McMaster University

About: McMaster University is a education organization based out in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Health care. The organization has 41361 authors who have published 101269 publications receiving 4251422 citations.

Contesting global governance : multilateral economic institutions and global social movements

Abstract: This book argues that increasing engagement between international institutions and sectors of civil society is producing a new form of global governance. The authors investigate 'complex multilateralism' by studying the relationship between three multilateral economic institutions (the IMF, World Bank, and World Trade Organization), and three global social movements (environmental, labour and women's movements). They provide a rich comparative analysis of the institutional response to social movement pressure, tracing institutional change, policy modification and social movement tactics as they struggle to influence the rules and practices governing trade, finance and development regimes. The contest to shape global governance is increasingly being conducted upon a number of levels and amongst a diverse set of actors. Analysing a unique breadth of institutions and movements, this book charts an important part of that contest.

Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making.

Abstract: Objectives: To identify ways to improve the usefulness of systematic reviews for health care managers and policy-makers that could then be evaluated prospectively. Methods: We systematically reviewed studies of decision-making by health care managers and policy-makers, conducted interviews with a purposive sample of them in Canada and the United Kingdom (n ¼ 29), and reviewed the websites of research funders, producers/purveyors of research, and journals that include them among their target audiences (n ¼ 45). Results: Our systematic review identi¢ed that factors such as interactions between researchers and health care policy-makers and timing/timeliness appear to increase the prospects for research use among policymakers. Our interviews with health care managers and policy-makers suggest that they would bene¢t from having information that is relevant for decisions highlighted for them (e.g. contextual factors that aiect a review’s local applicability and information about the bene¢ts, harms/risks and costs of interventions) and having reviews presented in a way that allows for rapid scanning for relevance and then graded entry (such as one page of take-home messages, a three-page executive summary and a 25-page report). Managers and policy-makers have mixed views about the helpfulness of recommendations. Our analysis of websites found that contextual factors were rarely highlighted, recommendations were often provided and graded entry formats were rarely used. Conclusions: Researchers could help to ensure that the future £ow of systematic reviews will better inform health care management and policy-making by involving health care managers and policy-makers in their production and better highlighting information that is relevant for decisions. Research funders could help to ensure that the global stock of systematic reviews will better inform health care management and policymaking by supporting and evaluating local adaptation processes such as developing and making available online more user-friendly ‘front ends’ for potentially relevant systematic reviews.