scholarly journals Multiple-therapy-resistant major depressive disorder: a clinically important concept

2018 ◽  
Vol 212 (5) ◽  
pp. 274-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. H. McAllister-Williams ◽  
D. M. B. Christmas ◽  
A. J. Cleare ◽  
A. Currie ◽  
J. Gledhill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Advisory Board ◽  
Pharmaceutical Companies ◽  
Joint Research ◽  
The Past ◽  
Advisory Boards ◽  
Specialist Services ◽  
Grant Support ◽  
White Wall ◽  
Multiple Therapy ◽  
Research Grant

SummaryMany novel therapeutic options for depression exist that are either not mentioned in clinical guidelines or recommended only for use in highly specialist services. The challenge faced by clinicians is when it might be appropriate to consider such ‘non-standard’ interventions. This analysis proposes a framework to aid this decision.Declaration of interestIn the past 3 years R.H.M.W. has received support for research, expenses to attend conferences and fees for lecturing and consultancy work (including attending advisory boards) from various pharmaceutical companies including Astra Zeneca, Cyberonics, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LivaNova, Lundbeck, MyTomorrows, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, SPIMACO and Sunovion. D.M.B.C. has received fees from LivaNova for attending an advisory board. In the past 3 years A.J.C. has received fees for lecturing from Astra Zeneca and Lundbeck; fees for consulting from LivaNova, Janssen and Allergan; and research grant support from Lundbeck.In the past 3 years A.C. has received fees for lecturing from pharmaceutical companies namely Lundbeck and Sunovion. In the past 3 years A.L.M. has received support for attending seminars and fees for consultancy work (including advisory board) from Medtronic Inc and LivaNova. R.M. holds joint research grants with a number of digital companies that investigate devices for depression including Alpha-stim, Big White Wall, P1vital, Intel, Johnson and Johnson and Lundbeck through his mindTech and CLAHRC EM roles. M.S. is an associate at Blueriver Consulting providing intelligence to NHS organisations, pharmaceutical and devices companies. He has received honoraria for presentations and advisory boards with Lundbeck, Eli Lilly, URGO, AstraZeneca, Phillips and Sanofi and holds shares in Johnson and Johnson. In the past 3 years P.R.A.S. has received support for research, expenses to attend conferences and fees for lecturing and consultancy work (including attending an advisory board) from life sciences companies including Corcept Therapeutics, Indivior and LivaNova. In the past 3 years P.S.T. has received consultancy fees as an advisory board member from the following companies: Galen Limited, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Europe Ltd, myTomorrows and LivaNova. A.H.Y. has undertaken paid lectures and advisory boards for all major pharmaceutical companies with drugs used in affective and related disorders and LivaNova. He has received funding for investigator initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck and Wyeth.

scholarly journals Augmentation therapies for treatment-resistant depression: systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 214 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Strawbridge ◽  
Ben Carter ◽  
Lindsey Marwood ◽  
Borwin Bandelow ◽  
Dimosthenis Tsapekos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychological Control ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Treatment Resistant Depression ◽  
Treatment Resistant ◽  
The Past ◽  
Grant Support ◽  
Resistant Depression ◽  
Research Grant

