Explore the vast range of titles available.

2021 ASHE/CIHE Award for Significant Research on International Higher EducationU.S. Power in International Higher Education explores how internationalization in higher education is not just an educational endeavor, but also a geopolitical one. By centering and making explicit the role of power, the book demonstrates the United States's advantage in international education as well as the changing geopolitical realities that will shape the field in the future. The chapter authors are leading critical scholars of international higher education, with diverse scholarly ties and professional experiences within the country and abroad. Taken together, the chapters provide broad trends as well as in-depth accounts about how power is evident across a range of key international activities. This book is intended for higher education scholars and practitioners with the aim of raising greater awareness on the unequal power dynamics in internationalization activities and for the purposes of promoting more just practices in higher education globally. 

The Ebola virus epidemic has topped media and political agendas for months; several countries in west Africa have faced the worst Ebola epidemic in history. At the beginning of the disease outbreak, European Union (EU) policies were notably absent regarding how to respond to the crisis. Although the epidemic is now receding from public view, this crisis has undoubtedly changed the European public perception of Ebola virus disease, which is no longer regarded as a bizarre entity confined in some unknown corner in Africa. Policy makers and researchers in Europe now have an opportunity to consider the lessons learned. In this Personal View, we discuss the EU's response to the Ebola crisis in west Africa. Unfortunately, although ample resources and opportunities for humanitarian and medical action existed, the EU did not use them to promote a rapid and well coordinated response to the Ebola crisis. Lessons learned from this crisis should be used to improve the role of the EU in similar situations in the future, ensuring that European aid can be effectively deployed to set up an improved emergency response system, and supporting the establishment of sustainable health-care services in west Africa.

Purpose Motivated by the growing and urgent demands for a unified set of internationally accepted, and high-quality environmental, social and governance (hereafter ESG) disclosure standards, this exploratory study aims to propose a roadmap for setting out the proper technical groundwork for global ESG disclosure standards. Design/methodology/approach An exploratory study is conducted to gain initial understanding and insights into establishing a worldwide set of standards for reporting on sustainability, as this topic has not been extensively studied. This study examines the viewpoints of various stakeholders, including sustainability practitioners, academics and organizations focused on ESG issues, to generate knowledge that is more solid than knowledge produced when one group of stakeholders work alone. Findings The results revealed that there is an ongoing and incompatible debate regarding several conceptual and practical challenges for setting a unified set of ESG disclosure standards. Practical implications The study results provide multidimensional insights for regulatory parties and standard-setters to develop a high-quality package of global ESG reporting standards. This, in turn, enables different groups of stakeholders to understand the firm’s impact on the environment, society and economy. Originality/value Research into this timely and relevant global issue is considered an appealing area of study and deserves significant attention. Thereby, working on this topic merits remarkable attention. Furthermore, this exploratory article provides valuable and informative suggestions for creating a unified and high-quality set of internationally accepted sustainability reporting standards.

Following China's example, on March 30, at the direction of US President Donald Trump, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which oversees the nation's major public health programmes, issued what it termed “an unprecedented array of temporary regulatory waivers and new rules to equip the American healthcare system with maximum flexibility to respond to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic”. The risk–benefit ratio for virtual health care has massively shifted and all the red tape has suddenly been cut.” In Italy, although all 20 regions had implemented national telemedicine guidelines as of 2018, hospital managers have been largely caught off guard by the explosion in digital demand, says Elena Sini, information officer for GVM Care & Research, a network of nine private hospitals in northern Italy. With mobile phone use now globally ubiquitous, technological barriers to the adoption of virtual health care are easily surmountable, even in the most resource-scarce settings, notes Alex Jadad, founder of the Centre for Global eHealth Innovation at the University of Toronto, ON, Canada, where he is the director of the Institute for Global Health Equity and Innovation.

