Refine
Year of publication
- 2024 (14)
- 2023 (112)
- 2022 (125)
- 2021 (111)
- 2020 (80)
- 2019 (81)
- 2018 (80)
- 2017 (65)
- 2016 (56)
- 2015 (29)
- 2014 (43)
- 2013 (42)
- 2012 (37)
- 2011 (42)
- 2010 (37)
- 2009 (36)
- 2008 (31)
- 2007 (16)
- 2006 (13)
- 2005 (13)
- 2004 (6)
- 2003 (17)
- 2002 (10)
- 2001 (9)
- 2000 (8)
- 1999 (5)
- 1998 (4)
- 1997 (2)
- 1996 (3)
- 1995 (4)
- 1994 (12)
- 1993 (19)
- 1992 (15)
- 1991 (12)
- 1990 (20)
- 1989 (13)
- 1988 (12)
- 1987 (9)
- 1986 (12)
- 1985 (10)
- 1984 (5)
- 1983 (3)
- 1981 (5)
- 1980 (5)
- 1979 (3)
- 1978 (1)
- 1977 (4)
- 1976 (5)
- 1975 (8)
Document Type
- Article (525)
- Conference Proceeding (162)
- Bachelor Thesis (148)
- Report (102)
- Working Paper (85)
- Book (73)
- Master's Thesis (66)
- Part of a Book (40)
- Periodical Part (38)
- Study Thesis (25)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (1321)
Keywords
- Bibliothek (44)
- Digitalisierung (38)
- Milchwirtschaft (36)
- E-Learning (27)
- Molkerei (27)
- Ausbildung (23)
- Euterentzündung (23)
- Informationsmanagement (22)
- Computersicherheit (21)
- Herbarium (20)
Forschung
(1998)
Internationalität
(1998)
Blickpunkt Zukunft
(1997)
Für die Studiengang-Auswahl existiert eine Reihe i. d. R. Fragebogen-gestützter Online-Studiengangfinder. Eine Analyse zeigte Optimierungspotenziale: Studienangebote sind meist auf ein Bundesland oder eine Hochschule beschränkt oder, allgemein beschrieben, die individuelle Studiengang-Auswahl ist nur mit Unschärfen möglich. Letzteres wirkt sich z. B. bei Bindestrich-Studiengängen (z. B. Wirtschaftsingenieurwesen) aus, die je nach Hochschule inhaltlich variieren können. Hier setzt das Portal an. Ziele sind: Bereitstellung der in der Sprachwelt Studieninteressierter gehaltenen Fragebögen, Möglichkeit für Hochschulen/Einrichtungen, Studiengänge bereitzustellen.
Background: Given both the increase of nursing home residents forecast and challenges of current interprofessional interactions, we developed and tested measures to improve collaboration and communication between nurses and general practitioners (GPs) in this setting. Our multicentre study has been funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (FK 01GY1124).
Methods: The measures were developed iteratively in a continuous process, which is the focus of this article. In part 1 “exploration of the situation”, interviews were conducted with GPs, nurses, nursing home residents and their relatives focusing on interprofessional interactions and medical care. They were analysed qualitatively. Based on these results, in part 2 “development of measures to improve collaboration”, ideas for improvement were developed in nine focus groups with GPs and nurses. These ideas were revisited in a final expert workshop. We analysed the focus groups and expert workshop using mind mapping methods, and finally drew up the compilation of measures. In an exploratory pilot study "study part 3" four nursing homes chose the measures they wanted to adopt. These were tested for three months. Feasibility and acceptance of the measures were evaluated via guideline interviews with the stakeholders which were analysed by content analyses.
Results: Six measures were generated: meetings to establish common goals, main contact person, standardised pro re nata medication, introduction of name badges, improved availability of nurse/GP and standardised scheduling/ procedure for nursing home visits. In the pilot study, the measures were implemented in four nursing homes. GPs and nurses reviewed five measures as feasible and acceptable, only the designation of a “main contact person” was not considered as an improvement.
Conclusions: Six measures to improve collaboration and communication could be compiled in a multistep qualitative process respecting the perspectives of involved stakeholders. Five of the six measures were positively assessed in an exploratory pilot study. They could easily be transferred into the daily routine of other nursing homes, as no special models have to exist in advance. Impact of the measures on patient oriented outcomes should be examined in further research.
Trial registration: Not applicable.
