Telemedicine of family-based treatment for adolescent anorexia nervosa: A protocol of a treatment development study.

BackgroundFamily-based treatment is an efficacious treatment available for adolescents with anorexia nervosa. Yet the implementation of this treatment, at least in the United States, is challenging due to a limited number of trained family-based treatment therapists and the concentration of these therapists in a limited number of urban centers. The use of telemedicine in the delivery of family-based treatment can increase access to this therapy for this patient population.Methods/designThis two-year treatment development study (December 2013-November 2015) follows a two-wave iterative case series design. The study is ongoing and addresses the treatment needs of families in remote, rural, or underrepresented parts of the United States by delivering family-based treatment via telemedicine (video chat). The first six months of the study was dedicated to selecting a cloud-based secure telemedicine portal for use with participants. Recruitment for the first of two consecutive case series (N = 5) began during month seven. After these five patients completed treatment, a systematic review of treatment via feedback from participants and therapists related to the delivery of this model and use of technology was completed. A second wave of recruitment is underway (N = 5). At the end of both waves (N = 10), and after a second review of treatment, we should be able to establish the feasibility and acceptability of family-based treatment delivered via telemedicine for this patient population.DiscussionThis study is the first attempt to deliver family-based treatment for adolescents with anorexia nervosa via telemedicine. If delivering family-based treatment in this format is feasible, it will provide access to an evidence-based treatment for families heretofore unable to participate in specialist treatment for their child's eating disorder

Ideology, Qualifications, and Covert Senate Obstruction of Federal Court Nominations

Scholars, policymakers, and journalists have bemoaned the emphasis on ideology over qualifications and party over performance in the judicial appointment process. Though, for years, the acrimony between the two parties and between the Senate and President remained limited to appointments to the United States Supreme Court, the modern era of judicial appointments has seen the so-called “appointments rigor mortis” spread throughout all levels of judicial appointments. A host of studies have examined the causes and consequences of the growing acrimony and obstruction of lower federal court appointments, but few rely on archival data and empirical evidence to examine the underlying friction between the parties and the two branches. In a unique study, the authors examine archival data to determine the conditions under which Senators obstruct judicial nominations to lower federal courts. More specifically, the authors examine one form of Senate obstruction — the blue slip — and find that Senators use their blue slips to block ideologically distant nominees as well as unqualified nominees. More importantly, however, the authors find that among nominations to federal circuit courts, Senators block highly qualified nominees who are ideologically distant from them just as often as they block unqualified nominees who are ideologically distant from them. That is, stellar qualifications do not appear to mitigate the negative effects of ideological distance. The fact that blue slips occur in private, away from public view, allows Senators to block nominees entirely on ideological grounds, without fear of individualized public retribution. Senators, in short, have taken an aggressive role in blocking highly qualified nominees who would otherwise make significant — but opposing — policy and who might one day become credible nominees to the Supreme Court were their nominations to move forward. By killing these nominations in the cradle, and outside the public view, Senators can block or delay the confirmation of judges with whom they disagree ideologically. The authors point out that policymakers and scholars who seek to reform the judicial appointment process must therefore be very clear about their goals. If a reform’s goal is to minimize the role of Senate ideology in the appointment process, then proposals that insulate the process from the public eye are likely to backfire. For, as the data show, Senators take advantage of insulation to achieve ideological goals. On the other hand, if a reform’s goal is to maximize the role of Senate ideology — perhaps to offset the President’s first mover advantage or to recognize and directly address the fact that courts are policymaking bodies — then proposals that insulate the process from the public eye are likely to accomplish that goal

Upending a Global Debate: An Empirical Analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Use of Transnational Law to Interpret Domestic Doctrine,

