4.6 Article

BUILDING BRIDGES FOR INNOVATION IN AGEING: SYNERGIES BETWEEN ACTION GROUPS OF THE EIP ON AHA

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION HEALTH & AGING
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 92-104

出版社

SPRINGER FRANCE
DOI: 10.1007/s12603-016-0803-1

关键词

European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing; polypharmacy; education; falls; frailty; integrated care; citizen empowerment; chronic respiratory diseases

资金

  1. MRC [G1001367] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Asthma UK [CH11SJ, MRC-AsthmaUKCentre] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Medical Research Council [G1001367, G1000758] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0514-10053, NF-SI-0514-10092] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Strategic Implementation Plan of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP on AHA) proposed six Action Groups. After almost three years of activity, many achievements have been obtained through commitments or collaborative work of the Action Groups. However, they have often worked in silos and, consequently, synergies between Action Groups have been proposed to strengthen the triple win of the EIP on AHA. The paper presents the methodology and current status of the Task Force on EIP on AHA synergies. Synergies are in line with the Action Groups new Renovated Action Plan (2016-2018) to ensure that their future objectives are coherent and fully connected. The outcomes and impact of synergies are using the Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the EIP on AHA (MAFEIP). Eight proposals for synergies have been approved by the Task Force: Five cross-cutting synergies which can be used for all current and future synergies as they consider overarching domains (appropriate polypharmacy, citizen empowerment, teaching and coaching on AHA, deployment of synergies to EU regions, Responsible Research and Innovation), and three cross-cutting synergies focussing on current Action Group activities (falls, frailty, integrated care and chronic respiratory diseases).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据