BackgroundDepression is considered to have the highest disability burden of all conditions. Although treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is a key contributor to that burden, there is little understanding of the best treatment approaches for it and specifically the effectiveness of available augmentation approaches.AimsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to search and quantify the evidence of psychological and pharmacological augmentation interventions for TRD.MethodParticipants with TRD (defined as insufficient response to at least two antidepressants) were randomised to at least one augmentation treatment in the trial. Pre-post analysis assessed treatment effectiveness, providing an effect size (ES) independent of comparator interventions.ResultsOf 28 trials, 3 investigated psychological treatments and 25 examined pharmacological interventions. Pre-post analyses demonstrated N-methyl-d-aspartate-targeting drugs to have the highest ES (ES = 1.48, 95% CI 1.25–1.71). Other than aripiprazole (four studies, ES = 1.33, 95% CI 1.23–1.44) and lithium (three studies, ES = 1.00, 95% CI 0.81–1.20), treatments were each investigated in less than three studies. Overall, pharmacological (ES = 1.19, 95% CI 1.08–1.30) and psychological (ES = 1.43, 95% CI 0.50–2.36) therapies yielded higher ESs than pill placebo (ES = 0.78, 95% CI 0.66–0.91) and psychological control (ES = 0.94, 95% CI 0.36–1.52).ConclusionsDespite being used widely in clinical practice, the evidence for augmentation treatments in TRD is sparse. Although pre-post meta-analyses are limited by the absence of direct comparison, this work finds promising evidence across treatment modalities.Declaration of interestIn the past 3 years, A.H.Y. received honoraria for speaking from AstraZeneca, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly and Sunovion; honoraria for consulting from Allergan, Livanova and Lundbeck, Sunovion and Janssen; and research grant support from Janssen. In the past 3 years, A.J.C. received honoraria for speaking from AstraZeneca and Lundbeck; honoraria for consulting with Allergan, Janssen, Livanova, Lundbeck and Sandoz; support for conference attendance from Janssen; and research grant support from Lundbeck. B.B. has recently been (soon to be) on the speakers/advisory board for Hexal, Lilly, Lundbeck, Mundipharma, Pfizer, and Servier. No other conflicts of interest.

scholarly journals Financial and Non-financial Conflicts of Interest Among the Japanese Government Advisory Board Members Concerning Coronavirus Disease 2019

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanano Mamada ◽  
Anju Murayama ◽  
Akihiko Ozaki ◽  
Takanao Hashimoto ◽  
Hiroaki Saito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Japanese Government ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Pharmaceutical Companies ◽  
Public Disclosure ◽  
Average Value ◽  
Advisory Boards ◽  
The Government

AbstractObjectivesThis study aimed to assess the extent of conflicts of interest among the Japanese government COVID-19 advisory board members and elucidate the accuracy of conflicts of interest (COI) disclosure and management strategies.MethodsUsing the payment data from all 79 pharmaceutical companies in Japan between 2017 and 2018 and direct research grants from the Japanese government between 2019 and 2020, we evaluated the extent of financial and non-financial COI among all 20 Japanese government COVID-19 advisory board members.ResultsJapanese government COVID-19 advisory board members were predominantly male (75.0%) and physicians (50.0%). Between 2019 and 2020, two members (10.0%) received a total of $819,244 in government research funding. Another five members (25.0%) received $419,725 in payments, including $223,183 in personal fees, from 28 pharmaceutical companies between 2017 and 2018. The average value of the pharmaceutical payments was $20,986 (standard deviation: $81,762). Further, neither the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare nor the Japanese Cabinet Secretariat disclosed financial or non-financial COI with industry. Further, the government and had no policies for managing COI among advisory board members.ConclusionsThis study found that the Japanese government COVID-19 advisory board had financial and non-financial COI with pharmaceutical companies and the government. Further, there were no rigorous COI management strategies for the COVID-19 advisory board members. Any government must ensure the independence of scientific advisory boards by implementing more rigorous and transparent management strategies that require the declaration and public disclosure of all COI.

scholarly journals Treatment-resistant and multi-therapy-resistant criteria for bipolar depression: consensus definition

2018 ◽  
Vol 214 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diego Hidalgo-Mazzei ◽  
Michael Berk ◽  
Andrea Cipriani ◽  
Anthony J. Cleare ◽  
Arianna Di Florio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bipolar Disorder ◽  
Medical Research ◽  
Bipolar Depression ◽  
Pharmaceutical Companies ◽  
Treatment Resistant ◽  
Research Support ◽  
The Past ◽  
Advisory Boards ◽  
Glaxo Smithkline ◽  
Medical Research Foundation

