Subjects -> OCCUPATIONS AND CAREERS (Total: 33 journals)
Showing 1 - 23 of 23 Journals sorted alphabetically
Advances in Developing Human Resources     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 32)
American Journal of Pastoral Counseling     Hybrid Journal  
BMC Palliative Care     Open Access   (Followers: 39)
British Journal of Guidance & Counselling     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 22)
Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Career Development Quarterly     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Community Development     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25)
Entrepreneurship Research Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16)
Field Actions Science Reports     Open Access  
Formation emploi     Open Access  
Health Care Analysis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16)
Human Resource Development Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 32)
Industrial and Organizational Psychology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 28)
International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
International Journal for Quality in Health Care     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 41)
International Journal of Work Innovation     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Journal of Career Assessment     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Journal of Career Development     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Journal of Human Capital     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 12)
Journal of Human Development and Capabilities : A Multi-Disciplinary Journal for People-Centered Development     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24)
Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6)
Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
Journal of Vocational Behavior     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 27)
Neurocritical Care     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17)
Palliative & Supportive Care     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 37)
Performance Improvement Quarterly     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Professions and Professionalism     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Recherches & éducations     Open Access  
Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Trabajo : Revista de la Asociación Estatal de Centros Universitarios de Relaciones Laborales y Ciencias del Trabajo     Open Access  
Vocations and Learning     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
Work and Occupations     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 53)
Work, Employment & Society     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 49)
Similar Journals
Journal Cover
Health Care Analysis
Journal Prestige (SJR): 0.445
Citation Impact (citeScore): 1
Number of Followers: 16  
 
  Hybrid Journal Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
ISSN (Print) 1573-3394 - ISSN (Online) 1065-3058
Published by Springer-Verlag Homepage  [2626 journals]
  • Prospective Intention-Based Lifestyle Contracts: mHealth Technology and
           Responsibility in Healthcare
    • Abstract: Abstract As the rising costs of lifestyle-related diseases place increasing strain on public healthcare systems, the individual’s role in disease may be proposed as a healthcare rationing criterion. Literature thus far has largely focused on retrospective responsibility in healthcare. The concept of prospective responsibility, in the form of a lifestyle contract, warrants further investigation. The responsibilisation in healthcare debate also needs to take into account innovative developments in mobile health technology, such as wearable biometric devices and mobile apps, which may change how we hold others accountable for their lifestyles. Little is known about public attitudes towards lifestyle contracts and the use of mobile health technology to hold people responsible in the context of healthcare. This paper has two components. Firstly, it details empirical findings from a survey of 81 members of the United Kingdom general public on public attitudes towards individual responsibility and rationing healthcare, prospective and retrospective responsibility, and the acceptability of lifestyle contracts in the context of mobile health technology. Secondly, we draw on the empirical findings and propose a model of prospective intention-based lifestyle contracts, which is both more aligned with public intuitions and less ethically objectionable than more traditional, retrospective models of responsibility in healthcare.
      PubDate: 2021-01-11
       
  • Understanding Government Decisions to De-fund Medical Services Analyzing
           the Impact of Problem Frames on Resource Allocation Policies
    • Abstract: Abstract Many medical services lack robust evidence of effectiveness and may therefore be considered “unnecessary” care. Proactively withdrawing resources from, or de-funding, such services and redirecting the savings to services that have proven effectiveness would enhance overall health system performance. Despite this, governments have been reluctant to discontinue funding of services once funding is in place. The focus of this study is to understand how the framing of an issue or problem influences government decision-making related to de-funding of medical services. To achieve this, a framework describing how problem frames, or explanatory naratives, influence government policy decisions was developed and applied to actual cases. The two cases selected were the Ontario government’s decisions to de-fund the drug Oxycontin and blood glucose test strips used by patients with diabetes. A qualitative content analysis of public discourse (political debate and media coverage) surrounding these two resource withdrawal examples was conducted and described using the framework. In the framework, government decision-making is a partial reflection of the visibility of the policy issue and complexity of the causal story told within a problem frame. By applying this framework and considering these two key characteristics of problem frames, we can better understand, and possibly predict, the shape and timing of government policy decisions to withdraw resources from medical services.
      PubDate: 2021-01-02
       
