Search results

Three priorities for evidence-based governance of heatwave events in Europe

In this opinion piece, we establish some key priorities for evidence-based governance to address the increasing threat of heatwave events in Europe, particularly for human health. According to the European Environment Agency (EEA) [1], Europe is warming faster than the global average. The year 2020 was the warmest year in Europe since the instrumental records began, with the range of anomaly between 2.53˚C and 2.71˚C above the pre-industrial levels. Particularly high warming has been observed over eastern Europe, Scandinavia and the eastern part of the Iberian Peninsula. Climate change-related heatwaves are becoming a significant threat to human health and necessitate early action [2]. While financial resources and technological capacities are crucial to aid (local) governments in adapting to and proactively mitigating the threats posed by heatwaves, they are not enough [3]. Akin to flood responses, European countries must prepare for large-scale evacuations of vulnerable citizens (especially older adults living alone) from their homes. Here, we outline three priorities for Europe in the governance domain. These priorities encompass developing and rolling-out heat-health action plans, a stronger role for European Union institutions in regional heatwave governance, and creating a sense of urgency by developing innovative ways of communicating research findings to relevant policy makers and citizens.

What is a piece of tack?

Dr. Inga Wolframm is Professor of Sustainable Equestrianism at the University of Applied Sciences Van Hall Larenstein in the Netherlands. She holds a PhD in rider psychology and an MSc in human and equine sports science. She’s passionate about equestrian sport, and even more passionate about making it future-proof, by demonstrating how humans and horses can interact sustainably with each other and the environment. Her research focusses on using evidence-based theory to explain real-life problems and develop practical solutions for equestrians everywhere.

Implementation of Evidence Based Practice in mental health nursing

This thesis describes an Action Research (AR) project aimed at the implementation of Evidence Based Practice in a mental health nursing setting in the Netherlands. The main research question addressed in this thesis is: In what way is Action Research with an empowering appropriate to implement Evidence Based Practice in a mental health nursing setting in the Netherlands and what is the effect of this implementation on the care experienced by the client, the nursing interventions and the context in this setting compared to a comparative setting? To answer this main research question, the following questions derived from it were addressed: What is Evidence Based Practice? What is known about implementing evidence-based practice in nursing through Action Research? Which factors have to be dealt with in a mental health nursing setting, so the implementation of EBP with AR with an empowering intent will be more successful? Which factors have to be dealt with in a mental health nursing setting, so the implementation of EBP with AR with an empowering intent will be successful? How is EBP implemented through AR with an empowering intent and what are the outcomes for the use of evidence, the context and the facilitation in the setting? What is the effect of the implementation of EBP in mental health nursing using AR with an empowering intent on the care experienced by the client, the nursing interventions and the context compared to a comparison setting? The first two questions were answered by a search of the literature while the remaining questions were answered during the AR study conducted in two mental health organisations in the Netherlands.

The interpretation of forensic conclusions by criminal justice professionals: The same evidence interpreted differently

Forensic reports use various types of conclusions, such as a categorical (CAT) conclusion or a likelihood ratio (LR). In order to correctly assess the evidence, users of forensic reports need to understand the conclusion and its evidential strength. The aim of this paper is to study the interpretation of the evidential strength of forensic conclusions by criminal justice professionals. In an online questionnaire 269 professionals assessed 768 reports on fingerprint examination and answered questions that measured self-proclaimed and actual understanding of the reports and conclusions. The reports entailed CAT, verbal LR and numerical LR conclusions with low or high evidential strength and were assessed by crime scene investigators, police detectives, public prosecutors, criminal lawyers, and judges. The results show that about a quarter of all questions measuring actual understanding of the reports were answered incorrectly. The CAT conclusion was best understood for the weak conclusions, the three strong conclusions were all assessed similarly. The weak CAT conclusion correctly emphasizes the uncertainty of any conclusion type used. However, most participants underestimated the strength of this weak CAT conclusion compared to the other weak conclusion types. Looking at the self-proclaimed understanding of all professionals, they in general overestimated their actual understanding of all conclusion types.

Sensemaking and evidence in criminal investigations of organised crime: A literature review

Producing evidence that can be used in court is a central goal of criminal investigations. Forensic science focuses with considerable success on the production of pieces of evidence from specific sources. However, less is known about how a team of investigating police officers progressively produces a body of evidence during the course of a criminal investigation. This literature review uses Weickian sensemaking to analyse what is known about this process in criminal investigations into organised crime. Focusing on the criminal investigation team, collective sensemaking is used as a lens through which to place the reasoning processes used in constructing evidence in a social context. In addition to describing three constituent parts of collective sensemaking relevant for criminal investigations, six factors are identified that influence the quality of collective sensemaking. Building on these results, nine focal points are presented for analysing the sensemaking processes in a criminal investigation team, aimed at advancing knowledge about the production of evidence in criminal investigations of organised crime. Furthermore, a definition of evidence is developed that is suitable for studying sensemaking in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation.

Bagging evidence!?