BackgroundMost people with bipolar disorder spend a significant percentage of their lifetime experiencing either subsyndromal depressive symptoms or major depressive episodes, which contribute greatly to the high levels of disability and mortality associated with the disorder. Despite the importance of bipolar depression, there are only a small number of recognised treatment options available. Consecutive treatment failures can quickly exhaust these options leading to treatment-resistant bipolar depression (TRBD). Remarkably few studies have evaluated TRBD and those available lack a comprehensive definition of multi-therapy-resistant bipolar depression (MTRBD).AimsTo reach consensus regarding threshold definitions criteria for TRBD and MTRBD.MethodBased on the evidence of standard treatments available in the latest bipolar disorder treatment guidelines, TRBD and MTRBD criteria were agreed by a representative panel of bipolar disorder experts using a modified Delphi method.ResultsTRBD criteria in bipolar depression was defined as failure to reach sustained symptomatic remission for 8 consecutive weeks after two different treatment trials, at adequate therapeutic doses, with at least two recommended monotherapy treatments or at least one monotherapy treatment and another combination treatment. MTRBD included the same initial definition as TRBD, with the addition of failure of at least one trial with an antidepressant, a psychological treatment and a course of electroconvulsive therapy.ConclusionsThe proposed TRBD and MTRBD criteria may provide an important signpost to help clinicians, researchers and stakeholders in judging how and when to consider new non-standard treatments. However, some challenging diagnostic and therapeutic issues were identified in the consensus process that need further evaluation and research.Declaration of interestIn the past 3 years, M.B. has received grant/research support from the NIH, Cooperative Research Centre, Simons Autism Foundation, Cancer Council of Victoria, Stanley Medical Research Foundation, MBF, NHMRC, Beyond Blue, Rotary Health, Geelong Medical Research Foundation, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Glaxo SmithKline, Meat and Livestock Board, Organon, Novartis, Mayne Pharma, Servier, Woolworths, Avant and the Harry Windsor Foundation, has been a speaker for Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Glaxo SmithKline, Janssen Cilag, Lundbeck, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi Synthelabo, Servier, Solvay and Wyeth and served as a consultant to Allergan, Astra Zeneca, Bioadvantex, Bionomics, Collaborative Medicinal Development, Eli Lilly, Grunbiotics, Glaxo SmithKline, Janssen Cilag, LivaNova, Lundbeck, Merck, Mylan, Otsuka, Pfizer and Servier. A.J.C. has in the past 3 years received honoraria for speaking from Astra Zeneca and Lundbeck, honoraria for consulting from Allergan, Janssen, Lundbeck and LivaNova and research grant support from Lundbeck. G.M.G. holds shares in P1Vital and has served as consultant, advisor or CME speaker for Allergan, Angelini, Compass pathways, MSD, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Takeda, Medscape, Minervra, P1Vital, Pfizer, Servier, Shire and Sun Pharma. J.G. has received research funding from National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council, Stanley Medical Research Institute and Wellcome. H.G. received grants/research support, consulting fees or honoraria from Gedeon Richter, Genericon, Janssen Cilag, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Pfizer and Servier. R.H.M.-W. has received support for research, expenses to attend conferences and fees for lecturing and consultancy work (including attending advisory boards) from various pharmaceutical companies including Astra Zeneca, Cyberonics, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Liva Nova, Lundbeck, MyTomorrows, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, SPIMACO and Sunovion. R.M. has received research support from Big White Wall, Electromedical Products, Johnson and Johnson, Magstim and P1Vital. S.N. received honoraria from Lundbeck, Jensen and Otsuka. J.C.S. has received funds for research from Alkermes, Pfizer, Allergan, J&J, BMS and been a speaker or consultant for Astellas, Abbott, Sunovion, Sanofi. S.W has, within the past 3 years, attended advisory boards for Sunovion and LivaNova and has undertaken paid lectures for Lundbeck. D.J.S. has received honoraria from Lundbeck. T.S. has reported grants from Pathway Genomics, Stanley Medical Research Institute and Palo Alto Health Sciences; consulting fees from Sunovion Pharamaceuticals Inc.; honoraria from Medscape Education, Global Medical Education and CMEology; and royalties from Jones and Bartlett, UpToDate and Hogrefe Publishing. S.P. has served as a consultant or speaker for Janssen, and Sunovion. P.T. has received consultancy fees as an advisory board member from the following companies: Galen Limited, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Europe Ltd, myTomorrows and LivaNova. E.V. received grants/ research support, consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, AB-Biotics, Allergan, Angelini, Dainippon Sumitomo, Ferrer, Gedeon Richter, Janssen, Lundbeck, Otsuka and Sunovion. L.N.Y. has received grants/research support, consulting fees or honoraria from Allergan, Alkermes, Dainippon Sumitomo, Janssen, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Sanofi, Servier, Sunovion, Teva and Valeant. A.H.Y. has undertaken paid lectures and advisory boards for all major pharmaceutical companies with drugs used in affective and related disorders and LivaNova. He has also previously received funding for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck and Wyeth. P.R.A.S. has received research funding support from Corcept Therapeutics Inc. Corcept Therapeutics Inc fully funded attendance at their internal conference in California USA and all related expenses. He has received grant funding from the Medical Research Council UK for a collaborative study with Janssen Research and Development LLC. Janssen Research and Development LLC are providing non-financial contributions to support this study. P.R.A.S. has received a presentation fee from Indivior and an advisory board fee from LivaNova.

