Avneet Singh

Entrepreneurship education has become a strategic focus in the national innovation and competitiveness discourse, especially in emerging economies aiming to diversify their economies and pursue knowledge-based development. The chapter compares technology integration and strategic collaboration in entrepreneurship education in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and India. The research methodology is a qualitative, document-based, comparative approach grounded in policy documents, institutional initiatives, and selected higher education practices from both countries. Based on the theoretical frameworks of the Triple Helix model, the entrepreneurial university framework, and innovation ecosystem theory, the analysis aims to understand the changing relationships among government, universities, and industry regarding entrepreneurial capabilities. The results show two separate but increasingly intertwined paths. Entrepreneurship education in the UAE is mostly implemented in a centralised manner, with policy coordination, robust state support, and swift technological adoption to foster innovation-driven economic diversification. In India, by contrast, entrepreneurship education has been mainstreamed more widely and inclusively through a range of large-scale policy and institutional reform efforts, though regional differences in infrastructure quality and institutional capacity persist. The comparative results suggest that technology-based entrepreneurship education is best developed in the presence of committed institutional relationships, industry involvement, and policy support. The chapter also underscores how governance systems, resource availability, and educational environments affect entrepreneurial learning outcomes in both settings.

Background/Aims: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is conventionally performed in the prone position (PP). Recent studies have shown that the supine position (SP) is an effective alternative, with comparable success rates. We conducted a meta-analysis to directly compare the safety and efficacy of the two ERCP positions.Methods: In line with Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic review was performed through a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan, with results considered significant at p<0.05 and reported as odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs).Results: Eleven studies (24,285 patients) were included in the final analysis. Procedural success was significantly higher in the PP (OR, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36–0.75; p<0.0004) than the SP. However, no significant difference was observed in procedure times (MD, 0.22; 95% CI, –7.07 to 7.50; p=0.95), number of cardiopulmonary complications (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.47–2.48; p=0.86), or post-ERCP pancreatitis (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.52–2.42; p=0.31) between the two groups.Conclusions: The PP demonstrates superior ERCP success compared to the SP, without prolonging procedure time or increasing the risk of adverse events. However, given the comparable procedure times, incidence of adverse events, and increased comfort for both patients and anesthesiologists, the SP may be a suitable alternative for a select group of patients in whom the PP is not feasible, such as those with morbid obesity or recent abdominal surgery.

The chapter elaborates on ethical matters, from integrating advanced technology in health care to privacy, power, and progress themes. This brings higher operational efficiency in patient care due to advances in digital solutions in health and big data analytics, along with some critical issues concerning fairness in access, ownership of data, and concerns over patients' privacy. This Chapter, therefore, brings to the fore the moral dilemmas existing in the healthcare providers, policymakers, and patients; it is in this context that the paper advances frameworks for addressing such problems. The underlying argument is that there is a need for balanced solutions that promote technological innovation while safeguarding patient rights and societal interests.