The vital issues process: Strategic planning for a changing world

Engi, D.; Glicken, Jessica

doi:10.2172/89508

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are various de nitions of who a stakeholder is [43][44][45]. In this study, we opt to use the de nition in [43] which states that a stakeholder is "... a group of people in uenced by and with the ability to signi cantly impact (either directly or indirectly) to the topic of interest"). To put this study into context, we used the Basque health system as a case study.…”

Section: Stakeholder Involvement In Model Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using a Co-Construction Participatory Modeling Approach to Understand the Complexity in Collaboratively Managing Knowledge for Multi-Morbid Chronic Disease Patients on Advance Care Plan

Tulinayo

Ortega-Gil

González

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Across the globe, the healthcare sector is experiencing transformations (cultural, social, digital and economic). This is due to the age and varying patient needs that are driving a shift in the healthcare landscape. At the same time, chronic diseases, social determinants and resource limitations continue to add pressure. Healthcare has thus shifted from paternalistic mode of care to patient centered care (PCC). The growing multiple divergent medical cases denote a need to collaboratively understand clinical issues and effectively determine the best course of action. With PCC, a patient is recognized as a unique human being before forming a diagnosis. This implies that there is a need for multifaceted decision-making. In this study, we use a co-construction participatory modeling approach to understand the complexities in collaboratively managing knowledge for multi-morbid chronic patients on Advance Care Plan (ACP). To achieve this, focus group discussions (FGD) with 12 participants (five healthcare professionals, three health managers and three healthcare key decision makers) from Basque Public Health System (Osakidetza), in Spain were involved in identifying the key challenges and developing a systemic thinking model. As a result, three key challenges were identified i.e. 1) culture (citizens are not willing to talk about death, 2) healthcare professionals’ challenge to change attitude and perspectives, and 3) changing the current system towards holistic and a shared care model. From the developed Causal loop diagrams (CLDs), it is noted that perpetuation of fragmented and paternalistic care is likely to get worse without recognition of the ACP as a social need and a crucial part of the clinical practice part change.

show abstract

Section: Stakeholder Involvement In Model Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using a Co-Construction Participatory Modeling Approach to Understand the Complexity in Collaboratively Managing Knowledge for Multi-Morbid Chronic Disease Patients on Advance Care Plan

Tulinayo

Ortega-Gil

González

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The terms have been widely applied with increasing popularity in various contexts since the 1980s [31,35,37]. Likewise, numerous definitions have been published on what can be classed as a stakeholder [31,38,39], which is why a clear explanation of the term is pivotal in order to know to whom one is referring [40]. In the context of this paper, we use an adapted version of the stakeholder definition proffered by Engi and Glicken [38], namely"An individual or group influenced by-and/or with an ability to significantly impact (either directly or indirectly)-the European Union (EU) regulation of microplastics and which have actively participated in the regulatory debate".…”

Section: Stakeholder Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder analysis with regard to a recent European restriction proposal on microplastics

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stakeholder involvement is pivotal EU governance. In this paper, we complete a stakeholder analysis of the European Chemicals Agency's recent Annex XV restriction proposal process on intentionally added microplastics. The aim of this study is to map the interests, influence and importance of active stakeholders in order to understand the arguments being put forward by different stakeholders and provide recommendations to policy-makers on how to ensure a balanced consideration of all stakeholder perspectives. Stakeholders were identified through niche media analysis and by scrutinising comments from the public consultation on the restriction proposal. Their importance and influence were mapped using three approaches: "scale from low to high", "psychometric scale" and "qualitative ranking". We identified 205 different stakeholders out of which 77 were industry and trade associations, 25 were large companies and only four were small and medium-sized enterprises. National authorities and researchers did not comment on the restriction proposal, whilst large companies were very active providing comments. Industry trade associations and sports-related non-governmental organizations articulated anxiety about the costs associated with the implementation of the restriction proposal. Among environmental non-governmental organizations, there was consensus that plastics should be handled like other substances under EU's chemical regulation. Primary stakeholders identified exhibited high importance, but varying degrees of influence, while the opposite applied to the major European institutions. Based on our analysis, we recommend that: The European Chemicals Agency implement measures to include "silent" stakeholders and invite guest experts to participate in their committees on Risk Assessment and SocioEconomic Analysis; Researchers should be more active in the public consultation; and that special emphasis should be put on helping small and medium-sized enterprises. With regards to stakeholder consultation, we find that media analysis is a good supplement to stakeholder analysis and that a more objective top-down measure of stakeholder importance and influence is needed.

show abstract

“…to specify and rank the criteria relationships ( Figure 4). The pairwise comparison methodology used in the Vital Issues Process is described in Engi and Glicken, 1995. . For purposes of calculations, numerical values are assigned to the pairwise comparison terms, with "1" corresponding to "much lower than" and "5" corresponding to "much greater than."…”

Section: Criteria Weightingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The electricity portfolio simulation model (EPSim) technical description.

Drennen

Klotz

Colleges³

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stakeholders often have competing interests when selecting or planning new power plants. The purpose of developing this preliminary Electricity Portfolio Simulation Model (EPSim) is to provide a first cut, dynamic methodology and approach to this problem, that can subsequently be refined and validated, that may help energy planners, policy makers, and energy students better understand the tradeoffs associated with competing electricity portfolios. EPSim allows the user to explore competing electricity portfolios annually from 2002 to 2025 in terms of five different criteria: cost, environmental impacts, energy dependence, health and safety, and sustainability. Four additional criteria (infrastructure vulnerability, service limitations, policy needs and science and technology needs) may be added in future versions of the model. Using an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach, users or groups of users apply weights to each of the criteria. The default energy assumptions of the model mimic Department of Energy's (DOE) electricity portfolio to 2025 (EIA, 2005). At any time, the user can compare alternative portfolios to this reference case portfolio.3 Two alternative portfolios are compared to the reference portfolio in 2010: the zero coal portfolio and the zero energy dependence portfolio. The main effect of removing coal combustion from the portfolio in 2010 is cost--the overall levelized cost of the portfolio increases from 2.85 cents/kWhr to 4.35 cents/kWhr ($2003), total emissions of key pollutants, including carbon, drop by 1.66 trillion tons, and dependency, measured in terms of amount of oil and natural gas in the electricity sector, increases from 4.2% to 16.3%. The portfolio also becomes slightly safer in terms of worker deaths and less sustainable in terms of the depletion rate of domestic fossil fuel reserves.Despite the elimination of any imported oil or natural gas in the electricity sector in the second alternative portfolio discussed here (the zero energy dependence portfolio), U.S. imports of petroleum are barely affected; removing all petroleum from the electricity sector only decreases U.S. oil import rate from 57.9% to 56.9% in 2010. In terms of future work, EPSim would benefit from a number of enhancements, including adding four additional criteria, expanded definitions of currently completed criteria, and rigorous review and testing in small groups.

show abstract

The vital issues process: Strategic planning for a changing world

Abstract: Approved for public relea ution is unlimited.

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Using a Co-Construction Participatory Modeling Approach to Understand the Complexity in Collaboratively Managing Knowledge for Multi-Morbid Chronic Disease Patients on Advance Care Plan

Using a Co-Construction Participatory Modeling Approach to Understand the Complexity in Collaboratively Managing Knowledge for Multi-Morbid Chronic Disease Patients on Advance Care Plan

Stakeholder analysis with regard to a recent European restriction proposal on microplastics

The electricity portfolio simulation model (EPSim) technical description.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About