scholarly journals 1104. Risk Factors and Outcomes of Refractory and/or Resistant Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Infection after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S582-S583
Author(s):  
Eleni Karantoni ◽  
Yiqi Su ◽  
Anat Stern ◽  
Phaedon D Zavras ◽  
Sergio Giralt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
T Cell ◽  
Panel Member ◽  
Multivariable Model ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Review Panel ◽  
Material Support ◽  
Advisory Boards ◽  
Research Grant

Abstract Background The epidemiology of CMV end-organ disease (EOD) after Hematopoietic Cell Transplant (HCT) in the era of preemptive therapy (PET) is defined. In contrast, less data exists on refractory and/or resistant (R/R) CMV. We report on 1) the incidence; 2) risk factors and outcomes of R/R CMV by 1-year post HCT. Methods Retrospective review of 167 CMV seropositive (R+) recipients of first marrow or peripheral blood HCT from 1/2014 - 12/2017 managed by PET. Refractory CMV was defined as failure to achieve >1 log10 decrease in CMV viral load (VL) and having VL >1,000 IU/mL after ≥14 day of PET. Resistant CMV required genotypic confirmation of resistance mutation(s) in UL54 and/or UL97 genes. End organ disease (EOD) was defined by standard criteria. Patients (pts) were followed through 1-year post HCT and were categorized in two mutually exclusive groups as R/R and no R/R. Demographics, clinical characteristics and outcomes were extracted from medical records and hospital databases. Univariable and multivariable logistic models were used to identify risk factors for R/R CMV. Results Of 167 PET recipients, 91 (54.5%) received ex vivo T cell depleted (TCD) HCT; 40 (24.0%) had mismatched donor; and 26 (15.6%) had multiple myeloma. 66/167 (39.5%) pts developed refractory CMV (6 pts also had resistant CMV). Time from HCT to CMV viremia was shorter in R/R group: median (IQR) 21.5 (17.2-27.8) days compared to no R/R group: 26 (19-32) days (p=0.031). Maximum VL was higher for R/R compared to no R/R: median (IQR) 9,118 (2,849-18,456) and 868 (474-1,908), respectively (p< 0.001). In multivariable model, risk factors for R/R included TCD HCT (p< 0.0001) and higher VL at PET initiation (p=0.0002). In contrast, CMV seropositive donor (p=0.035) was protective (Figure 1). CMV EOD developed in 28.2% of R/R and 16.2% of no R/R groups (p=0.085) (Figure 2). Overall survival at 1 year was 59.1% for R/R compared to 83.1% for no R/R group (p=0.00027) (Figure 3). Figure 1. Adjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) from multivariable model evaluating risk factors of refractory/resistant (R/R) CMV. Figure 2. Cumulative incidence curves of CMV end-organ disease (EOD) at 1-year post HCT Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier survival curves of overall survival (OS) at 1-year post HCT Conclusion 1) Refractory and/or resistant CMV occurred in 39,5% of PET recipients. 2) T-cell depletion and higher CMV VL at PET initiation were risk factors for R/R CMV in multivariable models. 3) R/R CMV was associated with more EOD and worse overall survival. Disclosures Sergio Giralt, MD, Amgen (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Served an advisory board for Amgen, Actinuum, Celgene, Johnson & Johnson, JAZZ pharmaceutical, Takeda, Novartis, KITE, and Spectrum pharma and has received research support from Amgen, Actinuum, Celgene, Johnson & Johnson, and Miltenyi, Takeda.) Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, Abbvie (Other Financial or Material Support, Honoraria from Abbvie, Bellicum, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Merck, Novartis, Nektar Therapeutics, Omeros, and Takeda.)ASTCT (Other Financial or Material Support, Volunteer member of the Board of Directors of American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT), Be The Match (National Marrow Donor Program, NMDP), and the CIBMTR Cellular Immunotherapy Data Resource (CIDR) Committee)Cidara Therapeutics (Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Serve on DSMBs for Cidara Therapeutics, Servier and Medigene, and the scientific advisory boards of MolMed and NexImmune.)Kite/Gilead (Research Grant or Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Received research support for clinical trials from Incyte, Kite/Gilead and Miltenyi Biotec.) Genovefa Papanicolaou, MD, Chimerix (Research Grant or Support)Merck&Co (Research Grant or Support, Investigator and received funding and consulting fees from Merck, Chimerix, Shire and Astellas)

