Diagnosing language impairment in bilinguals: professional experience and perception

Diagnosing specific language impairment (SLI) in monolingual children is a complex task, with some controversy regarding criteria. Diagnosis of SLI in bilinguals is made more complex by the lack of standardized assessments and poor understanding of clinical markers in languages other than English. There is an added complexity when one of the languages being acquired is an endangered one, where the domains of use and input are restricted, and where input is affected by convergence with the majority language. This article explores the challenge facing speech and language therapists and psychologists in diagnosing SLI in bilingual children acquiring Irish and English. Six speech and language therapists and four psychologists took part in semi-structured interviews exploring the impact of the bilingual environment, the nature of bilingual language impairment, current practices and the needs of these children. Thematic analysis was carried out and here three of the main themes emerging in the areas of assessment, the bilingual environment and characteristics of language impairment in this population are discussed. For assessment, an overriding theme was the requirement of standardized testing to secure additional educational and therapy resources for these children. However, because there are no standardized tests available in Irish, both professions end up translating existing English-based language and psychological assessments, using the norms provided to achieve standard scores. Both professions expressed strong dissatisfaction with this practice but saw little choice, given the Department of Education's approach to allocation of supports. Language impairment in Irish was characterized by lexical difficulties, particularly with verbs and prepositions, tense errors, and significant borrowing and code-switching with English. Other themes that emerged were the growing influence of English as the children became older, which affected both attitudes to the minority Irish language as well as the content and structure of the language itself. The implications for service provision for bilingual populations in general are outlined

Co-production : a kind revolution

Carnegie UK (CUK) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) INVOLVE held a meeting on the co-production of research, how we work together on equal terms. We brought together public contributors and individuals from organisations focused on research. We wanted to discuss how co-production could work in research, how it could be seen as business as usual, and to think through the barriers that stop us from working together, as well as the things that can help us move forward. While we agreed that the idea of working together is important, we recognised there are still many challenges to co-production being seen as a normal activity in research and the development of a ‘business case’ to persuade others is still needed. We also considered the wider civic roles that Universities are adopting as important in helping co-production become normal practice. Discussion focused on issues such as power and how it works in research. We recognised that we also need to create the right conditions for co-production, changing research culture so it becomes kinder, with a focus on the development of relationships. We also recognised the need for enough time for honest, high quality conversations between patients, public contributors and researchers that take account of how power works in research. Co-production was seen as a societal ‘good,’ helping us live well by undertaking research together that benefits the health of the public. We also identified a range of ways we could move co-production forward, recognising we are on a journey and that current societal changes brought about by Covid-19 may result in us being more radical in how we rethink the ways we want to work in research

Making the Connection: Creating Leaders in Research, Education, and Practice through Doctoral Study in Occupational Science & Occupational Therapy

Current students and recent graduates of USC\u27s OTD and PhD programs share innovative projects that address the Centennial Vision priority areas of practice. They share practical and creative strategies for bridging the gaps between research, education, and practice, and developing and implementing changes in a variety of practice settings

What does "good" community and public engagement look like? Developing relationships with community members in global health research

Community and public engagement (CPE) is increasingly becoming a key component in global health research. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is one of the leading funders in the UK of global health research and requires a robust CPE element in the research it funds, along with CPE monitoring and evaluation. But what does "good" CPE look like? And what factors facilitate or inhibit good CPE? Addressing these questions would help ensure clarity of expectations of award holders, and inform effective monitoring frameworks and the development of guidance. The work reported upon here builds on existing guidance and is a first step in trying to identify the key components of what "good" CPE looks like, which can be used for all approaches to global health research and in a range of different settings and contexts. This article draws on data collected as part of an evaluation of CPE by 53 NIHR-funded award holders to provide insights on CPE practice in global health research. This data was then debated, developed and refined by a group of researchers, CPE specialists and public contributors to explore what "good" CPE looks like, and the barriers and facilitators to good CPE. A key finding was the importance, for some research, of investing in and developing long term relationships with communities, perhaps beyond the life cycle of a project; this was regarded as crucial to the development of trust, addressing power differentials and ensuring the legacy of the research was of benefit to the community. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2022 Hickey, Porter, Tembo, Rennard, Tholanah, Beresford, Chandler, Chimbari, Coldham, Dikomitis, Dziro, Ekiikina, Khattak, Montenegro, Mumba, Musesengwa, Nelson, Nhunzvi, Ramirez and Staniszewska.