Delphi is a frequently used research method in the information systems (IS) field. The last fifteen years have seen many variants of the Delphi Method proposed and used in IS research. However, these variants do not seem to be properly derived; while all variants share certain characteristics, their reasoning for differentiation inconsistently varies. It seems that researchers tend to create “new” Delphi Method variants, although the underlying modification of the Delphi Method is, in fact, minor. This leads to a heterogeneity of Delphi Method variants and undermines scientific rigor when using Delphi. The study addresses this deficit and (1) identifies different variants of Delphi and determines their characteristics, (2) critically reflects to what extent a clear distinction between these variants exists, (3) shows the clearly distinguishable Delphi Method variants and their characteristics, (4) develops a proposed taxonomy of Delphi Method variants, and (5) evaluates and applies this taxonomy. The proposed taxonomy helps clearly differentiate Delphi Method variants and enhances methodological rigor when using the Delphi Method.
Forschungsgegenstand der Bachelorarbeit ist der politisch gefärbte und direktiv gestaltete Aushandlungs- und Planungsprozess für die Bebauung eines zentralen innerstädtischen Platzes in Hannover. Entlang der Leitfrage, wie der demokratische Anspruch nach Bürger*innenbeteiligung in Stadtentwicklungsprozessen aus den Konzepten in die Umsetzung gelangt und welche Bevölkerungsgruppen in eben diesen Prozessen Ein- und Ausschlüsse erfahren, welche sie reproduzieren, finden eine mehrschichtige Verlaufsuntersuchung und eine Rückbindung in mögliche Betätigungsfelder der Sozialen Arbeit statt.
Der Bachelorarbeit vorangegangen ist ein Praxisseminar zur Gemeinwesenarbeit und Öffentlichkeit, in welchem eine Feldanalyse stattfand. Anhand von angekündigten leitfadengestützen Expert*inneninterviews und qualitativen Interviews auf dem besagten Platz kristallisierte sich die offensichtliche Unkenntnis der Passant*innen über die Bebauungspläne heraus: Ein von offizieller Seite betontes Beteiligungsverfahren zur Neugestaltung ist den Nutzer*innen vielfach nicht bekannt gewesen.
Methodisch wurde anhand des Governancekonzepts nach Baum (2012), Klöti (2016) und Walk (2011) und der „unternehmerischen Stadt“ nach Harvey (1989) die Einbindung von Sozialer Arbeit in Stadtentwicklungsprozesse analysiert. Ausgewertet wurden die Dokumentationen der Innenstadtforen im Rahmen des Policykonzepts „Hannover City 2020+“. Festzuhalten gilt, dass die zentrale Aufgabe der Sozialen Arbeit in diesem Zusammenhang benannt werden kann als die Thematisierung von sozialem Ausschluss (Anhorn & Bettinger 2005) und den hohen Voraussetzungen für den Zugang zu Beteiligung und Mitgestaltung des öffentlichen Raumes. Gezeigt wird, dass das erste Beteiligungsverfahren einer Scheinbeteiligung (Arnstein 1969) zur Legitimation von Ergebnissen aus Behörden- und Expert*innenenrunden diente; viele der eigentlichen Nutzer*innen des Platzes wurden nicht erreicht und beteiligt, da die Strukturen des Partizipationsangebotes zu hochschwellig und exklusiv angelegt waren. Es wird deutlich, dass die öffentlichen Verfahren bestenfalls der Information gedient haben.
Diese Arbeit ist ein Plädoyer für eine planungsbezogene Soziale Arbeit (Drilling & Oehler 2013), welche sich räumlich-reflexiv und aktiv in die Gestaltung und Planung von Stadt einbringt, anstatt nur im Nachhinein daraus entstandene Konflikte und Probleme wie Ausschluss und Verdrängung von Randgruppen zu bearbeiten. Im bisherigen Prozess hat Soziale Arbeit die Aufgabe, sich kritisch im Interesse der marginalisierten Nutzer*innengruppen einzubringen und advokatisch tätig zu sein, bzw. darüber hinaus diese dabei zu unterstützen sich wirkungsvoll einzubringen, nicht wahrgenommen. In dem kommenden Verfahren 2018 bietet sich die Chance einer inkludierenderen Beteiligung durch Methoden der Bürger*innenbeteiligung wie bspw. der Zukunftswerkstatt (Dienel 2011: 208ff) direkt auf dem Platz, in denen gegebenenfalls mehr Menschen zu Wort kommen als bei den bisherigen Verfahren.