  • ‘We Should View Him as an Individual’: The Role of the Child’s
           Future Autonomy in Shared Decision-Making About Unsolicited Findings in
           Pediatric Exome Sequencing
    • Abstract: Abstract In debates about genetic testing of children, as well as about disclosing unsolicited findings (UFs) of pediatric exome sequencing, respect for future autonomy should be regarded as a prima facie consideration for not taking steps that would entail denying the future adult the opportunity to decide for herself about what to know about her own genome. While the argument can be overridden when other, morally more weighty considerations are at stake, whether this is the case can only be determined in concrete cases. Importantly, when children grow into adolescents, respect for future autonomy will have to give way to respecting their emerging autonomy. When pediatric exome sequencing is done for complex conditions not involving developmental delay, respect for the child’s future or emerging autonomy should be a primary consideration for those charged with deciding on behalf of the child. Building on what Emanuel and Emanuel have termed the ‘deliberative model’ of shared decision making, we argue that if parents fail to give these considerations their due, professionals should actively invite them to do so. Taking a directive stance may be needed in order to make sure that the future or emerging autonomy of the child are duly considered in the decision-making process, but also to help the parents and themselves to shape their respective roles as responsible care-givers.
      PubDate: 2021-01-02
       
  • The Satisfaction with Life Scale: Philosophical Foundation and Practical
           Limitations
    • Abstract: Abstract Research and policymaking on positive mental health and well-being have increased within the last decade, partly fueled by decreasing levels of well-being in the general population and among at-risk groups. However, measurement of well-being often takes place in the absence of reflection on the underlying theoretical conceptualization of well-being. This disguises the fact that different rating scales of well-being often measure very different phenomena because rating scales are based on different philosophical assumptions, which represent radically different foundational views about the nature of well-being. The aim of this paper is to examine the philosophical foundation of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) in order to clarify the underlying normative commitments and the psychometric compromises involved in the translation of theory into practice. SWLS is widely used by psychologists, public health professionals, economists, and is popular in national and international surveys of well-being. This paper introduces the philosophical theory of life satisfaction and explores how three central discussions within life satisfaction theory are reflected in the construction of the SWLS; (1) Whether we should be equally satisfied with our past, present and future, (2) Whether we should be satisfied with all the various domains of our lives, and (3) How to avoid the trap of “false consciousness”, i.e. that people fail to recognize the injustice or misfortune of their lives. In the end, life satisfaction theory is contrasted with affective foundational theories of well-being, to explore the magnitude and limits of SWLS as a rating scale based on life satisfaction theory.
      PubDate: 2021-01-02
       
  • Identifying and Classifying Tools for Health Policy Ethics Review: A
           Systematic Search and Review
    • Abstract: Abstract Ethical review and analysis of health policy may help to ensure policies address the needs of society and align with relevant values and principles. Indeed, researchers and bioethicists have recognized the need for ethical frameworks specifically for public health applications. The objective of this research was to compile structured tools for ethical review of (drafted or existing) health policy and to analyze these tools for their scope and philosophical underpinnings. A systematic search and review of academic and grey literature was conducted to compile existing tools designed for health policy ethics review. The search yielded 13 health policy ethical review tools. Qualitative content analysis revealed that all of the tools were influenced by multiple ethical values and that a majority were influenced by more than one ethical theory. The most common values were non-maleficence and beneficence (92.3%). The most common influencing ethical theory was the Principles Approach (92.3%). The structure of the tools demonstrates a heterogeneity of methodology designs to approach policy ethics review. This research offers a unique contribution to the bioethics field that provides a useful resource and understanding of the current ethical review tools for health policy.
      PubDate: 2021-01-01
       
