Notes

Gld2 action and RNA uniqueness is dynamically governed by phosphorylation along with conversation together with QKI-7.
This commentary addresses Bowen et al's empirical study of perspectives of Canadian healthcare staff towards research and their call for multi-faceted action to improve misalignments in the system. This commentary argues that tensions and misalignments between research and service are inherent and can never be eradicated. Building on previous work by Lanham et al, I propose seven principles of complexity which may help to develop system capacities that will help bridge the research-service gap acknowledge unpredictability, recognise selforganisation, facilitate interdependencies, encourage sensemaking, attend to human relationships, develop adaptive capabilities in staff, and harness conflict productively. © 2020 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http//creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.This paper comments on Naoki Ikegami's editorial entitled "Financing long-term care lessons from Japan." Adding to the editorial, this paper focuses on analyzing the political and cultural foundations of long-term care (LTC) reform. Intergenerational solidarity and inclusive, prudential public deliberation are needed for the establishment or reform of LTC systems. Among various lines of ethical reasoning related to LTC, Confucian ethics and other familist ethics are specifically important in the societies that share these values. The core issue in the debates around LTC reform is how to (re-)define the scope of social entitlements and accordingly to allocate the responsibility for care between states and families, between social groups, and between generations with limited resources. © 2020 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http//creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.The comparison of long-term care (LTC) expenditures is a difficult task. National LTC systems differ widely in terms of eligibility criteria, level of benefits, institutional variety and regional heterogeneity. In this commentary I will first give some general remarks on cross country comparisons. Then I discuss the role of the informal sector which is the most important pillar of all LTC systems. I conclude with some background on current developments in Germany. Different from Japan Germany is extending its LTC insurance instead of containing costs. © 2020 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http//creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.The ageing of the countries' populations, and in particular the growing number of the very old, is increasing the need for long-term care (LTC). Not surprisingly, therefore, the financing of LTC systems has become a crucial topic across the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). In the last three decades, various financing policies have been carried out in different countries and the related international debate has grown. The latter has so far focused mostly on the different alternatives to collect economic resources to pay for care. Olaparib The international debate needs now to focus also on other issues, so far less discussed. One is the politics of LTC the degree and nature of the political interest in LTC, that affects the size and profile of public financing. The other is resource allocation how different services and benefits are distributed among people with different care needs, that determines if resources made available are optimized. If we do not pay more attention to these issues - inextricably connected to policies aimed to collect funds - our understanding of LTC financing will remain inevitably limited. © 2020 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http//creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.BACKGROUND There is increasing interest in using systems thinking to tackle 'wicked' policy problems in preventive health, but this can be challenging for policy-makers because the literature is amorphous and often highly theoretical. Little is known about how best to support health policy-makers to gain skills in understanding and applying systems thinking for policy action. METHODS In-depth interviews were conducted with 18 policy-makers who are participating in an Australian research collaboration that uses a systems approach. Our aim was to explore factors that support policy-makers to use systems approaches, and to identify any impacts of systems thinking on policy thinking or action, including the pathways through which these impacts occurred. RESULTS All 18 policy-makers agreed that systems thinking has merit but some questioned its practical policy utility. A small minority were confused about what systems thinking is or which approaches were being used in the collaboration. The majority were engaged in extended co-production processes that target policy impact and are supported by responsive capacity strategies. © 2020 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http//creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.BACKGROUND Donor funded projects are small scale and time limited, with gains that soon dissipate when donor funds end. This paper presents findings that sought to understand successes, challenges and barriers that influence the scaling up and sustainability of a tested, strengthened youth-friendly service (YFS) delivery model providing an expanded contraceptive method choice in one location - the YFS unit - with additional units in Amhara and Tigray, Ethiopia. METHODS This retrospective mixed methods study included interviews with key informants (KIs) (qualitative arm) and analysis of family planning (FP) uptake statistics extracted from the sampled health facilities (quantitative arm). A multistage convenience purposive sampling technique was adopted to randomly select 8 health facilities aligned with respective woredas, zones and regional health bureaus (RHBs). A semi-structured interview guide soliciting information on 6 scaling-up elements (stakeholder engagement, roles and responsibility, policy environment, financial resources, quality of voluntary FP services and data availability and use) guided the interviews.
Homepage: https://www.selleckchem.com/products/AZD2281(Olaparib).html