The Generations and Gender Survey (GGS) is a panel study on families, life course trajectories and gender relations. The GGS is part of the Generations and Gender Programme (GGP), a unique research infrastructure providing open access data to registered researchers. We will be focusing on the GGS waves that were already collected. With large samples per country, the GGS microdata provides researchers with a key resource to examine changes in family life, inter-generational and gender relations. The analysis of these trends is at the core of the research produced in several social science disciplines and the GGS data users have extensively used it to better understand topics such as the transition to adulthood, partnership formation and dissolution, fertility, gender roles and caring responsibilities. In the first part of this study profile, we focus on the design features of the GGS (data collection and adjustment, panel maintenance, and coverage) and subsequently we provide an overview of the organisational setup and outputs of the GGP. In the last part we reflect on the opportunities and challenges ahead of the next round of data collection.
We seek to advance debate and thinking about economic democracy. While recognising the importance of existing approaches focused upon collective bargaining and workplace organisation, we articulate a perspective that emphasises the importance of individual economic rights, capabilities and freedoms at a time when established norms and protections at work are in retreat in many parts of the world. We outline a framework where both individual rights to self-government of one’s own labour, as well as the right of all citizens to participate in economic decision-making, are emphasised. The framework identifies a set of underlying principles, prerequisites, critical spheres for intervention, progressive institutional arrangements, and policies in pursuit of an expanded agenda around economic democracy. In this way, economic democracy potentially empowers individuals and creates the basis for generating new and sustainable alliances that challenge elite dominance in contemporary capitalism.
In the European Union (EU) the delivery of health services is a national responsibility but there are concerted actions between member states to protect public health. Approval of pharmaceutical products is the responsibility of the European Medicines Agency, while authorising the placing on the market of medical devices is decentralised to independent ‘conformity asssessment’ organisations called notified bodies. The first legal basis for an EU system of evaluating medical devices and approving their market access was the medical device directives, from the 1990s. Uncertainties about clinical evidence requirements, among other reasons, led to the EU Medical Device Regulation (2017/745) that has applied since May 2021. It provides general principles for clinical investigations but few methodological details ‒ which challenges responsible authorities to set appropriate balances between regulation and innovation, pre- and post-market studies, and clinical trials and real-world evidence. Scientific experts should advise on methods and standards for assessing and approving new high-risk devices, and safety, efficacy, and transparency of evidence should be paramount. The European Commission recently awarded a Horizon 2020 grant to a consortium led by the European Society of Cardiology and the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, that will review methodologies of clinical investigations, advise on study designs, and develop recommendations for aggregating clinical data from registries and other real-world sources. The CORE‒MD project (Coordination of Research and Evidence for Medical Devices) will run until March 2024; here we describe how it may contribute to the development of regulatory science in Europe.
Face-to-face interviews are still the standard in conducting cross-national surveys. Although web surveys have many advantages, so far they have rarely been used in cross-national surveys. The main problem of using web in cross-national surveys are coverage error of people without internet access and problems with the availability of sampling frames. This study reports on a large-scale experiment with a push-to-web survey design in Croatia, Germany and Portugal to overcome these problems.We experimentally assigned individuals to a face-to-face only condition or a push-to-web condition, in which non-respondents to the web-phase of the study were followed-up by face-to-face interviewers. We additionally conducted three within-country experiments to better understand how incentive structures (in Germany) and the spacing of reminders (In Croatia) affected response rates and nonresponse bias. In Portugal, we test different within-household selection procedures.We find that in Germany and Croatia the push-to-web design was equally or more successful than the face-to-face survey in terms of the response rate and nonresponse bias. In Portugal, the push-to-web design was not successful, leading to low response rates and problems in the respondent selection process. We also find that a mix of unconditional and conditional incentives works best, and that weekly reminders work better than two-weekly reminders. Overall, we conclude that it is possible to use a push-to-web design as long as a sampling frame of individuals is available.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.