Assessment studies: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
==State of the art in benefit–risk analysis: Economics and Marketing-Finance== | ==State of the art in benefit–risk analysis: Economics and Marketing-Finance== | ||
N. Kalogeras, G. Odekerken-Schröder, J.M.E. Pennings, H. Gunnlaugsdottir, F. Holm, O. Leino, J.M. Luteijn, S.H. Magnússon, M.V. Pohjola, M.J. Tijhuis, J.T. Tuomisto, Ø. Ueland, B.C. White, H. Verhagen: State of the art in benefit–risk analysis: Economics and Marketing-Finance. Food and Chemical Toxicology 50 (2012) 56–66{{doi|10.1016/j.fct.2011.07.066}} | |||
N. Kalogeras, G. Odekerken-Schröder, J.M.E. Pennings, H. Gunnlaugsdottir, F. Holm, O. Leino, J.M. Luteijn, S.H. Magnússon, M.V. Pohjola, M.J. Tijhuis, J.T. Tuomisto, Ø. Ueland, B.C. White, H. Verhagen {{doi|10.1016/j.fct.2011.07.066}} | |||
===Abstract=== | ===Abstract=== | ||
Line 52: | Line 50: | ||
for measuring benefit–risk trade-offs in the economics and marketing-finance literature, and different fac- | for measuring benefit–risk trade-offs in the economics and marketing-finance literature, and different fac- | ||
tors that may affect the economic behaviour in the light of benefit–risk analyses. | tors that may affect the economic behaviour in the light of benefit–risk analyses. | ||
Building on the findings of our review, we introduce a conceptual framework to study the benefit–risk | Building on the findings of our review, we introduce a conceptual framework to study the benefit–risk | ||
behaviour of market participants. Specifically, we suggest the decoupling of benefits and risks into the sep- | behaviour of market participants. Specifically, we suggest the decoupling of benefits and risks into the sep- | ||
Line 59: | Line 58: | ||
the drivers of the economic behaviour of market participants with respect to production, marketing and | the drivers of the economic behaviour of market participants with respect to production, marketing and | ||
consumption of food products. | consumption of food products. | ||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
Line 72: | Line 69: | ||
Benefit–risk trade-offs, Decoupling, Utility, Economics, Marketing-Finance | Benefit–risk trade-offs, Decoupling, Utility, Economics, Marketing-Finance | ||
==State of the art in benefit–risk analysis: Medicines== | |||
J.M. Luteijn, B.C. White, H. Gunnlaugsdóttir, F. Holm, N. Kalogeras, O. Leino, S.H. Magnússon, | |||
G. Odekerken, M.V. Pohjola, M.J. Tijhuis, J.T. Tuomisto, Ø. Ueland, P.A. McCarron, H. Verhagen: State of the art in benefit–risk analysis: Medicines. Food and Chemical Toxicology 50 (2012) 26–32 {{doi|10.1016/j.fct.2011.06.008}} | |||
===Abstract=== | |||
Benefit–risk assessment in medicine has been a valuable tool in the regulation of medicines since the | |||
1960s. Benefit–risk assessment takes place in multiple stages during a medicine’s life-cycle and can be | |||
conducted in a variety of ways, using methods ranging from qualitative to quantitative. Each benefit–risk | |||
assessment method is subject to its own specific strengths and limitations. Despite its widespread and | |||
long-time use, benefit–risk assessment in medicine is subject to debate and suffers from a number of lim- | |||
itations and is currently still under development. | |||
This state of the art review paper will discuss the various aspects and approaches to benefit–risk | |||
assessment in medicine in a chronological pathway. The review will discuss all types of benefit–risk | |||
assessment a medicinal product will undergo during its lifecycle, from Phase I clinical trials to post-mar- | |||
keting surveillance and health technology assessment for inclusion in public formularies. The benefit– | |||
risk profile of a drug is dynamic and differs for different indications and patient groups. In the end of this | |||
review we conclude benefit–risk analysis in medicine is a developed practice that is subject to continuous | |||
improvement and modernisation. Improvement not only in methodology, but also in cooperation | |||
between organizations can improve benefit–risk assessment. | |||
<br/> | |||
{{Publication | |||
| authors = J.M. Luteijn, B.C. White, H. Gunnlaugsdóttir, F. Holm, N. Kalogeras, O. Leino, S.H. Magnússon, G. Odekerken, M.V. Pohjola, M.J. Tijhuis, J.T. Tuomisto, Ø. Ueland, P.A. McCarron, H. Verhagen | |||
| page = State of the art in benefit–risk analysis: Medicines | |||
| publishingyear = 2011 | |||
| elsewhere = Food and Chemical Toxicology 50 (2012) 26–32}} |
Revision as of 13:19, 11 April 2012
This page is a study.
The page identifier is Op_en5534 |
---|
Moderator:Heta (see all) |
This page is a stub. You may improve it into a full page. |
Upload data
|
Pragmatic knowledge services
Mikko V. Pohjola, Pasi Pohjola, Sami Paavola, Merja Bauters, Jouni T. Tuomisto: Pragmatic knowledge services. Journal of Universal Computer Science, vol. 17, no. 3 (2011), 472-497 submitted: 30/10/10, accepted: 28/1/11, appeared: 1/2/11 © J.UCS
Abstract
Knowledge, innovations and their implementation in effective practices are essential for development in all fields of societal action, e.g. policy, business, health, education, and everyday life. However, managing the interrelations between knowledge, innovation and practice is complicated. Facilitation by suitable knowledge services is needed. This paper explores the theory of converging knowledge, innovation, and practice, discusses some advances in information systems development, and identifies general requirements for pragmatic knowledge services. A trialogical approach to knowledge creation and learning is adopted as a viable theoretical basis. Also three examples of novel knowledge services Opasnet, Innovillage, and Knowledge Practices Environment (KPE), are presented. Eventually, it is concluded that pragmatic knowledge services, as hybrid systems of information technology and its users, are not only means for creation of practical knowledge, but vehicles of a cultural change from individualistic perceptions of knowledge work towards mediated collaboration.