  • Responsibility for Funding Refractive Correction in Publicly Funded Health
           Care Systems: An Ethical Analysis
    • Abstract: Abstract Allocating on the basis of need is a distinguishing principle in publicly funded health care systems. Resources ought to be directed to patients, or the health program, where the need is considered greatest. In Sweden support of this principle can be found in health care legislation. Today however some domains of what appear to be health care needs are excluded from the responsibilities of the publicly funded health care system. Corrections of eye disorders known as refractive errors is one such domain. In this article the moral legitimacy of this exception is explored. Individuals with refractive errors need spectacles, contact lenses or refractive surgery to do all kinds of thing, including participating in everyday activities, managing certain jobs, and accomplishing various goals in life. The relief of correctable visual impairments fits well into the category of what we typically consider a health care need. The study of refractive errors does belong to the field of medical science, interventions to correct such errors can be performed by medical means, and the skills of registered health care professionals are required when it comes to correcting refractive error. As visual impairments caused by other conditions than refractive errors are treated and funded within the public health care system in Sweden this is an inconsistency that needs to be addressed.
      PubDate: 2020-12-23
       
  • Made to Measure: The Ethics of Routine Measurement for Healthcare
           Improvement
    • Abstract: Abstract This paper analyses the ethics of routine measurement for healthcare improvement. Routine measurement is an increasingly central part of healthcare system design and is taken to be necessary for successful healthcare improvement efforts. It is widely recognised that the effectiveness of routine measurement in bringing about improvement is limited—it often produces only modest effects or fails to generate anticipated improvements at all. We seek to show that these concerns do not exhaust the ethics of routine measurement. Even if routine measurement does lead to healthcare improvements, it has associated ethical costs which are not necessarily justified by its benefits. We argue that the practice of routine measurement changes the function of the healthcare system, resulting in an unintended and ethically significant transformation of the sector. It is difficult to determine whether such changes are justified or offset by the benefits of routine measurement because there may be no shared understanding of what is ‘good’ in healthcare by which to compare the benefits of routine measurement with the goods that are precluded by it. We counsel that the practice of routine measurement should proceed with caution and should be recognised to be an ethically significant choice, rather than an inevitability.
      PubDate: 2020-12-20
       
  • Harm Reduction: A Misnomer
    • Abstract: Abstract ‘Harm reduction’ programs are usually justified on the utilitarian grounds that they aim to reduce the net harms of a behavior. In this paper, I contend that (1) the historical genesis of harm reduction programs, and the crucial moral imperative that distinguishes these programs from other interventions and policies, are not utilitarian; (2) the practical implementation of harm reduction programs is not, and probably cannot be, utilitarian; and (3) the continued justification of harm reduction on utilitarian grounds is untenable and may itself cause harm. Promoting harm reduction programs as utilitarian in the public arena disregards their deeper prioritarian impulses. ‘Harm reduction’ is a misnomer, and the name should be abandoned sooner rather than later.
      PubDate: 2020-11-05
       
  • Collateral Paternalism and Liberal Critiques of Public Health Policy:
           Diminishing Theoretical Demandingness and Accommodating the Devil in the
           Detail
    • Abstract: Critical literatures, and public discourses, on public health policies and practices often present fixated concerns with paternalism. In this paper, rather than focus on the question of whether and why intended instances of paternalistic policy might be justified, we look to the wider, real-world socio-political contexts against which normative evaluations of public health must take place. We explain how evaluative critiques of public health policy and practice must be sensitive to the nuance and complexity of policy contexts. This includes sensitivity to the ‘imperfect’ reach and application of policy, leading to collateral effects including collateral paternalism. We argue that theoretical critiques must temper their demandingness to real-world applicability, allowing for the detail of social and policy contexts, including harm reduction: apparent knock-down objections of paternalism cannot hold if they are limited to an abstract or artificially-isolated evaluation of the reach of a public health intervention.
      PubDate: 2020-11-04
       
  • Harm Reduction: A Research Agenda
    • PubDate: 2020-11-03
       
  • Correction to: Complicity in Harm Reduction
    • Abstract: The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The fourth sentence of third paragraph under section Do Harm Reduction Programs Condone Harm' Should be “One of us (Corvino)” instead of “One of us (name removed for blinded manuscript)”. The original article has been corrected.
      PubDate: 2020-11-03
       
