Search

This paper aims to study how an event, happening within a political community characterised by a high level of interdependence, has an impact on the defence policy of its members. To do so, the paper focuses on British-Polish defence relations after Brexit. Indeed, the United Kingdom signed a defence cooperation agreement (DCA) with Poland in 2017, which is the second with an EU/ NATO Member State (MS) after the Lancaster House treaty signed with France. This case-study questions the thesis positing that DCAS are unlikely to happen between EU/NATO MS as it would lead to overlaps and decoupling. It also determines to what extent this treaty is part of a British strategy to re-create a security network in Europe after Brexit to deter Russia, which is considered as one of the main threats for both countries. Finally, this study deals with the political uses of history. The research analyses how British and Polish actors select memory mines to consolidate friendship in time of uncertainty but also as a shaming strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The abstract presents results of the "InterQuality Project - International Research Project on Financing Quality in Healthcare" funded by the 7th Framework Programme (FP7) for Research and Technological Development of the European Union. Grant Agreement No: HEALTH-F3-2010-261369 Objective: To assess reliability, validity and completeness of data on pharmaceutical benefit financing components of health care in United States, United Kingdom, Denmark, Germany, Italy and Poland Theory: Information and guidance used by authorities for decision making in the financing of pharmaceutical care should be reliable, valid and complete. Methods: A systematic review of literature published in the last 10 years, found electronically in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and SCOPUS, supplemented by a manual search, was conducted. Quality of publications was critically appraised using PRISMA [1], MOOSE [2] and STROBE [3] checklists. Contents of found literature were assessed in terms of consistency, coherence and strength. Results: In total, 439 full text publications were included, of which 198 papers were assessed for quality. Of these, 24,6%, 31,2% and 22,1% publications presented high levels of: consistency, coherence and strength, respectively, and 4,3% presented concurrently high levels of all assessed areas. Several areas of weak data availability were identified. Discussion: No comparable analyses were found. Credible data were often unavailable. A questionnaire and a template helpful to collect data where more information is needed were developed, validated and will be sent to experts from InterQuality Consortium countries. Conclusion: To improve the quality of information available to decision makers, so that it is more credible, multiple sources should be used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]