Mikko V. Pohjola, Pasi Pohjola, Sami Paavola, Merja Bauters, Jouni T. Tuomisto: Pragmatic knowledge services. Opasnet 2011. [1]. Accessed 22 Aug 2024. This page has also been published elsewhere: Journal of Universal Computer Science, vol. 17, no. 3 (2011), 472-497.
Keywords
Collective knowledge, Trialogical approach, Innovation, Knowledge practices, Pragmatism, Collaborative knowledge services, Open assessment, Opasnet, Innovillage, KP-Lab, KPE
State of the art in benefit–risk analysis: Economics and Marketing-Finance
N. Kalogeras, G. Odekerken-Schröder, J.M.E. Pennings, H. Gunnlaugsdottir, F. Holm, O. Leino, J.M. Luteijn, S.H. Magnússon, M.V. Pohjola, M.J. Tijhuis, J.T. Tuomisto, Ø. Ueland, B.C. White, H. Verhagen: State of the art in benefit–risk analysis: Economics and Marketing-Finance. Food and Chemical Toxicology 50 (2012) 56–66doi:10.1016/j.fct.2011.07.066
Abstract
All market participants (e.g., investors, producers, consumers) accept a certain level of risk as necessary to achieve certain benefits. There are many types of risk including price, production, financial, institutional, and individual human risks. All these risks should be effectively managed in order to derive the utmost of benefits and avoid disruption and/or catastrophic economic consequences for the food industry. The iden- tification, analysis, determination, and understanding of the benefit–risk trade-offs of market participants in the food markets may help policy makers, financial analysts and marketers to make well-informed and effective corporate investment strategies in order to deal with highly uncertain and risky situations. In this paper, we discuss the role that benefits and risks play in the formation of the decision-making pro- cess of market-participants, who are engaged in the upstream and downstream stages of the food supply chain. In addition, we review the most common approaches (expected utility model and psychometrics) for measuring benefit–risk trade-offs in the economics and marketing-finance literature, and different fac- tors that may affect the economic behaviour in the light of benefit–risk analyses.
Building on the findings of our review, we introduce a conceptual framework to study the benefit–risk behaviour of market participants. Specifically, we suggest the decoupling of benefits and risks into the sep- arate components of utilitarian benefits, hedonic benefits, and risk attitude and risk perception, respec- tively. Predicting and explaining how market participants in the food industry form their overall attitude in light of benefit–risk trade-offs may be critical for policy-makers and managers who need to understand the drivers of the economic behaviour of market participants with respect to production, marketing and consumption of food products.
N. Kalogeras, G. Odekerken-Schröder, J.M.E. Pennings, H. Gunnlaugsdottir, F. Holm, O. Leino, J.M. Luteijn, S.H. Magnússon, M.V. Pohjola, M.J. Tijhuis, J.T. Tuomisto, Ø. Ueland, B.C. White, H. Verhagen: State of the art in benefit–risk analysis: Economics and Marketing-Finance. Opasnet 2012. [2]. Accessed 22 Aug 2024. This page has also been published elsewhere: Food and Chemical Toxicology 50 (2012) 56–66.
Keywords
Benefit–risk trade-offs, Decoupling, Utility, Economics, Marketing-Finance
State of the art in benefit–risk analysis: Medicines
J.M. Luteijn, B.C. White, H. Gunnlaugsdóttir, F. Holm, N. Kalogeras, O. Leino, S.H. Magnússon, G. Odekerken, M.V. Pohjola, M.J. Tijhuis, J.T. Tuomisto, Ø. Ueland, P.A. McCarron, H. Verhagen: State of the art in benefit–risk analysis: Medicines. Food and Chemical Toxicology 50 (2012) 26–32 doi:10.1016/j.fct.2011.06.008
Abstract
Benefit–risk assessment in medicine has been a valuable tool in the regulation of medicines since the 1960s. Benefit–risk assessment takes place in multiple stages during a medicine’s life-cycle and can be conducted in a variety of ways, using methods ranging from qualitative to quantitative. Each benefit–risk assessment method is subject to its own specific strengths and limitations. Despite its widespread and long-time use, benefit–risk assessment in medicine is subject to debate and suffers from a number of lim- itations and is currently still under development.
This state of the art review paper will discuss the various aspects and approaches to benefit–risk assessment in medicine in a chronological pathway. The review will discuss all types of benefit–risk assessment a medicinal product will undergo during its lifecycle, from Phase I clinical trials to post-mar- keting surveillance and health technology assessment for inclusion in public formularies. The benefit– risk profile of a drug is dynamic and differs for different indications and patient groups. In the end of this review we conclude benefit–risk analysis in medicine is a developed practice that is subject to continuous improvement and modernisation. Improvement not only in methodology, but also in cooperation between organizations can improve benefit–risk assessment.
J.M. Luteijn, B.C. White, H. Gunnlaugsdóttir, F. Holm, N. Kalogeras, O. Leino, S.H. Magnússon, G. Odekerken, M.V. Pohjola, M.J. Tijhuis, J.T. Tuomisto, Ø. Ueland, P.A. McCarron, H. Verhagen: State of the art in benefit–risk analysis: Medicines. Opasnet 2011. [3]. Accessed 22 Aug 2024. This page has also been published elsewhere: Food and Chemical Toxicology 50 (2012) 26–32.