Organising inclusion work : key factors for success

This paper presents the findings of research conducted by Scope in 2007-2009. It proposes a way of categorising the dominant modes or orientations to inclusion work in the disability sector in Australia and identifies the barriers and enablers to it. The research engaged with seventeen ‘inclusion workers’ or managers in Victoria and Perth, Western Australia and sought examples of successful practice along with the ingredients of success, and outcomes of the work. Coincidently, the majority of examples provided related to inclusion work with people with intellectual disability, and a minority of these relating to people with severe intellectual disability. This data was analysed to identify key organisational factors required for successful inclusion work. Most importantly, respondents were also asked to identify the outcomes of inclusion work for individuals with a disability and their families, as well as for services, and for the communities with whom they engaged. The paper offers a way of conceptualising the breadth of inclusion work, including work focused on presence and participation, as well as the larger scale activities of social engineering or social change. The paper presents key ingredients for successful organisational approaches to such work

Outcome measurement of community based mental health services in Western Australia: literature and concept summary

The paper aims to provide a brief overview of key ideas related to outcome measurement relevant to community based mental health services and their consumers in WA. Due to the breadth of scope of the paper, it is not an extensive or rigorous literature review but provides a scan of the literature that could shape a more thorough literature review in any of the content areas. The paper has been written with the aim of informing the sector of key ideas, issues, concepts and approaches

Spreading the word: using film to share research findings and knowledge about children with disabilities in Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea

While there is increasing international interest in disability inclusive development, people with disability largely remain ‘unseen, unheard and uncounted’ (UN ESCAP 2012:1). Children with disability, particularly, remain excluded from research informing development, and there is a paucity of information that is drawn directly from the self-report of children with disability living in developing countries. This exclusion occurs across all stages of research, including access to research findings. When child research is conducted in such countries, to gain further evidence to support disability inclusive development and advance human rights, researchers must question how findings will be reported back to participants and their communities, and seek a method that is both accessible and culturally relevant. This paper reports on the Voices of Pacific children with disability research project about the human rights of children with disability in Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea (PNG), and focuses on film as a dissemination method. Project researchers developed methods to enhance the participation of children with diverse disabilities as informants, and drew upon community development principles to disseminate research findings via film; a method that resonated with the aural and visual story telling traditions of participants.This medium also included accessibility features that have been utilised by local and international audiences

The human rights needs and priorities of children with disability in Papua New Guinea

&nbsp;A final report from the \u27Voices of Pacific children with disability: Identifying the needs and priorities of children with disability in Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea\u27 research project.<br /

Safety of a controlled human infection model of tuberculosis with aerosolised, live-attenuated Mycobacterium bovis BCG versus intradermal BCG in BCG-naive adults in the UK: a dose-escalation, randomised, controlled, phase 1 trial

Background: Mycobacterium tuberculosis is the main causative agent of tuberculosis. BCG, the only licensed vaccine, provides inadequate protection against pulmonary tuberculosis. Controlled human infection models are useful tools for vaccine development. We aimed to determine a safe dose of aerosol-inhaled live-attenuated Mycobacterium bovis BCG as a surrogate for M tuberculosis infection, then compare the safety and tolerability of infection models established using aerosol-inhaled and intradermally administered BCG. Methods: This phase 1 controlled human infection trial was conducted at two clinical research facilities in the UK. Healthy, immunocompetent adults aged 18–50 years, who were both M tuberculosis-naive and BCG-naive and had no history of asthma or other respiratory diseases, were eligible for the trial. Participants were initially enrolled into group 1 (receiving the BCG Danish strain); the trial was subsequently paused because of a worldwide shortage of BCG Danish and, after protocol amendment, was restarted using the BCG Bulgaria strain (group 2). After a dose-escalation study, during which participants were sequentially allocated to receive either 1 × 103, 1 × 104, 1 × 105, 1 × 106, or 1 × 107 colony-forming units (CFU) of aerosol BCG, the maximum tolerated dose was selected for the randomised controlled trial. Participants in this trial were randomly assigned (9:12), by variable block randomisation and using sequentially numbered sealed envelopes, to receive aerosol BCG (1 × 107 CFU) and intradermal saline or intradermal BCG (1 × 106 CFU) and aerosol saline. Participants were masked to treatment allocation until day 14. The primary outcome was to compare the safety of a controlled human infection model based on aerosol-inhaled BCG versus one based on intradermally administered BCG, and the secondary outcome was to evaluate BCG recovery in the airways of participants who received aerosol BCG or skin biopsies of participants who received intradermal BCG. BCG was detected by culture and by PCR. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02709278, and is complete. Findings: Participants were assessed for eligibility between April 7, 2016, and Sept 29, 2018. For group 1, 15 participants were screened, of whom 13 were enrolled and ten completed the study; for group 2, 60 were screened and 33 enrolled, all of whom completed the study. Doses up to 1 × 107 CFU aerosol-inhaled BCG were sufficiently well tolerated. No significant difference was observed in the frequency of adverse events between aerosol and intradermal groups (median percentage of solicited adverse events per participant, post-aerosol vs post-intradermal BCG: systemic 7% [IQR 2–11] vs 4% [1–13], p=0·62; respiratory 7% [1–19] vs 4% [1–9], p=0·56). More severe systemic adverse events occurred in the 2 weeks after aerosol BCG (15 [12%] of 122 reported systemic adverse events) than after intradermal BCG (one [1%] of 94; difference 11% [95% CI 5–17]; p=0·0013), but no difference was observed in the severity of respiratory adverse events (two [1%] of 144 vs zero [0%] of 97; 1% [−1 to 3]; p=0·52). All adverse events after aerosol BCG resolved spontaneously. One serious adverse event was reported—a participant in group 2 was admitted to hospital to receive analgesia for a pre-existing ovarian cyst, which was deemed unrelated to BCG infection. On day 14, BCG was cultured from bronchoalveolar lavage samples after aerosol infection and from skin biopsy samples after intradermal infection. Interpretation: This first-in-human aerosol BCG controlled human infection model was sufficiently well tolerated. Further work will evaluate the utility of this model in assessing vaccine efficacy and identifying potential correlates of protection

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials