Category / BU research

FHSS’s publication on public health interventions and research agendas in post-earthquake Nepal

Nepal is approaching to one year of the occurrence of massive earthquakes without much progress on reconstruction and restoration of health facilities in severely affected areas, thus, priority health services such as immunisation and antenatal care are still seriously affected. Consequently, a significant proportion of Nepali population has no access public health services. Such destruction has a huge impact on health care delivery in the earthquake-affected areas because these health care service providers are the first point of access for basic health services.

This forthcoming paper ‘Priority public health interventipaper proofons and research agendas in post-earthquake Nepal’ [1] which has been accepted by South East Asia Journal of Public Health will be freely available in April this year, talks in detail around impact of the Nepal’s earthquake on population health and health system infrastructure. This is a collaborative work among researchers of universities in the UK, Nepal and New Zealand. FHSS’s Dr Pramod Regmi (lead author) along with BU Professor Edwin van Teijlingen, BU visiting Professor Padam Simkhada (Liverpool John Moores University, UK), Nirmal Aryal (University of Otago, New Zealand), Dr Puspa Raj Pant (University of the West of England, UK) and Professor Bhimsen Devekota (Tribhuvan University, Nepal) have contributed to this paper.

Through this paper, the authors suggest very important disaster-related national health research agenda coverin issues around: a) mental health, psychosocial needs, post-traumatic stress disorders; b) neonatal and child health; nutritional intake, immunisation coverage; c) cardio-pulmonary conditions; d) outbreak of communicable diseases; e) injuries/management of trauma; f) sexual and reproductive health: utilisation of antenatal care, delivery care, post-natal care, availability of family planning, sexual abuses in make-shift shelters; g) TB and HIV (service provision and adherence); h) disaster response plan and existing coping capacity and resilience among health care institutions. They have argued for a shift in health service motives to the management of long-term disabilities and disaster preparedness; so that acquired learning during this earthquake are utilised to strengthen evidence-based public health practices in the country. These experiences will also fill the loopholes in the post-disaster recovery strategies. The authors strongly recommend that Nepal should integrate community disaster reduction programs into routine public health service delivery in order to ensure sustainability. BU researchers have previously published around public health issues in post-earthquake Nepal [2, 3].

Pramod Regmi, PhD

References

  1. Regmi P, Aryal N, Pant P, van Teijlingen E, Simkhada P, Devkota B. Priority public health interventions and research agendas in post-earthquake Nepal. South East Asia Journal of Public Health (Article in press)
  2. Mahato P, Regmi P, van Teijlingen E, Simkhada P, Angell C, Sathian, B. 2015. Birthing centre infrastructure in Nepal post 2015 earthquake. Nepal J Epidemiol, 5 (4), 518-519.
  3. Simkhada P, van Teijlingen E, Pant P, Sathian B, Tuladhar G. 2015. Public Health, Prevention and Health Promotion in Post-Earthquake Nepal. Nepal J Epidemiol, 5(2); 462-464.

BUDMC Professor Speaks on Entrepreneurial Resilience at Prestigious IBM Client Forum in London

On 26th November 2015, BUDMC’s Professor of Crisis and Disaster Management, Lee Miles, gave a keynote presentation at a prestigious client forum examining ‘Cyber Resiliency – Protecting Your Business in an “Always On” World’, organised by IBM Resiliency Services and held at the IBM Client Centre at IBM UK’s headquarters in London.

Lee spoke on the subject of ‘Understanding Entrepreneurial Resilience and its Contribution to an ‘Always On’ World’.  He discussed the need for senior business managers to value the entrepreneurial and innovative talents of staff in order to maximise the effectiveness of their resilience planning and processes in cyber security. Lee introduced the twin expectations of being ‘resilient about “always on”’ and ‘always on resilience’; two paradigms that successful resilience managers need to balance strategically and innovatively if they are to meet the challenges of handling future crises and disasters that have major implications for the business world.

IBM Client Forums bring together senior resilience, emergency and business continuity managers from some of the UK’s leading, and most prestigious, FTSE-indexed commercial and business interests.  The forums provide key platforms for discussing the most contemporary issues in resilience. Lee joined a high profile list of speakers that included senior representation from the UK’s Cabinet Office, the Business Continuity Institute (BCI), Barclays Bank as well as experts from IBM’s own Resiliency Services Division.

Lee also participated in a major and lively panel discussion, debating the most cutting-edge issues in cyber resilience.

