Costs and benefits of community water fluoridation in remote Aboriginal communities of the Northern Territory.

OBJECTIVE: To undertake an economic evaluation of community water fluoridation (CWF) in remote communities of the Northern Territory (NT). DESIGN: Dental caries experiences were compared between CWF and non-CWF communities before and after intervention. Costs and benefits of CWF are ascertained from the health sector perspective using water quality, accounting, oral health, dental care and hospitalisation datasets. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Remote Aboriginal population in the NT between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2020. INTERVENTION: CWF. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Potential economic benefits were estimated by changes in caries scores valued at the NT average dental service costs. RESULTS: Given the total 20-year life span of a fluoridation plant ($1.77 million), the net present benefit of introducing CWF in a typical community of 300-499 population was $3.79 million. For each $1 invested in CWF by government, the estimated long-term economic value of savings to health services ranged from $1.1 (population ≤300) to $16 (population ≥2000) due to reductions in treating dental caries and associated hospitalisations. The payback period ranged from 15 years (population ≤300) to 2.2 years (population ≥2000). CONCLUSIONS: The economic benefits of expanding CWF in remote Aboriginal communities of NT outweigh the costs of installation, operation and maintenance of fluoridation plants over the lifespan of CWF infrastructure for population of 300 or more.

The SCOPE framework - implementing ideals of responsible research assessment.

Background: Research and researchers are heavily evaluated, and over the past decade it has become widely acknowledged that the consequences of evaluating the research enterprise and particularly individual researchers are considerable. This has resulted in the publishing of several guidelines and principles to support moving towards more responsible research assessment (RRA). To ensure that research evaluation is meaningful, responsible, and effective the International Network of Research Management Societies (INORMS) Research Evaluation Group created the SCOPE framework enabling evaluators to deliver on existing principles of RRA. SCOPE bridges the gap between principles and their implementation by providing a structured five-stage framework by which evaluations can be designed and implemented, as well as evaluated. Methods: SCOPE is a step-by-step process designed to help plan, design, and conduct research evaluations as well as check effectiveness of existing evaluations. In this article, four case studies are presented to show how SCOPE has been used in practice to provide value-based research evaluation. Results: This article situates SCOPE within the international work towards more meaningful and robust research evaluation practices and shows through the four case studies how it can be used by different organisations to develop evaluations at different levels of granularity and in different settings. Conclusions: The article demonstrates that the SCOPE framework is rooted firmly in the existing literature. In addition, it is argued that it does not simply translate existing principles of RRA into practice, but provides additional considerations not always addressed in existing RRA principles and practices thus playing a specific role in the delivery of RRA. Furthermore, the use cases show the value of SCOPE across a range of settings, including different institutional types, sizes, and missions.

Mis-Measuring Our Universities: Why Global University Rankings Don't Add Up.

Draws parallels between the problematic use of GDP to evaluate economic success with the use of global university rankings to evaluate university success. Inspired by Kate Raworth's Doughnut Economics, this perspective argues that the pursuit of growth as measured by such indicators creates universities that 'grow' up the rankings rather than those which 'thrive' or 'mature.' Such growth creates academic wealth divides within and between countries, despite the direction of growth as inspired by the rankings not truly reflecting universities' critical purpose or contribution. Highlights the incompatibility between universities' alignment with socially responsible practices and continued engagement with socially irresponsible ranking practices. Proposes four possible ways of engendering change in the university rankings space. Concludes by calling on leaders of 'world-leading' universities to join together to 'lead the world' in challenging global university rankings, and to set their own standards for thriving and maturing universities.