Sustainability is a multidisciplinary discipline posing a difficult problem as a result of its integrated assessment. From a broad perspective, it considers the impact of human activities (using different resources) and natural conditions on local environments. Urban development has been identified as one of the most important reasons for environmental and social degradation. To address the complexity of sustainability and its impact, policymakers need to be equipped with the right toolkit to foresee the integrated effect of projects and plans on urban sustainability more effectively in their policy design. In this paper, we propose a tool to assess the sustainable performance of urban areas through a common framework of indicators which provides an integrated measurement based on the relative efficiency of key input variables on desirable and undesirable outputs. Using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), we propose a procedure for determining the relative efficiency of relevant urban areas, proposing this method as a candidate for integrated sustainability measurement. The selection of variables is based on dimensions which can be addressed from a political perspective for achieving more desirable outputs, or reducing the undesirable ones, controlling for key resources as much as possible. Our analysis takes a comprehensive scope including an environmental and socioeconomic perspective. This will be useful to identify weaknesses and strengths to improve the integrated performance of cities. Our array of indicators, based on standardized key performance indicators (KPIs) will enable policymakers to gather an insightful impact of their proposals in urban sustainability carrying out a global sustainability impact assessment through DEA. The main goal is to gather the urban experience of transforming cities into smarter cities and putting technological progress at the service of their societies.

BackgroundInformation on the hours of work of UK doctors is limited, and what exists relies on self-designed questionnaires in England.AimTo understand trends in the annual stock of physicians’ hours and their main determinants.Design and settingData were collected from the Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS) between 1998 and 2020 under the End User License (EUL).MethodDescriptive and linear regression models of labour supply for doctors (pooled), GPs, and hospital doctors.ResultsBetween 1998 and 2020, while the headcount of doctors grew by 128.79% for hospital doctors and 45.29% for GPs, hours of work dropped by-20.80% for hospital doctors and –25.37% for GPs. Hence, the annual stock of hours grew by 81.20% for hospital doctors but by a modest 8.42% for GPs. Female doctors worked 8.68 fewer hours with GPs reporting the largest reduction (–11.84 hours with 95% CI=−13.32 to -10.35 and –6.89 with 95% CI=9.52 to -4.26 in the full specification). Family decisions are associated with a fall in doctors’ work hours and modest growth in the annual stock of hours. These determinants and overtime are drivers of part-time work.ConclusionDespite increasing the headcount of GPs, their hours of work dropped, generating a more steady and modest growth in their total annual stock of hours compared with hospital doctors. Female GPs work fewer hours than male GPs do and are more likely to work part-time for childbearing, marriage, and overtime work.

Background: The analysis of wellbeing among physicians has focused on stress, burnout, and job satisfaction but most analyses rely on small and unrepresentative samples. Using self-reported data between 2011/12 and 2014/15 from a large well-established UK dataset - the Annual Population Survey (APS), this study examines the main subjective wellbeing metrics of physicians in the UK and compares with those of other professionals (lawyers and accountants). Methods: APS is the first survey in the UK that incorporated SWB metrics in April 2011. Since then, the Office for National Statistics have included those metrics in other surveys. The analysis relies on APS data from 2011/12 to 2014/15 and examines the associations between subjective wellbeing variables and hours of work, hourly wages, and underemployment. Estimates are provided for all occupations of interest (pooled model) and then conditioning on each occupation using general linear models (ordinary least squares). Results: A total of 11,810 respondents are included in the analysis among the four main occupations (primary care physicians – general practitioners in the UK, hospital doctors, lawyers, and accountants) of which 8,011 are salaried workers (67.83%). Physicians are more satisfied and happier with their lives and less anxious than other professionals. Age affects negatively to happiness and satisfaction with their lives (-2.1% and -5.1% respectively) and females are more stressed (10.7%) overall. Incorporating preferences to work more hours (underemployment) physicians’ wellbeing is not affected but those of lawyers and accountants worsens. Conclusions: Physicians are less anxious, happier, and more satisfied than lawyers or accountants. Total hours of work do not seem to affect SWB for physicians when the variable is the aggregate measure but working more overtime hours is associate with lower wellbeing levels. Working fewer hours than desired (underemployment) is also associated with changes in wellbeing levels. Increasing the hours of work of underemployed physicians could be an inexpensive solution to overcome the alleged shortage of health workers.