Search

Contains fulltext : 297351.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Worldwide, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) were implemented during the COVID-19 crisis, which heavily impacted the daily lives of citizens. This study considers public perspectives on whether and how public engagement (PE) can contribute to future decision-making about NPIs. METHODS: An online survey was conducted among a representative sample of the public in the Netherlands from 27 October to 9 November 2021. Perceptions and preferences about PE in decision-making on NPIs to control COVID-19 were collected. Preferences regarding four NPIs were studied: Nightly curfew (NC); Digital Covid Certificate (DCC); Closure of elementary schools and daycares (CED); and physical distancing (1.5M). Engagement was surveyed based on the five participation modes of the IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation, namely inform, consult, advice, collaborate and empower. RESULTS: Of the 4981 respondents, 25% expressed a desire to engage in decision-making, as they thought engagement could improve their understanding and the quality of NPIs, as well as increase their trust in the government. Especially for the NPIs DCC and NC, respondents found it valuable to engage and provide their perspective on trade-offs in values (e.g. opening up society versus division in society by vaccination status). Respondents agreed that the main responsibility in decision-making should stay with experts and policy-makers. 50% of respondents did not want to engage, as they felt no need to engage or considered themselves insufficiently knowledgeable. Inform was deemed the most preferred mode of engagement, and empower the least preferred mode of engagement. CONCLUSION: We reveal large variations in public preferences regarding engagement in NPI decision-making. With 25% of respondents expressing an explicit desire to engage, and considering the benefit of PE in other areas of (public) health, opportunities for PE in NPI decision-making might have been overlooked during the COVID-19 pandemic

Contains fulltext : 287786.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: In the management of epidemics, like COVID-19, trade-offs have to be made between reducing mortality and morbidity and minimizing socioeconomic and political consequences. Traditionally, epidemic management (EM) has been guided and executed attentively by experts and policymakers. It can, however, still be controversial in the public sphere. In the last decades, public engagement (PE) has been successfully applied in various aspects of healthcare. This leads to the question if PE could be implemented in EM decision-making. METHODS: From June to October 2020, seven deliberative discussion focus groups were executed with 35 Dutch citizens between 19 and 84 years old. Their views on PE in COVID-19 management were explored. The deliberative approach allows for the education of participants on the topic before the discussion. The benefits, barriers, timing and possible forms of PE in EM were discussed. RESULTS: Almost all participants supported PE in EM, as they thought that integrating their experiences and ideas would benefit the quality of EM, and increase awareness and acceptance of measures. A fitting mode for PE was consultation, as it was deemed important to provide the public with possibilities to share ideas and feedback; however, final authority remained with experts. The publics could particularly provide input about communication campaigns and control measures. PE could be executed after the first acute phase of the epidemic and during evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: This paper describes the construction of an empirically informed framework about the values and conditions for PE in EM from the perspective of the public. Participants expressed support to engage certain population groups and considered it valuable for the quality and effectiveness of EM; however, they expressed doubts about the feasibility of PE and the capabilities of citizens. In future studies, these results should be confirmed by a broader audience. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No

Contains fulltext : 287786.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: In the management of epidemics, like COVID-19, trade-offs have to be made between reducing mortality and morbidity and minimizing socioeconomic and political consequences. Traditionally, epidemic management (EM) has been guided and executed attentively by experts and policymakers. It can, however, still be controversial in the public sphere. In the last decades, public engagement (PE) has been successfully applied in various aspects of healthcare. This leads to the question if PE could be implemented in EM decision-making. METHODS: From June to October 2020, seven deliberative discussion focus groups were executed with 35 Dutch citizens between 19 and 84 years old. Their views on PE in COVID-19 management were explored. The deliberative approach allows for the education of participants on the topic before the discussion. The benefits, barriers, timing and possible forms of PE in EM were discussed. RESULTS: Almost all participants supported PE in EM, as they thought that integrating their experiences and ideas would benefit the quality of EM, and increase awareness and acceptance of measures. A fitting mode for PE was consultation, as it was deemed important to provide the public with possibilities to share ideas and feedback; however, final authority remained with experts. The publics could particularly provide input about communication campaigns and control measures. PE could be executed after the first acute phase of the epidemic and during evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: This paper describes the construction of an empirically informed framework about the values and conditions for PE in EM from the perspective of the public. Participants expressed support to engage certain population groups and considered it valuable for the quality and effectiveness of EM; however, they expressed doubts about the feasibility of PE and the capabilities of citizens. In future studies, these results should be confirmed by a broader audience. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No

Rankine-cycle Waste Heat Recovery (WHR) systems are promising solutions to reduce fuel consumption for trucks. Due to coupling between engine and WHR system, control of these complex systems is challenging. This study presents an integrated energy and emission management strategy for an Euro-VI Diesel engine with WHR system. This Integrated Powertrain Control (IPC) strategy optimizes the CO2-NOx trade-off by minimizing online the operational costs associated with fuel and AdBlue consumption. Contrary to other control studies, the proposed control strategy optimizes overall engine-aftertreatment-WHR system performance and deals with emission constraints. From simulations, the potential of this IPC strategy is demonstrated over a World Harmonized Transient Cycle (WHTC) using a high- fidelity simulation model. These results are compared with a state-of-the-art baseline engine control strategy. By applying the IPC strategy, an additional 2.6% CO2 reduction is achieved compare to the baseline strategy, while meeting the tailpipe NOx emission limit. In addition, the proposed low-level WHR controller is shown to deal with the cold start challenges.

Rankine-cycle Waste Heat Recovery (WHR) systems are promising solutions to reduce fuel consumption for trucks. Due to coupling between engine and WHR system, control of these complex systems is challenging. This study presents an integrated energy and emission management strategy for an Euro-VI Diesel engine with WHR system. This Integrated Powertrain Control (IPC) strategy optimizes the CO2-NOx trade-off by minimizing online the operational costs associated with fuel and AdBlue consumption. Contrary to other control studies, the proposed control strategy optimizes overall engine-aftertreatment-WHR system performance and deals with emission constraints. From simulations, the potential of this IPC strategy is demonstrated over a World Harmonized Transient Cycle (WHTC) using a high- fidelity simulation model. These results are compared with a state-of-the-art baseline engine control strategy. By applying the IPC strategy, an additional 2.6% CO2 reduction is achieved compare to the baseline strategy, while meeting the tailpipe NOx emission limit. In addition, the proposed low-level WHR controller is shown to deal with the cold start challenges.

Samen met studenten werken aan een betere toekomst voor de regio. Dat is regioleren. Ondernemers, overheden en maatschappelijke organisaties bepalen de agenda en werken samen met onderwijs en onderzoek aan oplossingen. Waar liggen de uitdagingen? Voor de instellingen is het een belangrijke uitdaging om aansluiting te vinden bij de regio. Hoe verander je van een onderwijsinstelling in een regionaal kenniscentrum? Hoe wordt je een volwaardige partner in een kenniswerkplaats? Een tweede belangrijke uitdaging ligt in de koppeling van het leren in de regio aan de lerende regio. In het programma Regionale Transitie is deze taak bij de kenniswerkplaatsen gelegd. De kenniswerkplaats is gebaseerd op een gezamenlijke regionale kennisagenda van overheid, ondernemers, maatschappelijke organisaties, onderwijs en onderzoek.