  • Harm Reduction Policies Where Drugs Constitute a Security Issue
    • Abstract: Abstract There is strong evidence suggesting that harm reduction policies are able to reduce the adverse health and social consequences of drug use. However, in this article I will compare two different countries to demonstrate that some social aspects lead to the adoption or rejection of harm reduction policies. In this case, countries where drugs are seen as a security concern are less likely to adopt these harm reduction policies. For that purpose, I will compare Colombia and Uruguay’s political, normative, and social aspects, which are considered drivers in the adoption of harm reduction policies, as well as how those factors influence the treatments available for substance abuse disorders.
      PubDate: 2020-11-02
       
  • Toward a Philosophy of Harm Reduction
    • Abstract: Abstract In this paper, I offer a prolegomenon to the philosophy of harm reduction. I begin with an overview of the philosophical literature on both harm and harm reduction, and a brief summary of harm reduction scholarship outside of philosophy in order to make the case that philosophers have something to contribute to understanding harm reduction, and moreover that engagement with harm reduction would improve philosophical scholarship. I then proceed to survey and assess the nascent and still modest philosophy of harm reduction literature that has begun to emerge. I pay particular attention to two Canadian philosophers who have called for the expansion of harm reduction beyond the realm of so-called “vice” (that is, addiction, intoxicants and sex work). Finally, I sketch some of the most interesting and important philosophical issues that I think the philosophy of harm reduction must grapple with going forward.
      PubDate: 2020-10-29
       
  • What Do We Mean When We Call Someone a Drug Addict'
    • Abstract: Abstract When thinking about the harms of drug addiction, there is a tendency to focus on the harms of drug consumption. But not all harms associated with drug addiction are caused by drug consumption. There is at least another dimension of harm worth considering: what I call the linguistic harm of drug addiction. Starting with an analysis of ‘drug addict’ as it appears in the media, I argue that ‘drug addict’ is inconsistently applied to people with drug addiction and that this inconsistency reveals two important features of the term. First, being called a ‘drug addict’ is worse than being described as ‘having a drug problem’. Second, being called a drug addict exacerbates the challenges experienced by people with drug addiction. Referencing the ‘addict’ narrative, I detail how calling someone a drug addict can add to the marginalization of people with drug addiction and argue that to eliminate the linguistic harm of drug addiction, we ought to reduce it first. Using the analysis of ‘drug addict’ from the first half of the paper, I propose a novel harm reduction strategy that benefits people with drug addiction but calls on people who do not use drugs.
      PubDate: 2020-10-26
       
  • Disgust or Dignity' The Moral Basis of Harm Reduction
    • Abstract: Abstract Harm reduction has been advocated to address a diverse range of public health concerns. The moral justification of harm reduction is usually presumed to be consequentialist because the goal of harm reduction is to reduce the harmful health consequences of risky behaviors, such as substance use. Harm reduction is contrasted with an abstinence model whose goal is to eradicate or reduce the prevalence of such behaviors. The abstinence model is often thought to be justified by ‘deontological’ considerations: it is claimed that many risky behaviors are morally unacceptable, and therefore that we have a moral obligation to recommend abstinence. Because harm reduction is associated with a consequentialist justification and the abstinence model is associated with a deontological justification, the potential for a deontological justification of harm reduction has been overlooked. This paper addresses this gap. It argues that the moral duty to protect autonomy and dignity that has been advocated in other areas of medical ethics also justifies the public health policy of harm reduction. It offers two examples—the provision of supervised injection sites and the Housing First policy to address homelessness—to illustrate the argument.
      PubDate: 2020-10-24
       
  • Disagreement, Unenforceability, and Harm Reduction
    • Abstract: Abstract Talk of harm reduction has expanded horizontally, to apply to an ever-widening range of policy domains, and vertically, becoming part of official legal and political discourse. This expansion calls for philosophical theorization. What is the best way in which to characterize harm reduction' Does it represent a distinctive ethical position' How is it best morally justified, and what are its moral limits' I distinguish two varieties of harm reduction. One of them, technocratic harm reduction, is premised on the fact of non-enforceability of prohibitionist policies. The second, deliberative harm reduction, is premised on the fact of reasonable disagreement, grounded in the fact that reasonable persons disagree about a range of controversial behaviours. I argue that deliberative harm reduction better accounts for some of harm reduction’s most attractive features, and provides a plausible way of accounting for harm reductions’s justificatory grounds and limits.
      PubDate: 2020-10-24
       