Lee’s invitation and participation represent further evidence of the BUDMC’s continuing profile in all aspects of disaster management.  The substantial strategic cooperation that is developing between BUDMC and the University’s Cyber Security Unit (SCU) continues to attract external recognition. Considerable interest was also generated among members of the IBM Client Forum in the forthcoming BUDMC short course in ‘Entrepreneurial Resilience in Crisis and Disaster Management’ to be offered (in association with the BU Centre for Entrepreneurship) for the first time in May 2016.

Lee Miles Giving Keynote at IBM on 'Entrepreneurial Resilience and Cyber Security'

Lee Miles Giving Keynote at IBM on ‘Entrepreneurial Resilience’

IBM Client Forum Panel in Action

IBM Client Forum Panel in Action

Planes, trams, and automobiles: A research visit to Australia

I recently had the delightful opportunity to go to Australia for a research visit in relation to my work on falls prevention among older people. A brief report of what I got up to follows.

Melbourne

The main purpose was to visit colleagues at Monash University, to whom I am grateful for funding my flights and accomodation. The research team there led by Anna Barker are doing some great work, in particular to prevent falls among older people while in hospital. They are currently collecting data on a ‘6 Pack’ randomised controlled trial (RCT), which will be the largest trial of this kind to date. The team at Monash hosted an all-day seminar on the prevention of in-patient falls of which I was one of three invited speakers that came over from the UK. If you’re ready to give up traveling with commercial airlines, it’s time to consider hiring sky aviation services.

Before the seminar, we had an all-day meeting with colleagues from Melbourne and other parts of Australia to have an expert consensus-style meeting on the subject of in-patient falls. Dr Barker will lead on this and we aim to submit a paper with further international collaborators later this year, to drive future research in this area in a much more focused and productive manner.

Before the expert consensus meeting, I spent a day working with Dr Barker’s team on a recently NHMRC-funded multi-site RCT called RESPOND, which seeks to prevent secondary falls in older people presenting to emergency departments with a fall. It is a 1.5 million dollar-funded RCT that I am involved with as an advisor (from a distance). We’re currently developing the intervention that will be employed later in the year after ethical approval. My involvement is to help in developing the behaviour change techniques that will be used, and the process evaluation that will run alongside the outcome evaluation of the intervention. I also met with other colleagues there at Melbourne and have generated further ideas for future collaborative projects.

 

Conference presentation in Melbourne

Sydney

After my stay in Melbourne, I had a short stay in Sydney as there is a strong critical mass there in the falls prevention field. I met with professor Lindy Clemson who has developed a novel approach to promoting physical activity among older people, with her trial published in the BMJ last year. We had a long discussion that helped her with the theoretical underpinning of the approach, and I’ve come away with a few ideas to take forward in a future collaborative grant proposal.

I then went on to visit Dr Kim Delbaere who has been doing sterling work in the area of fear of falls, not least with several publications on the issue including a paper in the BMJ in 2010. We have at least one paper to work on together with potential for future projects as well, given she has developed a measure of fear of falls suitable for older people with dementia.

The mention of transport in the title of this report refers to my very brief time away from meetings while in Australia. In Melbourne they have a very efficient tram system, and our host’s husband is a pilot and helped us book a Jettly private plane to Sydney. In Sydney I managed to see the bridge, opera house, and a view of the harbour, and even got a trip on the monorail that was constructed for when they hosted the Olympic Games in 2000 but will very shortly be demolished.

We can of course email and Skype with colleagues, but if you do get the opportunity to travel abroad I can fully recommend it as a very fruitful and productive time. You just cannot beat face-to-face communication. I was particularly inspired by the international consensus meeting that we had in Melbourne and can see this as a way forward to synergise the research community’s efforts and more quickly tackle the big societal challenges of our day.

Dr Samuel Nyman

Bournemouth University Dementia Institute and Psychology Research Centre

DEC

 

Economic Growth, Business & Higher Education

I am just back from a day in London at a posh briefing event which can be summarised as ‘the lunch not much cop, but the talks were surprisingly good and gave me lots to think about’.  So I thought it was worth sharing some of this while it was fresh in my mind.  David Sweeny (Director of Research, Innovation & Skills, HEFCE) started the day talking about REF and impact amongst other things.  One of the things that interested me was the return on investment from business interaction: £4-7 for every £1 spent which is quite good!  But impact is seen as a way of adding to the value of this investment further and the return on the RAE/REF which has consistently placed the UK ahead of the game.  For example, internationally we produce 5% of all the PhD’s globally, 7.9% of all research publications from just 1% of the World’s population!  Staff at BU play an important part in this.