What Does “Good” Community and Public Engagement Look Like? Developing Relationships With Community Members in Global Health Research

Community and public engagement (CPE) is increasingly becoming a key component in global health research. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is one of the leading funders in the UK of global health research and requires a robust CPE element in the research it funds, along with CPE monitoring and evaluation. But what does “good” CPE look like? And what factors facilitate or inhibit good CPE? Addressing these questions would help ensure clarity of expectations of award holders, and inform effective monitoring frameworks and the development of guidance. The work reported upon here builds on existing guidance and is a first step in trying to identify the key components of what “good” CPE looks like, which can be used for all approaches to global health research and in a range of different settings and contexts. This article draws on data collected as part of an evaluation of CPE by 53 NIHR-funded award holders to provide insights on CPE practice in global health research. This data was then debated, developed and refined by a group of researchers, CPE specialists and public contributors to explore what “good” CPE looks like, and the barriers and facilitators to good CPE. A key finding was the importance, for some research, of investing in and developing long term relationships with communities, perhaps beyond the life cycle of a project; this was regarded as crucial to the development of trust, addressing power differentials and ensuring the legacy of the research was of benefit to the community

The Magnitude of Androgen Receptor Positivity in Breast Cancer Is Critical for Reliable Prediction of Disease Outcome

Purpose: Consensus is lacking regarding the androgen receptor (AR) as a prognostic marker in breast cancer. The objectives of this study were to comprehensively review the literature on AR prognostication and determine optimal criteria for AR as an independent predictor of breast cancer survival. Experimental Design: AR positivity was assessed by immunostaining in two clinically validated primary breast cancer cohorts [training cohort, n = 219; validation cohort, n = 418; 77% and 79% estrogen receptor alpha (ERα) positive, respectively]. The optimal AR cut-point was determined by ROC analysis in the training cohort and applied to both cohorts. Results: AR was an independent prognostic marker of breast cancer outcome in 22 of 46 (48%) previous studies that performed multivariate analyses. Most studies used cut-points of 1% or 10% nuclear positivity. Herein, neither 1% nor 10% cut-points were robustly prognostic. ROC analysis revealed that a higher AR cut-point (78% positivity) provided optimal sensitivity and specificity to predict breast cancer survival in the training (HR, 0.41; P = 0.015) and validation (HR, 0.50; P = 0.014) cohorts. Tenfold cross-validation confirmed the robustness of this AR cut-point. Patients with ERα-positive tumors and AR positivity ≥78% had the best survival in both cohorts (P 0.87) had the best outcomes (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: This study defines an optimal AR cut-point to reliably predict breast cancer survival. Testing this cut-point in prospective cohorts is warranted for implementation of AR as a prognostic factor in the clinical management of breast cancer

Effective engagement and involvement with community stakeholders in the co-production of global health research.

"Co-Production of Knowledge" paper

Levetiracetam versus phenytoin for second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus (EcLiPSE): a multicentre, open-label, randomised trial

Background Phenytoin is the recommended second-line intravenous anticonvulsant for treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus in the UK; however, some evidence suggests that levetiracetam could be an effective and safer alternative. This trial compared the efficacy and safety of phenytoin and levetiracetam for second-line management of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus.Methods This open-label, randomised clinical trial was undertaken at 30 UK emergency departments at secondary and tertiary care centres. Participants aged 6 months to under 18 years, with convulsive status epilepticus requiring second-line treatment, were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated randomisation schedule to receive levetiracetam (40 mg/kg over 5 min) or phenytoin (20 mg/kg over at least 20 min), stratified by centre. The primary outcome was time from randomisation to cessation of convulsive status epilepticus, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (excluding those who did not require second-line treatment after randomisation and those who did not provide consent). This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN22567894.Findings Between July 17, 2015, and April 7, 2018, 1432 patients were assessed for eligibility. After exclusion of ineligible patients, 404 patients were randomly assigned. After exclusion of those who did not require second-line treatment and those who did not consent, 286 randomised participants were treated and had available data: 152 allocated to levetiracetam, and 134 to phenytoin. Convulsive status epilepticus was terminated in 106 (70%) children in the levetiracetam group and in 86 (64%) in the phenytoin group. Median time from randomisation to cessation of convulsive status epilepticus was 35 min (IQR 20 to not assessable) in the levetiracetam group and 45 min (24 to not assessable) in the phenytoin group (hazard ratio 1·20, 95% CI 0·91–1·60; p=0·20). One participant who received levetiracetam followed by phenytoin died as a result of catastrophic cerebral oedema unrelated to either treatment. One participant who received phenytoin had serious adverse reactions related to study treatment (hypotension considered to be immediately life-threatening [a serious adverse reaction] and increased focal seizures and decreased consciousness considered to be medically significant [a suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction]). Interpretation Although levetiracetam was not significantly superior to phenytoin, the results, together with previously reported safety profiles and comparative ease of administration of levetiracetam, suggest it could be an appropriate alternative to phenytoin as the first-choice, second-line anticonvulsant in the treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus

Abstracts from the NIHR INVOLVE Conference 2017

n/