Corporate social reporting, while not mandatory in most countries, has been adopted by many large companies around the world and there are now a variety of competing global standards for non-financial reporting, such as the Global Reporting Initiative and the UN Global Compact. However, while some companies (e. g., Henkel, BHP, Johnson and Johnson) have a long standing tradition in reporting non-financial information, other companies provide only limited information, or in some cases, no information at all. Previous studies have suggested that there are, country and industry-specific, differences in the extent of CSR reports (e. g., Kolk et al.: 2001, Business Strategy and the Environment 10, 15-28; Kolk: 2005, Management International Review 45, 145-166; Maignan and Ralston: 2002, Journal of International Business Studies 33(3), 497-514). However, findings are inconclusive or contradictory and it is often difficult to compare previous studies owing to the idiosyncratic methods used in each study (Graafland et al.: 2004, Journal of Business Ethics 53, 137-152). Furthermore, previous studies have relied mainly on simple measures, such as word counts and page counts of reports, to compare the extent of reporting that may not capture significant differences in the content of the reports. In this article, we seek to overcome some of these deficiencies by using textual analysis software and a more robust statistical method to more objectively and reliably compare the CSR reports of firms in different industries and countries. We examine a sample of leading companies in four countries (US, UK, Australia, and Germany) and test whether or not membership of the Global Compact makes a difference to CSR reporting and is overcoming industry and country specific factors that limit standardization. We conclude that GlobalCompact membership is having an effect only in certain areas of CSR reporting, related to the environment and workers, and that businesses from different countries vary significantly in the extent to which they promote CSR and the CSR issues that they choose to emphasize in their reports. These country differences are argued to be related to the different institutional arrangements in each country.

People whose human rights are least protected are likely to experience unique difficulties from COVID-19.1 Women, girls, and marginalised groups are likely to carry a heavier burden of what will be the devastating downstream economic and social consequences of this pandemic.2 A sexual and reproductive health and justice framework—one that centres human rights, acknowledges intersecting injustices, recognises power structures, and unites across identities—is essential for monitoring and addressing the inequitable gender, health, and social effects of COVID-19. Three crucial impacts of the PLGHA include decreased stakeholder coordination and chilling of sexual and reproductive health and rights discussions; reduced access to family planning, with increases in unintended pregnancy and induced abortion; and negative outcomes beyond sexual and reproductive health, including weakened health systems functioning.13 Migration policies of deterrence, including closures at US and European borders, force women to live in informal settlements or conditions of poverty for long periods of time, often without basic sanitation and hygiene or access to health care during antenatal and postnatal periods. [...]the response must eliminate legal and policy restrictions to sexual and reproductive health service provision and reverse the PLGHA and Global Gag Rule to ensure comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care for women and girls around the world.

ObjectivesTo describe new WHO 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour.MethodsThe guidelines were developed in accordance with WHO protocols. An expert Guideline Development Group reviewed evidence to assess associations between physical activity and sedentary behaviour for an agreed set of health outcomes and population groups. The assessment used and systematically updated recent relevant systematic reviews; new primary reviews addressed additional health outcomes or subpopulations.ResultsThe new guidelines address children, adolescents, adults, older adults and include new specific recommendations for pregnant and postpartum women and people living with chronic conditions or disability. All adults should undertake 150–300 min of moderate-intensity, or 75–150 min of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or some equivalent combination of moderate-intensity and vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity, per week. Among children and adolescents, an average of 60 min/day of moderate-to-vigorous intensity aerobic physical activity across the week provides health benefits. The guidelines recommend regular muscle-strengthening activity for all age groups. Additionally, reducing sedentary behaviours is recommended across all age groups and abilities, although evidence was insufficient to quantify a sedentary behaviour threshold.ConclusionThese 2020 WHO guidelines update previous WHO recommendations released in 2010. They reaffirm messages that some physical activity is better than none, that more physical activity is better for optimal health outcomes and provide a new recommendation on reducing sedentary behaviours. These guidelines highlight the importance of regularly undertaking both aerobic and muscle strengthening activities and for the first time, there are specific recommendations for specific populations including for pregnant and postpartum women and people living with chronic conditions or disability. These guidelines should be used to inform national health policies aligned with the WHO Global Action Plan on Physical Activity 2018–2030 and to strengthen surveillance systems that track progress towards national and global targets.

