Municipais de Saúde: o das cidades de Paulista e Olinda, durante o período de quatro anos (a partir de 2010 ao final de 2013, início de 2014) e à luz dos estudos sobre Agenda Setting dentro do campo das Políticas Públicas, em que medida tais incentivos da legislação teriam produzido, nas realidades locais, instituições que correspondessem, de fato, às intenções de participação previstas na norma. Quais seriam os fatores a implicar tanto na ampliação quanto na restrição ao debate nesses espaços deliberativos? O manuseio da pauta por diferentes agentes, de diferentes setores, implicaria no debate e na participação democrática dentro das instâncias colegiadas? / Since the Constitution of 1988, new experiences of political decentralization triggered by municipalities, such as the institutionalization of management boards of public policy, among other initiatives, have been identified as relevant factors for democratization of state and society, as well as to confront the social exclusion in Brazil post-authoritarian regime. New institutional arrangements are incorporated with the multiplication of actors and arenas of collective decision. Although recognized the limitations of structural and post-military regime country's politics, you can see some progress from the new institutions of shared management. Including the prioritization of social rights on the public agenda and the inclusion of social actors, historically excluded, the discussion of these policies. However, we seek to identify, here, from the comparative analysis of the agendas (guidelines) of two Municipal Health Councils: the cities of Paulista and Olinda, during the four-year period (from 2010 to the end of 2013, beginning Of 2014) and in the light of the studies on Agenda Setting within the field of Public Policy, to what extent such incentives of legislation would have produced, in local realities, institutions that corresponded to the intentions of participation foreseen in the norm. What are the factors that imply both the expansion and the restriction of debate in these deliberative spaces? Would the handling of the agenda by different agents from different sectors imply debate and democratic participation within the collegiate?

While it is commonly understood by occupational therapy practitioners that collaborative goal setting leads to increased goal achievement (Sugavanam, Mead, Bulley, Donaghy, & van Wijck, 2013), the current literature shows that people with post stroke aphasia are not optimally involved in the collaborative goal setting process (Berg, Askim, Balandin, Armstrong, & By Rise, 2017; Berg, By Rise, Balandin, Armstrong, & Askim, 2016; Rohde, Townley-O’Neill, Trendall, Worrall, & Cornwell, 2012). This leads to reduced goal achievement (Sugavanam, Mead, Bulley, Donaghy, & van Wijck, 2013) and ultimately less leisure and social participation (Hilari, 2011; Eriksson, Aasnes, Tistad, Guidetti, & von Koch, 2012; Nätterlund, 2010). ClientCollab is a theory-based and evidence-driven online visual supplement to the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), designed to reduce the cognitive and communication burdens of the COPM and assist the practitioner and client with aphasia in the goal setting process. ClientCollab is guided by research on reading and pictorial comprehension of people with aphasia as well as by the Universal Design of Learning (UDL) theory. The online program is available free of charge at www.clientcollab.net and is designed to be used in conjunction with the COPM to assist the occupational therapy practitioner and client in identifying occupational performance issues. The content of the program parallels the section and subsection breakdown of the COPM and is designed for use during step one of the COPM to assist in the identification of occupational performance issues. The objective of the program is to increase communication between client and practitioner during the goal setting process as well as to increase the number of goals developed with client input. ClientCollab is meant to act as a visual supplement to the goal setting section of the COPM, however it is not meant or able to fully replace the COPM, and must be used in conjunction with the paper or online version of the COPM. In conclusion, ClientCollab aims to decrease the cognitive and communication barriers limiting people with aphasia from completing the COPM in hopes of facilitating increased collaborative goal setting and ultimately increased goal achievement in this population.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This paper examines the effect of impression management on goal level and commitment to the goal. Participants involved in a goal-setting program in the United States were asked to complete a web survey regarding their desire to impress superiors and their commitment to the goal. The specific dependant measures were self-set goal and goal commitment. No statistically significant differences were found between high and low desires to manage impressions with respect to goal set, but a higher desire to manage impressions was positively correlated with a higher degree of goal commitment. This finding suggests that triggering impression management is beneficial for situations in which high goal performance is desired as it increases goal commitment. Future studies could verify these results using larger sample sizes and tackle such issues as goal performance.

Typescript. / Digitized by Kansas Correctional Industries