This feasibility report aims to create a solid background for Savings Groups programming in Italy, Spain, Germany, Poland and the Netherlands where partner organisations of the LETS SAVEE1 project are based. This Erasmus+ funded project aims at exploring the potential of saving groups in the European countries’ context, by improving entrepreneurial skills and access to financial services and social networks of diverse target groups. This particular report provides the partner organisation as well as other interested implementing organisations with a better understanding of how the different contexts influences the setting up and/or scale up of saving groups. This report is set up as follows: The market potential is based on literature of societal developments and how they can be linked to the emergence of saving groups in the respective countries and what kind of target groups have potential for benefitting the services offered by savings groups. By mapping partner organisations, the feasibility study identifies present and potential partners and stakeholders which could play an essential role reaching out to target groups. Then, the study will inform partner organisations and other implementers about the legal framework in each country that allows them to set up Savings Groups accordingly and identify issues that might need advocacy actions. Finally, this report provides a mapping of risk factors and ways to mitigate risks for savings groups members that were applicable for all partner organizations.
DOCUMENT
What options are open for peoplecitizens, politicians, and other nonscientiststo become actively involved in and anticipate new directions in the life sciences? In addressing this question, this article focuses on the start of the Human Genome Project (1985-1990). By contrasting various models of democracy (liberal, republican, deliberative), I examine the democratic potential the models provide for citizens' involvement in setting priorities and funding patterns related to big science projects. To enhance the democratizing of big science projects and give citizens opportunities to reflect, anticipate, and negotiate on newdirections in science and technology at a global level, liberal democracy with its national scope and representative structure does not suffice. Although republican (communicative) and deliberative (associative) democracy models meet the need for greater citizen involvement, the ways to achieve the ideal at a global level still remain to be developed.
DOCUMENT
Background and objective Public involvement in palliative care is challenging and difficult, because people in need of palliative care are often not capable of speaking up for themselves. Patient representatives advocate for their common interests. The aim of our study was to examine in depth the current practice of public involvement in palliative care. Setting and sample The study was conducted in the province of Limburg in the Netherlands, with six palliative care networks. Study participants were 16 patient representatives and 12 professionals. Method This study had a descriptive design using qualitative methods: 18 in-depth interviews and three focus groups were conducted. The critical incident technique was used. The data were analysed using an analytical framework based on Arnstein’s involvement classification and the process of decision making. Impact categories as well as facilitators and barriers were analysed using content analysis. Findings and conclusion The perceived impact of public involvement in palliative care in terms of citizen control and partnership is greatest with regard to quality of care, information development and dissemination, and in terms of policymaking with regard to the preparation and implementation phases of decision making. The main difference in perceived impact between patient representatives and professionals relates to the tension between operational and strategic involvement. Patient representatives experienced more impact regarding short-term solutions to practical problems, while professionals perceived great benefits in long-term, strategic processes. Improving public involvement in palliative care requires positive attitudes, open communication, sufficient resources and long-term support, to build a solid basis for pursuing meaningful involvement in the entire decision-making process.
MULTIFILE
