P.I.P.P.I.: What has changed? How and why? The empirical evidence

This paper provides a summary of the results of the P.I.P.P.I. Program in achieving the prefixed goals on the final, intermediate and proximal outcome variables, regarding children\u2019s development, the positive exercise of parental competences and the effective action of services respectively. Therefore, the main purpose is to describe the impact of the program on the overall well-being of children and families in relation to the processes implemented. This is possible thanks to the wealth of information gathered by professionals through the tools provided for the analysis, design and monitoring activities in the work with families

Movimenti resilienti con le famiglie nell’ecologia sociale tra casa, servizi, scuola e comunità

The paper deals with the ecology of human development by Bronfenbrenner, the definition of neglect in P.I.P.P.I., some contribution on resilience as a way to fight the origins of social disadvantage and its implication in a community-based approach. Within this framework, the paper reflects on the change that occurs when a family is accompanied by the services in orderto understand on the way to promote resilient moves. Particular attention is paid on the service- school-family relationship also by presenting the experience in the territory of Francavilla Fontana as an example of governance that fosters children, parents, teachers, and social professionals participation, and in which service providers play the role of community enablers. Some suggestions for the practice and the policy are highlighted and questions for future development are given.A partire dalla cornice ecologica dello sviluppo umano di Bronfenbrenner, dalla definizione di negligenza in P.I.P.P.I., da alcuni contributi sul costrutto di resilienza come contrasto all’origine degli svantaggi sociali con le relative implicazioni con il lavoro di comunità, il contributo propone una riflessione sui mutamenti ecosistemici che avvengono quando una famiglia viene accompagnata dai servizi con l’obiettivo di riflettere su come attivare possibili movimenti resilienti. Particolare attenzione viene posta sulla relazione servizi sociali, scuola e famiglie illustrando un percorso all’interno dell’ambito territoriale di Francavilla Fontana come esempio di governance a favore della partecipazione di bambini, genitori, operatori e insegnanti in cui i servizi possono fungere da community enablers. Vengono evidenziate alcune attenzioni per le prassi e le politiche fornendo alcuni interrogativi per eventuali sviluppi

Gli strumenti di P.I.P.P.I.: orchestrare l’incontro per trasformare la realtà

In order to put theories and methods into practice, P.I.P.P.I. provides several tools that are used to support the care process within a participatory and transformative evaluation perspective where the link between assessment, planning, intervention and evaluation is key and where children and parents are fully protagonists of their care path. After a pedagogical reflection on the sense of using the tools within the work of social services, the paper presents the main tools (as the multidimensional model of the Child’s World – CW, RPMonlin, and the CW Questionnaire, Pre-Postassessment and the questionnaire SDQ) used by professionals to give voice to children and families and foster their participation, and whose data are used also evaluate the outcome of the families on a individual and aggregate level

Recensioni

- Hart A.,Blimcow D., Thomas H., Resilient Therapy. Working with Children and Families, Est Sussex, Routledge, 2007, pp. 216 di Marco Ius;- Ungar M., Counseling in challenging contexts: Working with individuals and families across clinical and community settings, Belmont (CA), Brooks/Cole, 2011, pp. 342 di Marco Ius;- Milani P., Pegoraro E., L'intervista nei contesti socio-educativi: una guida pratica, Roma, Carocci, 2011, pp. 110 di Sara Serbati

