C
Cécile Knai
Researcher at University of London
Publications - 122
Citations - 4946
Cécile Knai is an academic researcher from University of London. The author has contributed to research in topics: Public health & Health care. The author has an hindex of 34, co-authored 112 publications receiving 4357 citations.
Papers
More filters
Assessing chronic disease management in European health systems: Concepts and approaches
TL;DR: This book captures the diverse range of contexts in which new approaches to chronic care are being implemented and evaluating the outcomes of these initiatives using an explicit comparative approach and a unified assessment framework.
Journal ArticleDOI
'Nothing can be done until everything is done': the use of complexity arguments by food, beverage, alcohol and gambling industries.
Mark Petticrew,Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi,Cécile Knai,Rebecca Cassidy,Nason Maani Hessari,James Thomas,Heide Weishaar,Heide Weishaar +7 more
TL;DR: The concept of complexity, as commonly used in public health, is also widely employed by unhealthy commodity industries to influence how the public and policymakers understand health issues.
Journal ArticleDOI
The Public Health Responsibility deal: has a public-private partnership brought about action on alcohol reduction?
Cécile Knai,Mark Petticrew,Mary Alison Durand,Courtney Scott,L James,Anushka Mehrotra,Elizabeth Eastmure,Nicholas Mays +7 more
TL;DR: The RD is unlikely to have contributed significantly to reducing alcohol consumption, as most alcohol pledge signatories appear to have committed to actions that they would have undertaken anyway, regardless of the RD.
Journal ArticleDOI
Clinical guidelines in the European Union: mapping the regulatory basis, development, quality control, implementation and evaluation across member states.
Helena Legido-Quigley,Dimitra Panteli,Serena Brusamento,Cécile Knai,Vanessa Saliba,Eva Turk,Meritxell Solé,Uta Augustin,Josip Car,Josip Car,Martin McKee,Martin McKee,Reinhard Busse,Reinhard Busse +13 more
TL;DR: The findings call for renewed efforts to respond to the severe lack of standardized guideline terminology and accessibility as well as rigorous studies to evaluate the relationship between different ways to develop guidelines and their methodological quality, between their quality and the actual implementation and usage, and finally between implementation and health outcomes.