Monitoring and evaluation of family interventions (Information on families supported to March 2010) RR044

Josie Dixon, Vera Schneider, Cheryl Lloyd, Alice Reeves, Clarissa White, Wojtek Tomaszewski, Rosie Green and Eleanor Irelan

Monitoring and evaluation of family interventions: information on families supported to March 2010 (Research report DFE-RR044)

"This report updates and builds on the previous research by presenting and analysing FIIS [Family intervention Information system] data provided by family intervention staff up to and including 31 March 2010. The report is primarily based on simple descriptive statistics which provide a summary of the quantitative evidence. In addition statistical modelling (logistic regression) was used to look at the factors associated with successful and unsuccessful outcomes." - Page 14

An Empirical Comparison of Consumer Innovation Adoption Models: Implications for Subsistence Marketplaces

So called “pro-poor” innovations may improve consumer wellbeing in subsistence marketplaces. However, there is little research that integrates the area with the vast literature on innovation adoption. Using a questionnaire where respondents were asked to provide their evaluations about a mobile banking innovation, this research fills this gap by providing empirical evidence of the applicability of existing innovation adoption models in subsistence marketplaces. The study was conducted in Bangladesh among a geographically dispersed sample. The data collected allowed an empirical comparison of models in a subsistence context. The research reveals the most useful models in this context to be the Value Based Adoption Model and the Consumer Acceptance of Technology model. In light of these findings and further examination of the model comparison results the research also shows that consumers in subsistence marketplaces are not just motivated by functionality and economic needs. If organizations cannot enhance the hedonic attributes of a pro-poor innovation, and reduce the internal/external constraints related to adoption of that pro-poor innovation, then adoption intention by consumers will be lower

Engaging audiences with difficult pasts: the Voices of ’68 Project at the Ulster Museum, Belfast

Can history museums influence the relationship between divided communities? This paper explores why an initially modest collaboration between the authors and the Ulster Museum on the non‐violent Northern Ireland Civil Rights Movement of 1968/69, eventually had substantial impact beyond the museum’s walls. Having placed the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Movement within the context of both the international protests of 1968 and the specific environment of Northern Ireland, particularly the virtual civil war known as the Troubles, the paper turns to the role of museums in responding to the legacy of this past, and the evolving practice of the Ulster Museum, as background to the project. The latter began as a limited intervention within an existing display, based on oral histories and underpinned by the theory of ‘agonism’, proposing that divided communities must learn to live with difference. It eventually included exhibitions, workshops, school study days, curricular materials and online provision. It has directly influenced the Northern Ireland GCSE History Curriculum and been held up as an example of good practice within the province’s peace process. The paper discusses why the project succeeded – location within a national museum; credibility with protagonists, academics, communities and audiences; starting small; a willingness to take risks and share control; multiple perspectives; and an acceptance that not everyone will be satisfied. With a version of the Voices of 68 exhibition now installed in the Museum’s permanent gallery, the next challenges are longitudinal studies on its impact and assessing the approach’s relevance to other museums working in post‐conflict societies

2016 Research & Innovation Day Program

A one day showcase of applied research, social innovation, scholarship projects and activities.https://first.fanshawec.ca/cri_cripublications/1003/thumbnail.jp

2018 Research & Innovation Day Program

A one day showcase of applied research, social innovation, scholarship projects and activities.https://first.fanshawec.ca/cri_cripublications/1005/thumbnail.jp

2017 Research & Innovation Day Program

A one day showcase of applied research, social innovation, scholarship projects and activities.https://first.fanshawec.ca/cri_cripublications/1004/thumbnail.jp

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Slipping through the cracks: teachers who miss out on early career support

This paper presents evidence from a nationally representative sample of early career teachers about those likely to miss out on formal support, and the employment conditions associated with this absence of support. It uses survey data from the Staff in Australia’s Schools Survey. Consistent with existing research, our results suggest a relationship between early career teachers with insecure employment and a lack of support. The findings suggest that, for early career teachers, being unsupported is associated with dissatisfaction with professional relationships and career opportunities; and that this dissatisfaction is associated with an intention to leave the profession