PubMed · 16423131
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Mitchell Charap. 2006. A language problem.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.00264.x
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Southern Europe is exposed to anthropogenic and natural forest fires. These result in loss of lives, goods and infrastructure, but also deteriorate the natural environment and degrade ecosystems. The early detection and combating of such catastrophes requires the use of a decision support system (DSS) for emergency management. The current literature reports on a series of efforts aimed to deliver DSSs for the management of the forest fires by utilising technologies like remote sensing and geographical information systems (GIS), yet no integrated system exists. This manuscript presents the results of scientific research aiming to the development of a DSS for managing forest fires. The system provides a series of software tools for the assessment of the propagation and combating of forest fires based on Arc/Info, ArcView, Arc Spatial Analyst, Arc Avenue, and Visual C++ technologies. The system integrates GIS technologies under the same data environment and utilises a common user interface to produce an integrated computer system based on semi-automatic satellite image processing (fuel maps), socio-economic risk modelling and probabilistic models that would serve as a useful tool for forest fire prevention, planning and management. Its performance has been demonstrated via real time up-to-date accurate information on the position and evolution of the fire. The system can assist emergency assessment, management and combating of the incident. A site demonstration and validation has been accomplished for the island of Evoia, Greece, an area particularly vulnerable to forest fires due to its ecological characteristics and prevailing wind patterns.
Natural disasters are caused by the exposure and vulnerabilities to natural hazards of people, infrastructure and economic activities. Analysis of these factors has permitted identification of countries and areas within them where disaster-related mortality and economic losses are likely in the future. These high-risk areas are candidates for increased attention to, and investment in, disaster risk identification, reduction and transfer. Plans are underway to further identify disaster risk levels and factors on national and subnational scales in high-risk countries to create evidence for improved risk management decision-making. In this paper, I review selected recent global and regional risk analyses to highlight findings, areas for improvement and next steps in the overall process of using disaster risk information for more effective risk management and cost-effective reduction of losses.
OBJECTIVE: To develop a set of quality criteria for patient decision support technologies (decision aids). DESIGN AND SETTING: Two stage web based Delphi process using online rating process to enable international collaboration. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals from four stakeholder groups (researchers, practitioners, patients, policy makers) representing 14 countries reviewed evidence summaries and rated the importance of 80 criteria in 12 quality domains on a 1 to 9 scale. Second round participants received feedback from the first round and repeated their assessment of the 80 criteria plus three new ones. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Aggregate ratings for each criterion calculated using medians weighted to compensate for different numbers in stakeholder groups; criteria rated between 7 and 9 were retained. RESULTS: 212 nominated people were invited to participate. Of those invited, 122 participated in the first round (77 researchers, 21 patients, 10 practitioners, 14 policy makers); 104/122 (85%) participated in the second round. 74 of 83 criteria were retained in the following domains: systematic development process (9/9 criteria); providing information about options (13/13); presenting probabilities (11/13); clarifying and expressing values (3/3); using patient stories (2/5); guiding/coaching (3/5); disclosing conflicts of interest (5/5); providing internet access (6/6); balanced presentation of options (3/3); using plain language (4/6); basing information on up to date evidence (7/7); and establishing effectiveness (8/8). CONCLUSIONS: Criteria were given the highest ratings where evidence existed, and these were retained. Gaps in research were highlighted. Developers, users, and purchasers of patient decision aids now have a checklist for appraising quality. An instrument for measuring quality of decision aids is being developed.