Mechanical ventilation and intravenous sedation were initiated. Because of continuing spasms, intrathecal baclofen (1200 µg per day) was started on day 3 with a good clinical response. No recommendations about tetanus prophylaxis procedures for wound man agement in patients with blood diseases are available, except for bone-marrow transplantation.

•The mass campaign carried out by the emergency import of OPV in 1961 achieved great results for polio control in Japan.•School influenza vaccination in the 1960–80 s was discontinued without adequate and proper evaluation.•The judgment by the Tokyo High Court in 1992 and the discontinuation of the use of the MMR vaccine in 1993 were attributed for the creation of the so-called ‘vaccine gap.’•In the revision of the Immunization Act in 1994, a big change was added to individual vaccination by ‘obligation to make efforts.’•From around 2010, efforts have been made to bridge ‘vaccine gap’ and establish the global standard in vaccination. This paper reviews the administration related to vaccination in Japan after the enactment of the Immunization Act in 1948, under which vaccination was implemented mandatory for the public. To enhance the effectiveness of vaccination activities, the government implemented group vaccination, which is convenient for vaccinating recipients all at once. In 1976, Japan established the relief system for health damage after vaccination. While some projects, such as the mass administration of live oral polio vaccine in 1961, achieved excellent results, incidents leading to health damage occurred, such as the diphtheria toxoid immunization incident (1948) and frequent occurrence of aseptic meningitis owing to the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (1989). In December 1992, the Tokyo High Court sentenced that the onset of health damage after vaccination could be attributed to the negligence of the national government. In the revision of the Immunization Act in 1994, the “mandatory vaccination” enforced until then was changed to “recommended vaccination.” The Act was also changed to recommend “individual vaccination” in principle, which is performed after primary care physicians investigate the physical condition of individual recipients and carefully conduct preliminary examination. For approximately 20 years from the 1990s, a vaccine gap existed between Japan and other countries. From around 2010, efforts have been made to bridge this gap and establish the global standard in vaccination.

Implementation research is important in global health because it addresses the challenges of the know–do gap in real-world settings and the practicalities of achieving national and global health goals. Implementation research is an integrated concept that links research and practice to accelerate the development and delivery of public health approaches. Implementation research involves the creation and application of knowledge to improve the implementation of health policies, programmes, and practices. This type of research uses multiple disciplines and methods and emphasises partnerships between community members, implementers, researchers, and policy makers. Implementation research focuses on practical approaches to improve implementation and to enhance equity, efficiency, scale-up, and sustainability, and ultimately to improve people's health. There is growing interest in the principles of implementation research and a range of perspectives on its purposes and appropriate methods. However, limited efforts have been made to systematically document and review learning from the practice of implementation research across different countries and technical areas. Drawing on an expert review process, this Health Policy paper presents purposively selected case studies to illustrate the essential characteristics of implementation research and its application in low-income and middle-income countries. The case studies are organised into four categories related to the purposes of using implementation research, including improving people's health, informing policy design and implementation, strengthening health service delivery, and empowering communities and beneficiaries. Each of the case studies addresses implementation problems, involves partnerships to co-create solutions, uses tacit knowledge and research, and is based on a shared commitment towards improving health outcomes. The case studies reveal the complex adaptive nature of health systems, emphasise the importance of understanding context, and highlight the role of multidisciplinary, rigorous, and adaptive processes that allow for course correction to ensure interventions have an impact. This Health Policy paper is part of a call to action to increase the use of implementation research in global health, build the field of implementation research inclusive of research utilisation efforts, and accelerate efforts to bridge the gap between research, policy, and practice to improve health outcomes.