Search

How effective is EU cooperation in higher education? This article treats the issue as one of effectiveness in policy-making. What are the policy ideas which the EU wishes to feed into a policy domain where it has to operate largely through political cooperation and a modest degree of incentive funding? What outcomes are possible? The question is of interest since Europe has two processes which aim for a better regional integration of higher education in order to boost the quality of European higher education and to make a global impact. These are the world- famous Bologna Process and the EU process to drive Europe's universities to make better use of their interlinked roles of education, research and innovation, part of a larger strategy (EU 2020, Lisbon) for European Union growth to support employment, productivity and social cohesion. Building on the theoretical insights of an institutionalist literature concerned with the dynamics of European policy-making in the knowledge domain (Maassen & Olsen, 2007; Gornitzka, 2006, 2010) and complementary theories of historical institutionalism (Pierson, 2003, Thelen, 2003) and agenda setting (Kingdon, 1995), this article examines policy-making on higher education cooperation in the European arena since the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992. It seeks answers to two questions. Why did the Bologna Process dominate the agenda from 1999 to 2004? How did the European Commission acquire the power to shape the issue of European higher education cooperation? Rejecting simple spillover explanations, it theorises in terms of policy entrepreneurship why the EU has latterly been effective in shaping European cooperation in higher education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on the European Community (EC) policy-making in education and the conceptualization of policy processes in the creation and development of EC policy activity in higher education. Changes and development in EC Higher Education Policy from 1955-1987; Impact of the agreement between France and Italy on the principle of EC educational cooperation and on the European University issue; Development in the policy design for EC education from 1973-1976; Characteristics of the process launched by the EC at the meeting in Lisbon, Portugal in 2000.

Objectives To establish the mortality risk and adverse events associated with the use of atypical antipsychotic medications in people with Parkinson disease psychosis (PDP) in a clinically defined trial cohort. Design Post hoc analysis of data from a multicenter, open-label extension study of pimavanserin comparing people taking and not taking current antipsychotics. Setting Primary and secondary care medical centers in the United States, Canada, Europe, and India. Participants A total of 459 people with PDP enrolled in the extension study. Participants were between ages 30 and 80 years, and had an established diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson disease and moderate to severe psychosis. Interventions Participants were categorized into 2 groups: those receiving concomitant antipsychotic medications (“concurrent APD”) and those who did not take antipsychotic medications at any time during the study (“no APD”). Participants were receiving 40 mg pimavanserin daily in addition to concurrent antipsychotics and Parkinson disease medications. Main Outcome Measures Safety assessments at 2 weeks; 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months; and every 6 months thereafter, including evaluation of adverse events (AEs), vital signs, weight, physical examinations, 12-lead electrocardiograms, clinical laboratory tests (serum chemistry, hematology, and urinalysis), and the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Parts II and III (UPDRS-II+III, activities of daily living and motor impairment, respectively). Differences between participants taking and not taking current antipsychotics were evaluated using incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results There was significant increase in the mortality rate for participants taking concurrent antipsychotics compared with the group not taking antipsychotic medications (IRR 4.20, 95% CI 2.13–7.96). Participants who received a concurrent antipsychotic were also significantly more likely to experience overall a serious AE (IRR 2.95, 95% CI 2.02–4.24), any antipsychotic-related event (IRR 1.66, 95% CI 1.18–2.29), cognition-related events (IRR 2.70, 95% CI 1.19–5.58), infections (IRR 1.97, 95% CI 1.17–3.16), and edema (IRR 2.61, 95% CI 1.09–5.59). The risk of falls, stroke, sedation, orthostatic hypotension, and thromboembolic events was also increased in these individuals but this was not significant. Conclusions This study highlights a significant risk of mortality, and severe AEs in patients with Parkinson disease receiving atypical antipsychotics. This is similar to or greater than the risks seen in people with Alzheimer disease, although with a less clear-cut risk of stroke and a longer delay to increased mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]