2 results
Clinical decision-making style preferences of European psychiatrists: Results from the Ambassadors survey in 38 countries
- Martina Rojnic Kuzman, Mike Slade, Bernd Puschner, Elisabetta Scanferla, Zarko Bajic, Philippe Courtet, Jerzy Samochowiec, Celso Arango, Simavi Vahip, Maris Taube, Peter Falkai, Geert Dom, Lubomira Izakova, Bernardo Carpiniello, Marcella Bellani, Andrea Fiorillo, Oleg Skugarevsky, Alma Mihaljevic-Peles, Diogo Telles-Correia, Filipa Novais, Pavel Mohr, Johannes Wancata, Martin Hultén, Eka Chkonia, Judit Balazs, Julian Beezhold, Lars Lien, Goran Mihajlovic, Mirjana Delic, Gabriela Stoppe, Goran Racetovic, Dragan Babic, Ramune Mazaliauskiene, Doina Cozman, Simon Hjerrild, Jana Chihai, William Flannery, Tarja Melartin, Nataliya Maruta, Armen Soghoyan, Philip Gorwood
-
- Journal:
- European Psychiatry / Volume 65 / Issue 1 / 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 October 2022, e75
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Background
While shared clinical decision-making (SDM) is the preferred approach to decision-making in mental health care, its implementation in everyday clinical practice is still insufficient. The European Psychiatric Association undertook a study aiming to gather data on the clinical decision-making style preferences of psychiatrists working in Europe.
MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional online survey involving a sample of 751 psychiatrists and psychiatry specialist trainees from 38 European countries in 2021, using the Clinical Decision-Making Style – Staff questionnaire and a set of questions regarding clinicians’ expertise, training, and practice.
ResultsSDM was the preferred decision-making style across all European regions ([central and eastern Europe, CEE], northern and western Europe [NWE], and southern Europe [SE]), with an average of 73% of clinical decisions being rated as SDM. However, we found significant differences in non-SDM decision-making styles: participants working in NWE countries more often prefer shared and active decision-making styles rather than passive styles when compared to other European regions, especially to the CEE. Additionally, psychiatry specialist trainees (compared to psychiatrists), those working mainly with outpatients (compared to those working mainly with inpatients) and those working in community mental health services/public services (compared to mixed and private settings) have a significantly lower preference for passive decision-making style.
ConclusionsThe preferences for SDM styles among European psychiatrists are generally similar. However, the identified differences in the preferences for non-SDM styles across the regions call for more dialogue and educational efforts to harmonize practice across Europe.
Chapter 2 - Bioenergy
-
- By Helena Chum, Andre Faaij, José Moreira, Göran Berndes, Parveen Dhamija, Hongmin Dong, Benoît Gabrielle, Alison Goss Eng, Wolfgang Lucht, Maxwell Mapako, Omar Masera Cerutti, Terry McIntyre, Tomoaki Minowa, Kim Pingoud, Richard Bain, Ranyee Chiang, David Dawe, Garvin Heath, Martin Junginger, Martin Patel, Joyce Yang, Ethan Warner, David Paré, Suzana Kahn Ribeiro
- Edited by Ottmar Edenhofer, Ramón Pichs-Madruga, Youba Sokona, Kristin Seyboth, Susanne Kadner, Timm Zwickel, Patrick Eickemeier, Gerrit Hansen, Steffen Schlömer, Christoph von Stechow, Patrick Matschoss
-
- Book:
- Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation
- Published online:
- 05 December 2011
- Print publication:
- 21 November 2011, pp 209-332
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Executive Summary
Bioenergy has a significant greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation potential, provided that the resources are developed sustainably and that efficient bioenergy systems are used. Certain current systems and key future options including perennial cropping systems, use of biomass residues and wastes and advanced conversion systems are able to deliver 80 to 90% emission reductions compared to the fossil energy baseline. However, land use conversion and forest management that lead to a loss of carbon stocks (direct) in addition to indirect land use change (d+iLUC) effects can lessen, and in some cases more than neutralize, the net positive GHG mitigation impacts. Impacts of climate change through temperature increases, rainfall pattern changes and increased frequency of extreme events will influence and interact with biomass resource potential. This interaction is still poorly understood, but it is likely to exhibit strong regional differences. Climate change impacts on biomass feedstock production exist but if global temperature rise is limited to less than 2°C compared with the pre-industrial record, it may pose few constraints. Combining adaptation measures with biomass resource production can offer more sustainable opportunities for bioenergy and perennial cropping systems.
Biomass is a primary source of food, fodder and fibre and as a renewable energy (RE) source provided about 10.2% (50.3 EJ) of global total primary energy supply (TPES) in 2008. Traditional use of wood, straws, charcoal, dung and other manures for cooking, space heating and lighting by generally poorer populations in developing countries accounts for about 30.7 EJ, and another 20 to 40% occurs in unaccounted informal sectors including charcoal production and distribution.