7 research outputs found

    Solange es keine Standards gibt, wollen wir sie ersetzen

    No full text
    Interview: Industrie 4.0: Die Produktionswissenschaftlerin Birgit Vogel-Heuser schlägt vor, sich der Industrie 4.0 Schritt für Schritt zu nähern, solange die dringend notwendige Standardisierung noch ausbleibt. Selbst in Altanlagen könne die Zukunftsfabrik Realität werden. Wie, das erklärt die Forscherin im Interview

    Author response

    No full text

    Our brothers across the ocean? : Unionist diplomacy, the Lansdown Foreign Office, and the Anglo-American 'special relationship', 1900-1905

    Get PDF
    This study is intended as a detailed exploration of British diplomacy with the United States in the first five years of the twentieth century, that is, the period during which the Marquis of Lansdowne presided at the Foreign Office. Without doubt, this was a critical time in the readjustment (both in substance and style) of Anglo-American diplomatic relations, initiating the amicable 'special relationship' which, broadly speaking, has endured to the present day. The efforts made by Lansdowne and the Unionist Administration to 'clear the slate' of nagging Anglo-American disputes, and to encourage a closer diplomatic bond, helped to bring to an end decades of mutual suspicion and antagonism, whilst representing a significant change of course for British foreign policy. In this light, the study here presented aims to provide a close analysis of the Unionist Government's American diplomacy, their motives and diplomatic ambitions, in the appropriate imperial and strategic contexts. An examination of this topic prompts the conclusion that, although Lansdowne fully appreciated the importance of Anglo-American friendship, he approached each dispute with a separate agenda, always gauging the strength of American feeling before committing himself to a set policy. Lansdowne was perfectly prepared to concede non-vital interests to the United States in the Western Hemisphere when serious tension arose, and this was particularly evident during the Isthmian canal and Alaskan boundary negotiations. With these two issues successfully concluded, the rapprochement was effectively ensured. Thus, Lansdowne's determination to uphold British interests (and those of her Western Hemispheric colonies), while occasionally placing a strain on Anglo-American relations, threatened no lasting danger. Above all, Britain relied upon vocal protestations of friendship, both for the United States and the Monroe Doctrine, to extinguish the risks of serious diplomatic tension and to cement a permanent friendship. The major successes of Anglo-American relations, however, came to an abrupt end after the Alaskan verdict of late 1903, and a barren period followed. The relationship had been set upon an entirely new course, but hopes for an Anglo- American partnership, sadly, remained hazy, naive, and frequently ill-conceived. In the Far East, where British and American interests broadly coincided, no joint policy emerged; instead, the two nations became separated over their responses to the Russo-Japanese conflict. Equally, the outstanding issues in North America proved incapable of settlement. Although these final stages of Lansdowne's American diplomacy were marred by diplomatic inactivity and occasional friction, the Unionists' contribution to the Anglo-American 'special relationship' left an impressive and lasting legacy. By 1905, Britain and the United States, while not formally allied, had at least become mutually sympathetic. This was an essential factor in the readjustment of British global strategy, allowing Britain to abandon her defences in the Western Hemisphere and despatch her forces to more pressing areas of the globe

    Correction to : An analysis of how health systems integrated priority-setting in the pandemic planning in a sample of Latin America and the Caribbean countries (Health Research Policy and Systems, (2022), 20, 1, (58), 10.1186/s12961-022-00861-y)

    No full text
    Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2022.The original publication of this article contained an incorrect affiliation. The incorrect and correct affiliation is shown in this correction article. The original article [1] has been updated. Incorrect Faculty of Medicine and Science at the Universidad San Sebastian, Providencia, Santiago de Chile, Región Metropolitana Correct Facultad de Medicina y Ciencia, Universidad San Sebastian, Providencia, Santiago, Región Metropolitana, Chile

    Stakeholder views on publication bias in health services research

    Get PDF
    Objectives: While the presence of publication bias in clinical research is well documented, little is known about its role in the reporting of health services research. This paper explores stakeholder perceptions and experiences with regard to the role of publication and related biases in quantitative research relating to the quality, accessibility and organization of health services. Methods: We present findings from semi-structured interviews with those responsible for the funding, publishing and/or conduct of quantitative health services research, primarily in the UK. Additional data collection includes interviews with health care decision makers as ‘end users’ of health services research, and a focus group with patient and service user representatives. The final sample comprised 24 interviews and eight focus group participants. Results: Many study participants felt unable to say with any degree of certainty whether publication bias represents a significant problem in quantitative health services research. Participants drew broad contrasts between externally funded and peer reviewed research on the one hand, and end user funded quality improvement projects on the other, with the latter perceived as more vulnerable to selective publication and author over-claiming. Multiple study objectives, and a general acceptance of ‘mess and noise’ in the data and its interpretation was seen to reduce the importance attached to replicable estimates of effect sizes in health services research. The relative absence of external scrutiny, either from manufacturers of interventions or health system decision makers, added to this general sense of ‘low stakes’ of health services research. As a result, while many participants advocated study pre-registration and using protocols to pre-identify outcomes, others saw this as an unwarranted imposition. Conclusions: This study finds that incentives towards publication and related bias are likely to be present, but not to the same degree as in clinical research. In health services research, these were seen as being offset by other forms of ‘novelty’ bias in the reporting and publishing of research findings
    corecore