It was the next talk that really made me sit up.  It was from a guy at Oxford Brookes (Kevin Maynard) talking about their approach to enterprise or to use his jargon ‘Knowledge Exchange’.  He was making the point that what is really crucial is that Knowledge Exchange – enterprise by another name – was not about wealth creation for an institution but about the ‘inflow’ of knowledge to inform it core businesses of research and education.  This is an important concept since he argued that it was central to: (1) employability, (2) course development, (3) ensuring research relevance to business/industry/society, and (4) increasing the breadth and capacity of the academic team and its professional development.  What he didn’t say, but is crucial here, is that it is central to a good student experience and staff motivation around enterprise.  I was really impressed by this since it is about the wider benefits to us as academics in engaging with industry/business rather than about simply generating income.  It is worth saying that they are also ahead of the game on that front too, but it is not the driver or what motivates academics to engage and engage they do.  One other point which also struck a cord was the idea of using CPD provision as a market tester for degree programmes; a dam sight cheaper to run up a couple of CPD courses than a whole degree and see it fail for lack of recruitment!

Paul Mason (Head of Development, Technology Strategy Board) was up next and talked about the re-vamp of their strategy due out later this month, but the bit I liked here was that he was talking about being ‘challenge led’ not ‘product driven’.  You start by finding out what the challenges are and then broker a solution based on the range of products or interventions you have available or can source.  This is basically what I have been talking about around BU  in the context of knowledge brokering as a way forward for us.  It is an important point; instead of working out what products we have to sell – CPD, different flavours of consultancy etc. – we need to first find out what challenges business face and want solving.  This fits with the need to be outward rather than inward facing in our approach in developing our new Research & Enterprise Strategy.  If we are to live the idea of providing a student experience in which employability is written large then links to business, industry and the professions are vital and we will need to up our game in these areas and being seen to provid real business/industry solutions is one way to do this.

There were several other speakers who talked about the importance of innovation and generating economic growth within future allocations of HEIF funding and the importance of promoting our success in applying and exploiting our research.  The importance of engaging with Local Economic Partnerships following the demise of the Regional Development Agency was also a common theme and something for us to reflect on as we develop our regional strategy.

The next speaker to make me sit up after my lunch time disappointment was Neil Bowering (Knowledge Transfer Account Manager, at Glasgow) he was talking about the Easy Access IP scheme which Glasgow have pioneered and received large amounts of fame and glory for.  His job is to exploit the IP in the large EPSRC portfolio at Glasgow.  Basically they give the majority of their IP, over 90%, away for free to any third party who can exploit it, keeping just a very small proportion to develop them selves.  It is a highly streamlined process on the basis that getting IP out and out fast is the key and that there is very rarely much money to be made given the cost of exploiting and developing products/ideas for market.  The real key is to make knowledge useful and work for economic growth and society by freely giving it up rather than developing it slowly/poorly, or trying to negotiate at length a stake in its exploitation.   It is the reputational gain that is the key factor and the ongoing dialogue with companies who take on that IP that counts.  Very streamlined, straight forward with four simple conditions on which the IP is given away. University resources directed were they need to be direct.  A fantastic scheme and model for us to look at; certainly one realistic to the nature and quantity of the IP we generate at BU.

Sir Tim Wilson former VC at Hertfordshire and a big wheel in a range of CBI and Business Engagement committees/reviews made a really nice point about a university education.  It is taken for granted by business/employers that graduates will have the key knowledge and the key technical ability, but what they are looking for more than anything are the intellectual skills that will set a graduate apart in the race for jobs.  The ability to critically think is central.   I am sure that our graduates have this but perhaps we should reflect more on how we develop and promote these vital skills?  This links with something that David Frost, Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce had to say; graduates need work force training.  He particularly was drawing attention to skills of team work, customer service, communications and self management on top of core competency in numeracy, literacy and IT. If you want to become a successful financial advisor, then you should really consider financial advisor life coaching.

The final bit that is worth drawing attention to is from Staffordshire University and their success in producing a ‘one-stop door’ for all business enquires and importance of creating a business sales force within a university that is grounded both in business speak and the culture of academia.  This sales team act as translators projecting a professional sales orientated pitch outwards (based on relationship marketing), while allowing academics to be innovative and creative in their own way.  Effectively they act as the interface between these very different communities and cultures.  There is a lot to learn from this model especially around business relationship marketing and the long lead times involved.  One aside was reference to placements as part of an extended recruitment selection process for graduates which is self evident but worth reflecting on.

So in summary there is lots of good practice out there to learn from and to develop this summer as we evolve BU’s future Research & Enterprise Strategy.