PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10119353

Rationale for rationing.

Abstract

The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R W Evans. 1992. Rationale for rationing.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10119353/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Low-cost on-the-job peer training of nurses improved immunization coverage in Indonesia.

In Indonesia responsibility for immunizations is placed on local government health centres and on the nurses who provide the immunizations at each centre. An on-the-job peer training programme for these nurses, which was designed to improve the immunization performance of poorly performing health centres in terms of coverage and practice in Maluku province, was evaluated. Experienced immunization nurses were sent to health centres where nurses were inexperienced or performing poorly; the experienced nurses spent 1-2 weeks providing on-the-job training for the less experienced ones. An evaluation of the 13 centres that participated in the programme and the 95 that did not found that the programme increased both immunization coverage and the quality of practice. Coverage of diphtheria/pertussis/tetanus (DPT), polio, and measles vaccinations rose by about 39% in all 13 participating centres when compared with non-participating centres, and by about 54% in the 11 centres that had a functioning transportation system during the year after training. These results reflect increases in the actual number of doses given and improvements in the accuracy of reports. Potential threats to the study's validity were examined and found not to be significant. The out-of-pocket cost of the training programme was about US$ 53 per trainee or about US$ 0.05 per additional vaccine reported to have been given. The marginal cost per additional fully immunized child was estimated to be US$ 0.50.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

Ultrasound to decontaminate heavy metals in dredged sediments.

Sediments contaminated with heavy metals due to past disposal practices threaten the environment and require remediation. This study was an attempt to develop a technology to decontaminate heavy metals in dredged sediments using ultrasound coupled with vacuum pressure. A set of laboratory scale experiments were conducted using dredged sediments obtained from New York/New Jersey harbor. This sediment sample is considered as category III, a material that failed to meet USEPA requirements for toxicity or bioaccumulation, and required secure disposal. Acoustic cavitation due to ultrasound energy coupled with vacuum pressure was used to facilitate the removal of chromium (the selected metal contaminant) from the sediments. Full factorial experimental designs were performed to evaluate the above treatment technique and to optimize the processes. Two coupled processes were used to separate and to treat both coarse (Process #1) and fine (Process #2) fractions of sediments. Selected variables for evaluation of Process #1 were ultrasound power, soil-to-water ratio, vacuum pressure and dwell time, and for Process #2 were ultrasound power, soil-to-water ratio and dwell time. Laboratory scale experiments were carried out with various combinations of these parameters according to the factorial design. The optimum removal was found to be 92% with the parameter levels at 1200W power, 1:15 soil-to-water ratio, 15 psi vacuum pressure and 15 min of dwell time. After the application of Process #2 for fine sediments it was found that the fines were separated into silt and clay. Only the silt faction had a considerable metal removal while the clay fraction was insensitive to the treatment. A maximum removal of 83% was obtained for silt fraction when factor levels were at 1200W power, 1:50 soil-to-water ratio and 90 min of dwell time. Further analysis of clay fraction showed that the chromium in clay is immobile and stable. The toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) test on clay fraction confirmed that the treated clay fraction is safe to dispose. The study showed that the proposed treatment technique is effective and economical for sediments with lower clay contents.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