Note dei curatori

Note dei curator

Vulnerabilità e resilienza: lessico minimo

The paper aims at presenting a brief digression on the definitions of vulnerability and resilience, in order to highlight their dialectical and mutual relationship and to clarify the lexicon that is at the basis of this organizing conceptual framework.The different concepts of this framework are analyzed assuming not a structuralist approach, that distinguishes and separates, but a phenomenological and human development ecological one. This approach takes into account the meaning the person gives to the experience of vulnerability and mostly to the relations constituting his/her family context and that may be key in helping the child in building resilience out of weakness.L’articolo propone un sintetico excursus fra le definizioni di vulnerabilità e resilienza, per metterne in luce, piuttosto che le differenze, il dialettico e vicendevole richiamarsi e per fare chiarezza nel lessico che sta alla base di tale organising conceptual framework.Vengono quindi esaminati i diversi concetti costitutivi di tale framework, alla luce non tanto di un approccio strutturalista che distingue e separa, ma di un approccio fenomenologico e ecologico dello sviluppo umano che tiene conto dei significati che la persona stessa attribuisce all’esperienza della vulnerabilità e soprattutto alle relazioni che costituiscono il suo contesto familiare e che tanto possono aiutare il singolo bambino a costruire resilienza a partire dall’esperienza del vulnus

Smart Welfare

Grazie ai programmi P.I.P.P.I. (Serbati, Milani, 2019) e Reddito di Cittadi-nanza (Milani, Petrella, Colombini, 2019), della cui implementazione siamo incaricati dal Ministero del Lavoro e delle Politiche Sociali, beneficiamo di un osservatorio di particolare ampiezza su ciò che accade nel sistema di wel-fare per l’infanzia e la famiglia nell’intero paese. Nei primi giorni della pan-demia, in particolare dopo la chiusura del 9.3.2020, abbiamo osservato cambiamenti inattesi, repentini e ampi nelle pratiche degli operatori. Cam-biamenti così peculiari da aver fatto emergere, nel tempo di un battito d’ali, una parola nuova, necessaria a descriverli: smart welfare

Advancing Craniopharyngioma Management: A Systematic Review of Current Targeted Therapies and Future Perspectives

Craniopharyngiomas present unique challenges in surgical management due to their proximity to critical neurovascular structures. This systematic review investigates genetic and immunological markers as potential targets for therapy in craniopharyngiomas, assessing their involvement in tumorigenesis, and their influence on prognosis and treatment strategies. The systematic review adhered to PRISMA guidelines, with a thorough literature search conducted on PubMed, Ovid MED-LINE, and Ovid EMBASE. Employing MeSH terms and Boolean operators, the search focused on craniopharyngiomas, targeted or molecular therapy, and clinical outcomes or adverse events. Inclusion criteria encompassed English language studies, clinical trials (randomized or non-randomized), and investigations into adamantinomatous or papillary craniopharyngiomas. Targeted therapies, either standalone or combined with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, were examined if they included clinical outcomes or adverse event analysis. Primary outcomes assessed disease response through follow-up MRI scans, categorizing responses as follows: complete response (CR), near-complete response (NCR), partial response, and stable or progressive disease based on lesion regression percentages. Secondary outcomes included treatment type and duration, as well as adverse events. A total of 891 papers were initially identified, of which 26 studies spanning from 2000 to 2023 were finally included in the review. Two tables highlighted adamantinomatous and papillary craniopharyngiomas, encompassing 7 and 19 studies, respectively. For adamantinomatous craniopharyngiomas, Interferon-2α was the predominant targeted therapy (29%), whereas dabrafenib took precedence (70%) for papillary craniopharyngiomas. Treatment durations varied, ranging from 1.7 to 28 months. Positive responses, including CR or NCR, were observed in both types of craniopharyngiomas (29% CR for adamantinomatous; 32% CR for papillary). Adverse events, such as constitutional symptoms and skin changes, were reported, emphasizing the need for vigilant monitoring and personalized management to enhance treatment tolerability. Overall, the data highlighted a diverse landscape of targeted therapies with encouraging responses and manageable adverse events, underscoring the importance of ongoing research and individualized patient care in the exploration of treatment options for craniopharyngiomas. In the realm of targeted therapies for craniopharyngiomas, tocilizumab and dabrafenib emerged as prominent choices for adamantinomatous and papillary cases, respectively. While adverse events were common, their manageable nature underscored the importance of vigilant monitoring and personalized management. Acknowledging limitations, future research should prioritize larger, well-designed clinical trials and standardized treatment protocols to enhance our understanding of the impact of targeted therapies on craniopharyngioma patients