  • Harm Reduction Works: Evidence and Inclusion in Drug Policy and Advocacy
    • Abstract: Abstract One of harm reduction’s most salient features is its pragmatism. Harm reduction purports to distinguish itself from dominant prohibitionist and abstinence-based policy paradigms by being grounded in what is realistic, in contrast with the moralism or puritanism of prohibition and abstention. This is reflected in the meme “harm reduction works”, popular both in institutional and grassroots settings. The idea that harm reduction is realistic and effective has meant different things among the main actors who seek to shape harm reduction policy. Drawing on scholarly literature about harm reduction, as well as examples from recent harm reduction advocacy efforts in relation to drug policy in Canada, this paper argues that harm reduction distinguishes itself through a unique “way of knowing”. Grassroots harm reduction advocates, particularly as they argue through human rights frameworks, do more than simply make claims for the provision of particular services—like needle exchange, safe consumption sites, safe supply and the like—on the basis that these are realistic paths toward the health and well-being of people who use drugs. Rather, as they marshal lived experience in support of these policy changes through peer-driven initiatives in contexts of prohibition, they make particular claims about what constitute valid, methodologically rigorous evidence bases for action in contexts where policies to date have been driven by ideology and have developed in ways that have excluded and marginalized those most affected from policymaking. In doing so, they advocate for the centrality of people who use drugs not only in policy-making processes, but in evidence production itself.
      PubDate: 2020-10-20
       
  • Parental Licensing as Harm Reduction
    • Abstract: Abstract In this paper, I will argue that some prominent objections to parental licensing rely on dubious claims about the existence of a very stringent, if not indefeasible, right to parent, which would be violated by licensing. I claim that attaching such stringency to the right only makes sense if we make a number of idealising assumptions. Otherwise, it is deeply implausible. Instead, I argue that we should evaluate parental licensing policies in much the same way we would harm reduction policies. By adopting this critical perspective, we can see that there are powerful, but quite different, reasons to be cautious about parental licensing relating to our ability to minimize the harmful effects of mass-parenting in a world of minimal surveillance and intervention.
      PubDate: 2020-10-17
       
  • Kantian Harm Reduction
    • Abstract: Abstract The justification for harm reduction as an approach to drug use and addiction is seen by many to be consequentialist in form and it has been claimed that as a deontologist Kant would reject harm reduction. I argue this is wrong on both counts. A more nuanced understanding of harm reduction and Kant shows them compatible. Kant’s own remarks about intoxication reinforce this. Moreover, there is a Kantian argument that harm reduction is not only morally permissible but more consistent with the Kantian duty of respect for autonomy than mandatory abstinence approaches.
      PubDate: 2020-10-16
       
  • Complicity in Harm Reduction
    • Abstract: Abstract At first glance, it seems difficult to object to any program that merits the label “harm reduction.” If harm is bad, as everyone recognizes, then surely reducing it is good. What’s the problem' The problem, we submit, is twofold. First, there’s more to “harm reduction,” as that term is typically used, than simply the reduction of harm. Some of the wariness about harm-reduction programs may result from the nebulous “more.” Thus, part of our task is to provide a clear definition of harm reduction. Next, we turn to a second problem: a worry about complicity. Those who object to harm reduction programs fear that participation in such programs would make them complicit in activities they deem immoral. In this paper we argue that this fear is largely unwarranted. We use supervised injection sites (SISs)—safe spaces for the use of risky drugs—as our paradigmatic case of harm reduction. These SISs are generally offered in the hope of reducing harm to both the drug user and the public. For this reason, our analysis focuses on complicity in harm. We draw upon the work of Gregory Mellema as our framework. Mellema offers three ways one can be complicit in harm caused by another: by enabling, facilitating or condoning it. We argue that one who operates an SIS is not complicit in any of these ways, while also laying out the conditions that must be met if one is to argue that harm reduction entails complicity in non-consequentialist wrongdoing.
      PubDate: 2020-10-13
       
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
 


Your IP address: 3.237.205.144
 
Home (Search)
API
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-