Over the last ten years, judges, scholars, and policymakers have argued — quite vehemently at times — about whether U.S. courts should use transnational sources of law to interpret domestic legal doctrine. All eyes in this debate focus on the U.S. Supreme Court and its use, misuse, and alleged use of transnational law. And almost all the debates are normative. Some scholars and judges argue the Court is correct to use transnational law. Others believe to do so is constitutional apostacy. Still, the controversy seems to have generated more heat than light. Among the clamor can be found little empirical work on the conditions under which Supreme Court Justices actually use transnational law. Is it in fact the case that only liberal Justices employ transnational law — or do conservatives as well? In addition, there is little work on which countries Justices cite when they do use transnational law. Do they cherry pick whichever country works best in the given case, or is there a lower bound of plausibility when selecting countries to examine and cite? The authors provide the most systematic empirical exploration of the Court’s use of transnational law to date. Their results challenge conventional wisdom and prove to upend the existing debates over transnational law. The data show that Justices are more likely to reference transnational law when they exercise judicial review and when they overturn precedent, which likely explains much of the controversy around the practice. Importantly, the data show, further, that all Justices cite transnational law. Liberals cite transnational law when they render liberal decisions, and conservatives cite transnational law when they render conservative decisions. Liberals and conservatives alike employ such law because they are both ideologically conscious, strategic judicial actors who seek to support their decisions with as much persuasive material as possible. Finally, the results suggest that Justices cite countries with regard to their political and legal characteristics. They cite what the public would consider to be among the most legitimate countries across the globe. In other words, on the whole, Justices seem to borrow from countries most like the U.S. Whether these results are good or bad is unclear; what is clear, however, is that the normative debate over using transnational law must take a turn and address the authors’ findings

Programming in Restrictive Housing: Considerations for Improving Outcome Evaluations

A number of studies have identified “what works” in regard to the successful implementation of correctional programming over the past several decades. Few studies, however, have examined the complexities associated with programming in restrictive housing. Using data from a Midwestern department of corrections, we examined whether the provision of programming in restrictive housing achieved desired outcomes (e.g., reductions in inmate misconduct). The findings revealed the amount of time served in restrictive housing and confinement in different types of restrictive housing may influence estimations of a treatment effect. As a growing number of states seek to reform the use of restrictive housing, the proper implementation of cognitive-behavioral programming may increase institutional security and safety

The diversity of repression: measuring state repressive repertoires with events data

Tactical repertoires of mobilization and repression play an essential role in understanding dynamics of political violence, yet existing quantitative approaches focus primarily on intensities or counts of repressive actions. We focus instead on the diversity of repression, and demonstrate a novel method of measuring repertoires of state repression using event data. We show that more repressive states are likely to employ more diverse repertoires of repression, rather than specializing narrowly in particularly coercive tactics. We demonstrate that, globally, repertoires of state repression are growing less diverse over time. Finally, in the Online appendix, we model repertoires of repression across countries and over time, finding evidence of broader repertoires during protest and civil war, but narrower under democratic regimes and international human rights treaties

Public Attitudes to Housing Systems for Pregnant Pigs

Understanding concerns about the welfare of farm animals is important for the development of socially sustainable production practices. This study used an online survey to test how views on group versus stall housing for pregnant sows varied when Canadian and US participants were provided information about these systems, including access to scientific papers, YouTube videos, Google images, and a frequently-asked-questions page (S1 Appendix). Initial responses and changes in responses after accessing the information were analyzed from Likert scores of 242 participants and from their written comments. Participants were less willing to accept the use of gestation stalls after viewing information on sow housing. For example, initially 30.4% of respondents indicated that they supported the use of gestation stalls; this declined to 17.8%after participants were provided additional information. Qualitative analysis of comments showed that supporters of gestation stalls expressed concern about the spread of disease and aggression between animals in less confined systems, whereas supporters of group housing placed more emphasis on the sow’s ability to interact socially and perform natural behaviors. These results point to public opposition to the use of gestation stalls, and indicate that the more that the public learns about gestation stalls the less willing they will be to accept their use

Public Attitudes to Housing Systems for Pregnant Pigs

Understanding concerns about the welfare of farm animals is important for the development of socially sustainable production practices. This study used an online survey to test how views on group versus stall housing for pregnant sows varied when Canadian and US participants were provided information about these systems, including access to scientific papers, YouTube videos, Google images, and a frequently-asked-questions page (S1 Appendix). Initial responses and changes in responses after accessing the information were analyzed from Likert scores of 242 participants and from their written comments. Participants were less willing to accept the use of gestation stalls after viewing information on sow housing. For example, initially 30.4% of respondents indicated that they supported the use of gestation stalls; this declined to 17.8%after participants were provided additional information. Qualitative analysis of comments showed that supporters of gestation stalls expressed concern about the spread of disease and aggression between animals in less confined systems, whereas supporters of group housing placed more emphasis on the sow’s ability to interact socially and perform natural behaviors. These results point to public opposition to the use of gestation stalls, and indicate that the more that the public learns about gestation stalls the less willing they will be to accept their use