scholarly journals PARE0005 INTEGRATED REFERRAL OF NEWLY DIAGNOSED RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENT TO EDUCATION AND SUPPORT RESOURCES DELIVERED BY PATIENT LED ORGANISATION

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1288.1-1289
Author(s):  
I. Mcnicol ◽  
A. Bosworth ◽  
C. Jacklin ◽  
J. Galloway
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Health Professional ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Quality Standard ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Pharmaceutical Companies ◽  
National Audit ◽  
Advisory Boards ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

Background:NRAS follows best practice, evidence-based standards in all we do. Whilst huge strides have been made in the diagnosis and treatment of RA, the impact on quality of life can be significant and for many this disease remains hard to come to terms with. NRAS services and resources can improve the outcomes of people with RA/Adult JIA through a framework of supported self-management resources tailored to individual need. It is particularly important to provide the right support at the beginning of a person’s journey with RA, when unhelpful health beliefs, anxiety and incorrect information can influence how someone responds to prescribed medication and treatment thus impeding their ability to achieve the best outcomes. We know, for example, that many people do not take their medication as prescribed which reduces their chances of achieving remission or low disease activity state.Objectives:To demonstrate that by referring patients online as part of a quality improvement programme to NRAS Right Start Service, we can show improved outcomes for patients with early RA when measured by the MSKHQ. Referred patients will benefit by: a) Better understanding what RA is; b) knowing how it can affect them; c) getting the right support; d) feeling more in control; receiving a tailored pack of information that meets their personal needs; e) be able to talk to a like-minded person who has lived with RA. It’s a 4 step process which starts with the health professional referring their patient to NRAS on line. NICE Quality Standard 3 states that “Adults with rheumatoid arthritis are given opportunities throughout the course of their disease to take part in educational activities that support self-management.” Our service enables health professionals to meet their responsibilities against this national quality standard.Methods:In preparation for the introduction of this service at BSR congress 2019, an audit of the NRAS helpline service was undertaken at the end of 2018 and remains on going. Currently we have 224 responses which have been analysed against specific criteria. An Advisory Board comprising 7 clincians, from different hospitals was appointed to work with NRAS on this important research.Results:In the helpline audit, when asked ‘how concerned are you about your disease’?, alarmingly, 78% of those surveyed scored their level of concern about their disease at 7 or higher out of 10, while only 8% scored it at 5 or below. When asked about the emotional effects of their RA, 62% scored it as 7 or more where 10 was the worst possible impact. 94% of survey respondents said that they would definitely or very likely recommend NRAS and its services to another person. These results led to the development of New2RA Right Start launched in 2019, whereby health professionals across the UK can refer their patients directly to NRAS via a consented online referral which is fully GDPR compliant. To date (31stJan, 2020), we have made calls to 101 patients, from 24 referring hospitals of which 55 have been successfully completed, 34 have had information sent through the post although our helpline team were unable to speak to them, and 12 remain open. Data analysis on the service is being carried out by King’s College Hospital London, comparing the results of patients who have been referred to Right Start within the national audit who have completed a baseline and 3 month follow up MSKHQ and patients in the audit who have not participated in Right Start.Conclusion:Anecdotally, we have had a tremendous response to this service from both patients and referring health professionals. We await data from King’s on the above figures, which we will have within the next 2 months and further data, should this abstract be accepted, will be available prior to June 2020. Right Start enables health professionals to comply with QS3 above, of the NICE Quality Standards in RA, one of the key standards against which they are being audited in the NEIAA national audit. Once data and write up in a peer review journal has been published we plan to roll this service out to people with more established disease.References:[1]To be done, not included in word count.Acknowledgments:I would like to thank Ailsa Bosworth MBE, Clare Jacklin, and James GallowayDisclosure of Interests:Iain McNicol Shareholder of: GSK, Ailsa Bosworth Speakers bureau: a number of pharmaceutical companies for reasons of inhouse training, advisory boards etc., Clare Jacklin Grant/research support from: NRAS has received grants from pharmaceutical companies to carry out a number of projects, Consultant of: I have been paid a speakers fee to participate in advisory boards, in house training of staff and health professional training opportunities, Speakers bureau: Various pharma companies, James Galloway: None declared