Objectives:
The aim was to identify theoretically expected as well as actually reported benefits from drug development and the importance of individual patient benefits compared to the collective benefits to society in general.
Background:
Ethical guidelines require that clinical research involving humans offer the potential for benefit. A number of characteristics can be applied to define research benefit. Often benefit is categorized as being either direct or indirect. Indirect benefits can involve collective benefits for society rather than any benefits to the trial patient or subject. The purpose of this review was to examine which potential individual and societal benefits were mentioned as being expected in publications from government experts and which were mentioned in publications describing completed drug development trial results.
Methods:
Literature on research benefit was first identified by searching the PubMed database using several combinations of the key words benefit and clinical research. The search was limited to articles published in English. A Google search with the same combinations of key words but without any language limitation was then performed. Additionally, the reference lists of promising articles were screened for further thematically related articles. Finally, a narrative review was performed of relevant English- and German-language articles published between 1996 and 2016 to identify which of several potential benefits were either theoretically expected or which were mentioned in publications on clinical drug development trial results.
Results:
The principal benefits from drug development discussed included 2 main types of benefit, namely individual benefits for the patients and collective benefits for society. Twenty-one of an overall total of 26 articles discussing theoretically expected benefits focused on individual patient benefits, whereas 17 out of 26 articles mentioned collective benefits to society. In these publications, the most commonly mentioned theoretically expected individual patient benefit was the chance to receive up-to-date care (38.1%). A general increase in knowledge about health care, treatments, or drugs (70.6%) was the most commonly mentioned theoretically expected benefit for society. In contrast, all 13 publications reporting actual benefits of clinical drug development trials focused on personal benefits and only 1 of these publications also mentioned a societal benefit. The most commonly mentioned individual benefit was an increased quality of life (53.9%), whereas the only mentioned collective benefit to society was a general gain of knowledge (100.0%).
Conclusions:
Both theoretically expected and actually reported benefits in the majority of the included publications emphasized the importance of individual patient benefits from drug development rather than the collective benefits to society in general. The authors of these publications emphasized the right of each individual patient or subject to look for and expect some personal benefit from participating in a clinical trial rather than considering societal benefit as a top priority. From an ethical point of view, the benefits each individual patient receives from his or her participation in a clinical trial might also be seen as a societal benefit, especially when the drug or device tested, if approved for marketing, would eventually be made available for other similar patients from the country in which the clinical trial was conducted.
Roads to Health in Developing Countries: Understanding the Intersection of Culture and Healing
(2017)
Background:
The most important attribute to which all human beings aspire is good health because it enables us to undertake different forms of activities of daily living. The emergence of scientific knowledge in Western societies has enabled scientists to explore and define several parameters of health by drawing boundaries around factors that are known to influence the attainment of good health. For example, the World Health Organization defined health by taking physical and psychological factors into consideration. Their definition of health also included a caveat that says, “not merely the absence of sickness.”
This definition has guided scientists and health care providers in the Western world in the development of health care programs in non-Western societies.
Objective:
However, ethnomedical beliefs about the cause(s) of illness have given rise to alternative theories of health, sickness, and treatment approaches in the developing world. Thus, there is another side to the story.
Method:
Much of the population in developing countries lives in rural settings where the knowledge of health, sickness, and care has evolved over centuries of practice and experience. The definition of health in these settings tends to orient toward cultural beliefs, traditional practices, and social relationships. Invariably, whereas biomedicine is the dominant medical system in Western societies, traditional medicine — or ethno-medicine — is often the first port of call for patients in developing countries.
Results:
The 2 medical systems represent, and are influenced by, the cultural environment in which they exist. On one hand, biomedicine is very effective in the treatment of objective, measurable disease conditions. On the other hand, ethnomedicine is effective in the management of illness conditions or the experience of disease states. Nevertheless, an attempt to supplant 1 system of care with another from a different cultural environment could pose enormous challenges in non-Western societies.
Conclusion:
In general, we, as human beings, are guided in our health care decisions by past experiences, family and friends, social networks, cultural beliefs, customs, tradition, professional knowledge, and intuition. No medical system has been shown to address all of these elements; hence, the need for collaboration, acceptance, and partnership between all systems of care in cultural communities. In developing countries, the roads to health are incomplete without an examination of the intersection of culture and healing. Perhaps mutual exclusiveness rather inclusiveness of these 2 dominant health systems is the greatest obstacle to health in developing countries.