scholarly journals A new look for Australian Health Review

2004 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 5
Author(s):  
Judith Dwyer ◽  
Sandra G Leggat

WE ARE DELIGHTED to welcome you to the new look of the Journal. In recognition of the importance of Australian Health Review to management and policy decision makers in Australia, the Australian Healthcare Association has initiated some major changes to assist us to better meet our readers? needs. The journal is now being produced with the support of AMPCo, the Australasian Medical Publishing Company. The changes in print format and presentation of papers will be accompanied by a more interactive website, and authors and reviewers will soon notice a more streamlined editorial and production process. It is also a pleasure to welcome Mr Gary Day, of the Queensland University of Technology, to the new role of book review editor for the journal. Gary's appointment will enable the journal to include more regular coverage of significant books and reports. The librarians and archivists among our readers will note that we have started a new volume (number 28) for the occasion. Volume 28 will have three issues, which, combined with those in volume 27, will make 5 issues for 2004. The next volume (number 29) will start in 2005.

2008 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 197
Author(s):  
Gary Day

THIS EDITION of Australian Health Review brings together two useful and practical local texts, one dealing with the drivers that shape and determine the health and wellbeing of our Australian Indigenous population, and the other exploring the approaches and skills for working with communities around health and human services.


2004 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 106
Author(s):  
Michael Roff ◽  
Leonie Segal

TO THE EDITOR: Since its introduction on 1 January 1999, the 30% rebate has been the subject of much misleading comment by the opponents of the private health sector. A recent addition to these ranks was published in the first edition for 2004 of Australian Health Review (Segal 2004). There is no real attempt at balance in the article. While Segal argues that the rebate has failed to take the pressure off public hospitals, we are not told, for example, that almost one-in-five extra patients admitted by public hospitals in the three years to 2002-03 were actually private patients! Similarly, the article is littered with generalisations and, in some cases, misleading or completely incorrect statements, such as ?Private hospitals do not offer a complete hospital service . . .? Even a cursory examination of the available national data indicates that private hospitals provide services in all but 7 of the 654 diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) recorded. Private hospitals perform all the remaining 647 DRGs.


1969 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 353-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rita James Simon ◽  
Linda Mahan

2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 532
Author(s):  
Sandra G Leggat

It is with growing sadness (but with expectations of time for some new activities in my life) that I announce that this is my final issue as editor of Australian Health Review (AHR). The new editor, Dr Gary Day from Griffith University in Queensland, is well suited to take over, with continued support from Dr Deborah Roberts, the Models of Care editor, and from the Editorial Board. Australian Health Review is over 30 years old and has achieved growing recognition both nationally and internationally. It has been a pleasure to have contributed to this excellent journal. The landscape of Australian health policy and management journals has changed over the past few years and further changes, to better meet the needs of authors and readers, are in store for AHR in 2010 and beyond. Over my tenure as editor, with much assistance from Professor Judith Dwyer, Dr Deborah Roberts, Dr Gary Day, Prue Power and the Editorial Board, and the publishing team at the Australasian Medical Publishing Company, we have achieved many milestones. Amalgamation of AHR with other journals will continue to strengthen the Australian presence in international scholarly publications. The online manuscript service has proved an efficient and effective mechanism for authors, reviewers and editors. The number of papers submitted for consideration has continued to grow, with over 100 papers submitted each year, of which about 60% are published. This large number of papers has meant that I am enormously grateful to the AHR reviewers. The 2009 reviewers are acknowledged in this issue (page 696). Thank you for volunteering your precious time to this most important task. The large number of papers has also meant that the page numbers of each issue have crept up to try to ensure authors do not have to wait too long to see their work in print. This year we established the Australian Health Review student paper awards, and in this issue we have published the undergraduate (page 541) and postgraduate (page 549) student award papers. Please ensure you read these excellent papers by Australian students. We have had an impressive set of guest editors who demonstrate the importance of AHR in Australian health policy and management and who enabled the journal to present at the forefront of key developments in these areas. This issue has a wide variety of papers on topics such as health information, health service utilisation, models of care, public health, quality and safety and workforce ? areas of critical importance for health policy and management now and into the future. Best wishes for the future. Signing off now, Sandra G Leggat, Editor Australian Health Review.


2007 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 331
Author(s):  
Sandra G Leggat

Models of care: do they make the difference? Australian Health Review invites contributions for the models of care section of the journal. This is a regular section and we welcome ongoing article submissions. Health care is delivered in countless ways for those who have debilitating illnesses or conditions. Stakeholders boast that it is the particular ?model of care? that makes the positive difference to patients and clients ? but, it has been difficult to ascertain the true impact of models of care on patient/client or system outcomes. To assist in clarifying this important area for health service management and policy decision making, we are looking for articles on case studies or research projects that suggest either positive or negative outcomes for specific models of care. Australian Health Review is looking to publish feature articles, research papers, case studies and commentaries related to your experience with specific models of care. We are particularly interested in papers that measure the model's effectiveness at a system, organisation and/or client level. Australian and New Zealand submissions are welcome, as well as international initiatives with lessons for Australia and New Zealand. Submissions can be short commentaries of 1000 to 2000 words, or more comprehensive reviews of 2000 to 4000 words. Please consult the AHR Guidelines for Authors for information on formatting and submission.


2008 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 3
Author(s):  
Sandra G Leggat

Models of care: do they make the difference? Australian Health Review invites contributions for the Models of Care section of the journal. This is a regular section and we welcome ongoing article submissions. Health care is delivered in countless ways for those who have debilitating illnesses or conditions. Stakeholders boast that it is the particular ?model of care? that makes the positive difference to patients and clients ? but, it has been difficult to ascertain the true impact of models of care on patient/client or system outcomes. To assist in clarifying this important area for health service management and policy decision making, we are looking for articles on case studies or research projects that suggest either positive or negative outcomes for specific models of care. Australian Health Review is looking to publish feature articles, research papers, case studies and commentaries related to your experience with specific models of care. We are particularly interested in papers that measure the model's effectiveness at a system, organisation and/or client level. Australian and New Zealand submissions are welcome, as well as international initiatives with lessons for Australia and New Zealand. Submissions can be short commentaries of 1000 to 2000 words, or more comprehensive reviews of 2000 to 4000 words. Please consult the AHR Guidelines for Authors for information on formatting and submission.


2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-112
Author(s):  
Pierre Legendre

"Der Beitrag reevaluiert die «dogmatische Funktion», eine soziale Funktion, die mit biologischer und kultureller Reproduktion und folglich der Reproduktion des industriellen Systems zusammenhängt. Indem sie sich auf der Grenze zwischen Anthropologie und Rechtsgeschichte des Westens situiert, nimmt die Studie die psychoanalytische Frage nach der Rolle des Rechts im Verhalten des modernen Menschen erneut in den Blick. </br></br>This article reappraises the dogmatic function, a social function related to biological and cultural reproduction and consequently to the reproduction of the industrial system itself. On the borderline of anthropology and of the history of law – applied to the West – this study takes a new look at the question raised by psychoanalysis concerning the role of law in modern human behaviour. "


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document