scholarly journals Catchment areas: A model for the future or a relic of the past?

1995 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 340-342
Author(s):  
John M. Kellett
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Catchment Area ◽  
Geriatric Medicine ◽  
The Past ◽  
Restrictive Practice ◽  
Primary Care Teams ◽  
Specialist Services ◽  
Catchment Areas ◽  
The Future

The shift of power from specialist services to the primary care teams has forced the former to examine the value of their hallowed traditions. In psychiatry, and geriatric medicine, the catchment area is a favoured restrictive practice, enabling demand to be regulated to suit the resources of each team. It is time to decide whether this is a practice to be defended and retained or whether, like many other restrictive practices, it is harmful to the consumer.

scholarly journals Consultative participation in Brazil: the case of the São Paulo Municipal Advisory Board

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 321-339
Author(s):  
Fernanda Lima-Silva ◽  
Kate Abreu ◽  
Esther Leblanc
Keyword(s):  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Participant Observation ◽  
State Level ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Sao Paulo ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Exploratory Research ◽  
São Paulo ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Advisory Boards

Abstract This article analyzed the São Paulo Municipal Advisory Board, an innovative channel of communication between civil society and the local government’s executive branch. This exploratory research is based on an intrinsic case study, aiming to understand the operation of this advisory board and how it relates to other participatory instances in Brazil. The study adopted semi-structured interviews with members of the advisory board and representatives of the local government, participant observation of meetings of the management’s board, and analysis of official documents. Data were analyzed based on the theory of deliberative democracy and studies on participatory bodies. The results indicate that the São Paulo Municipal Advisory Board is partially aligned with the deliberative democracy, and strongly connected to the federal and state-level Economic and Social Development Advisory Boards. Due to the specificities of these instances, we suggest the creation of a new category in the literature on institutional participation - “Governmental Advisory Board.”

Reflections on Thirty Years of Muqarnas

2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gülru Necipoğlu
Keyword(s):  
Board Members ◽  
Islamic Art ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
The Past ◽  
Advisory Boards ◽  
Current State ◽  
Thirtieth Anniversary ◽  
History Of ◽  
Art And Architecture ◽  
State Of The Field

In this volume marking the thirtieth anniversary of Muqarnas, the Editor reflects on the evolution of the journal over the years. To that end, the members of the Editorial and Advisory Boards were sent a questionnaire, asking them to comment on the contributions of Muqarnas and its Supplements series to the field of Islamic art and architecture studies over the past three decades, and to provide suggestions for future directions. Their observations, thoughts, and hopes for Muqarnas have been anonymously incorporated into this essay, which, in conversation with their comments, looks back on the history of the publication and offers some possibilities for the path it might take going forward.
The goal here is neither to assess the historiography nor to examine the current state of the field thirty years after the opening essay of volume 1. Instead, the focus is on the development and impact of both Muqarnas and the Supplements series in a highly specialized field with relatively few and short-lived or sporadic journals, before turning to the successes and shortcomings of these publications, as outlined by some of the board members. 


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document