Search

Background: Very little attention has been given to the social accountability of conferences, either in action or in scholarship, in particular, of scientific conferences. Concerns that have been raised include: (1) Local communities and regions suffer from ecological pressure caused by conferences, (2) There is limited value to the local community, (3) International conferences take place at locations irrelevant to the topics discussed; hence there is no connection with locals, and (4) It has been the observation of the authors that <10% of participants may come from the region where the conference is organized, which makes it challenging to make a "positive societal impact" locally. We conducted a natural experiment investigating the interactions between academia, conference organizers, and community leaders. Methods: We utilized a case study approach to report on the outcomes of two 2022 annual international conferences that seek to improve community health. We used a mixed-methods approach of surveys and interviews. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify the key themes. Results: We obtained 358 responses from all six World Health Organization regions. Results from both conferences were split into two categories: the why and the how. A strong consensus among participants is that bi-directional learning between conference organizers and local communities leads to shared understanding and mutual goals. The data emphasize that including communities in academic conferences helps us progress forward from intentions toward demonstrating accountability and reporting impact. Discussion: A diversity of perspectives is needed to advance socially accountable health system transformation. Five best practices from conference participants are laid out as a framework to assist in the change: (1) Build trust, (2) provide funding for community member participation, (3) appreciation of local community knowledge, (4) involve the local community in the planning stages, and (5) make the local community part of the conference and learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last decade there have been a number of seismic shifts in the hearing implant landscape. This has been led by marked advances in hearing implant technology, surgery and rehabilitation. The criteria for cochlear implantation has broadened dramatically for all ages. At the same time, there has been heightened clinical expertise in hearing implants demonstrated by clinicians across the industry. People are now more knowledgeable and demanding of independent decision-making so they can actively control their own hearing implant care. Australia has excellent access to cochlear implant innovation, technology and clinical care, with well qualified medical and allied health professionals. When indicated, hearing implants are available for unilateral and bilateral hearing losses, in children and adults and across all socioeconomic strata. Despite this rich and ripe environment, we have in Australia the embarrassing statistic that only one in ten adults who could benefit from a cochlear implant eventually accesses the benefit of such technology. Furthermore, those people who eventually do receive a cochlear implant often do so after years of unnecessary and unacceptable delay. This inadequacy is a reflection of a wanting healthcare delivery model for implantable hearing solutions in Australia, particularly in its regional areas. Presently there are the technological tools to address this, including e-consultation, remote programming and the utilisation of cloud--based technology. This paper will review an innovative new hearing health service established in Australia and take a detailed look at the barriers experienced by people considering hearing implants and how each are being address to improve access to implantable hearing devices. this includes challenging all medical and hearing clinicians to rethink, revisit and re-shape the means of referring people for the hearing implant care they need and deserve. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]