Home  About us  Contact
 

Making Recommendations (making + recommendation)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Medical Sciences50%

Selected Abstracts

THE BENEFITS AND RISKS OF CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATORS MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COURT:

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Issue 2 2005
A Response to Tippins, Wittmann
In their article, Tippins and Wittmann articulate a strong position against custody evaluators making specific custody recommendations to the court. This response will focus on my thoughts about their concepts and my belief that recommendations can be useful and appropriate some of the time, even though there may be significant problems with certain types of recommendations and problems with some evaluators. [source]

Development and implementation of guidelines in allergic rhinitis , an ARIA-GA2LEN paper

ALLERGY, Issue 10 2010
J. Bousquet
To cite this article: Bousquet J, Schünemann HJ, Zuberbier T, Bachert C, Baena-Cagnani CE, Bousquet PJ, Brozek J, Canonica GW, Casale TB, Demoly P, Gerth van Wijk R, Ohta K, Bateman ED, Calderon M, Cruz AA, Dolen WK, Haughney J, Lockey RF, Lötvall J, O'Byrne P, Spranger O, Togias A, Bonini S, Boulet LP, Camargos P, Carlsen KH, Chavannes NH, Delgado L, Durham SR, Fokkens WJ, Fonseca J, Haahtela T, Kalayci O, Kowalski ML, Larenas-Linnemann D, Li J, Mohammad Y, Mullol J, Naclerio R, O'Hehir RE, Papadopoulos N, Passalacqua G, Rabe KF, Pawankar R, Ryan D, Samolinski B, Simons FER, Valovirta E, Yorgancioglu A, Yusuf OM, Agache I, Aït-Khaled N, Annesi-Maesano I, Beghe B, Ben Kheder A, Blaiss MS, Boakye DA, Bouchard J, Burney PG, Busse WW, Chan-Yeung M, Chen Y, Chuchalin AG, Costa DJ, Custovic A, Dahl R, Denburg J, Douagui H, Emuzyte R, Grouse L, Humbert M, Jackson C, Johnston SL, Kaliner MA, Keith PK, Kim YY, Klossek JM, Kuna P, Le LT, Lemiere C, Lipworth B, Mahboub B, Malo JL, Marshall GD, M vale-Manuel S, Meltzer EO, Morais-Almeida M, Motala C, Naspitz C, Nekam K, Niggemann B, Nizankowska-Mogilnicka E, Okamoto Y, Orru MP, Ouedraogo S, Palkonen S, Popov TA, Price D, Rosado-Pinto J, Scadding GK, Sooronbaev TM, Stoloff SW, Toskala E, van Cauwenberge P, Vandenplas O, van Weel C, Viegi G, Virchow JC, Wang DY, Wickman M, Williams D, Yawn BP, Zar HJ, Zernotti M, Zhong N, In collaboration with the WHO Collaborating Center of Asthma and Rhinitis (Montpellier). Development and implementation of guidelines in allergic rhinitis , an ARIA-GA2LEN paper. Allergy 2010; 65: 1212,1221. Abstract The links between asthma and rhinitis are well characterized. The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines stress the importance of these links and provide guidance for their prevention and treatment. Despite effective treatments being available, too few patients receive appropriate medical care for both diseases. Most patients with rhinitis and asthma consult primary care physicians and therefore these physicians are encouraged to understand and use ARIA guidelines. Patients should also be informed about these guidelines to raise their awareness of optimal care and increase control of the two related diseases. To apply these guidelines, clinicians and patients need to understand how and why the recommendations were made. The goal of the ARIA guidelines is to provide recommendations about the best management options for most patients in most situations. These recommendations should be based on the best available evidence. Making recommendations requires the assessment of the quality of available evidence, deciding on the balance between benefits and downsides, consideration of patients' values and preferences, and, if applicable, resource implications. Guidelines must be updated as new management options become available or important new evidence emerges. Transparent reporting of guidelines facilitates understanding and acceptance, but implementation strategies need to be improved. [source]

RAPID VERSUS FULL SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS: VALIDITY IN CLINICAL PRACTICE?

ANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY, Issue 11 2008
Amber Watt
Introduction: Rapid reviews are being produced with greater frequency by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies in response to increased pressure from end-user clinicians and policy-makers for rapid, evidence-based advice on health-care technologies. This comparative study examines the differences in methodologies and essential conclusions between rapid and full reviews on the same topic, with the aim of determining the validity of rapid reviews in the clinical context and making recommendations for their future application. Methods: Rapid reviews were located by Internet searching of international HTA agency websites, with any ambiguities resolved by further communication with the agencies. Comparator full systematic reviews were identified using the University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination HTA database. Data on a number of review components were extracted using standardized data extraction tables, then analysed and reported narratively. Results: Axiomatic differences between all the rapid and full reviews were identified; however, the essential conclusions of the rapid and full reviews did not differ extensively across the topics. For each of the four topics examined, it was clear that the scope of the rapid reviews was substantially narrower than that of full reviews. The methodology underpinning the rapid reviews was often inadequately described. Conclusions: Rapid reviews do not adhere to any single validated methodology. They frequently provide adequate advice on which to base clinical and policy decisions; however, their scope is limited, which may compromise their appropriateness for evaluating technologies in certain circumstances. [source]

Participatory evaluation (II) , translating concepts of reliability and validity in fieldwork

CHILD: CARE, HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT, Issue 3 2007
B. Crishna
Abstract Background In developing countries participatory methods are a viable way of evaluating social development projects. It provides a means to look constructively at the strengths and weaknesses in projects, and use the lessons learned to improve planning and implementation. One of the challenges faced, however, is being able to ensure that the study is sound, reliable and valid, and that it is free from bias, thus making the final results trustworthy and of use to a larger population. Methods This article looks at five steps involved in a participatory evaluation process and the ways in which reliability and validity have been considered. Results Participatory studies may be different, but all have similar underlying principles as traditional quantitative and qualitative studies. Examples from fieldwork in Asia have been used to demonstrate how studies can be made credible, so that they have value, influence or the ability to encourage changes in thinking, while evaluating social development projects. At every stage, the role of the external evaluator remains crucial, and has to be that of a facilitator, encouraging participation from everyone. Conclusion Hence project evaluations using such a method must be clear in how to remove bias and ensure reliability and validity in all the stages of the evaluation, from planning to making recommendations. Imaginative and alternative strategies need to be developed to examine reliability and validity in the qualitative evaluation. [source]