Federal Courts: Article I, II, III, and IV Adjudication

The distinction among the several types of federal courts in the United States has gone almost unremarked in the academic literature. Instead, attention focuses on Article III “constitutional” courts with occasional discussion of how they differ from what are referred to as “non-constitutional” or “legislative” courts. At best, these labels are misleading: all federal courts have a constitutional locus. Most (but not all) are brought into being via legislation. The binary approach ignores the full range of adjudicatory bodies, which find root in different constitutional provisions: Article III, Section 1, Article I, Section 8; Article IV, Section 3; Article II, Section 2/Article I, Section 8, Clause 3; and Article II, Section 1. These distinctions matter for defining jurisdiction and understanding the scope of the authorities—and constitutional protections—that apply. The failure of scholars to take into account the panoply contributes to inaccurate analyses and cabins debates. This Article takes a significant step forward, providing a conceptual framework for each type of court and delineating, based on their legal and historical underpinning, which entities constitute each category. It details the courts’ constitutive elements and their jurisdiction as supported by doctrine, statutory law, and scholarly literature, providing the first, comprehensive taxonomy of federal courts in the United States

Federal Courts: Art. III(1), Art. I(8), Art. IV(3)(2), Art. II(2)/I(8)(3), and Art. II(1) Adjudication

The distinction among the several types of federal courts in the United States has gone almost unremarked in the academic literature. Instead, attention focuses on Article III “constitutional” courts with occasional discussion of how they differ from what are referred to as “non-constitutional” or “legislative” courts. At best, these labels are misleading: all federal courts have a constitutional locus, and most, but not all, federal courts are brought into being via legislation. The binary approach further ignores the full range of federal courts, which are rooted in different constitutional provisions: Art. III(1), Art. I(8); Art. IV(3); Art. II(2)/I(8)(3); and Art. II(1). These distinctions matter for defining jurisdiction and understanding the scope of the authorities—and constitutional protections—that apply. The failure of scholars to take into account the full panoply of the federal judicial system has contributed to inaccurate analyses and cabined the debate. This article takes a significant step forward, providing a conceptual framework for each type of court and delineating, based on their legal and historical underpinning, which adjudicatory bodies in the history of the United States fall within each category. It details the constitutive elements of the courts and their jurisdiction as supported by doctrine, statutory law, and scholarly literature, providing the first, comprehensive taxonomy of federal courts in the United States

A Pilot Study of Value of Information Analysis to Support Research Recommendations for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

Background - This project developed as a result of the activities of the Research Teams at the Centre for Health Economics, University of York, and ScHARR at the University of Sheffield in the methods and application of decision analysis and value of information analysis as a means of informing the research recommendations made by NICE, as part of its Guidance to the NHS in England and Wales, and informing the deliberations of the NICE Research and Development Committee. Objectives - The specific objectives of the pilot study were to: • Demonstrate the benefits of using appropriate decision analytic methods and value of information analysis to inform research recommendations. • Establish the feasibility and resource implications of applying these methods in a timely way, to inform NICE. • Identify critical issues and methodological challenges to the use of value of information methods for research recommendations (with particular regard to the new reference case as a suitable basis for this type of analysis).

Effect of questions used by psychiatrists on therapeutic alliance and adherence

Background Psychiatrists' questions are the mechanism for achieving clinical objectives and managing the formation of a therapeutic alliance – consistently associated with patient adherence. No research has examined the nature of this relationship and the different practices used in psychiatry. Questions are typically defined in binary terms (e.g. ‘open’ v. ‘closed’) that may have limited application in practice. Aims To undertake a detailed examination of the types of questions psychiatrists ask patients and explore their association with the therapeutic alliance and patient adherence. Method A coding protocol was developed to classify questions from 134 out-patient consultations, predominantly by syntactic form. Bivariate correlations with measures of patient adherence and the therapeutic alliance (psychiatrist-rated) were examined and assessed using generalised estimating equations, adjusting for patient symptoms, psychiatrist identity and amount of speech. Results Psychiatrists used only four of ten question types regularly: yes/no auxiliary questions, ‘wh-’ questions, declarative questions and tag questions. Only declarative questions predicted better adherence and perceptions of the therapeutic relationship. Conversely, ‘wh-’ questions – associated with positive symptoms – predicted poorer perceptions of the therapeutic relationship. Declarative questions were frequently used to propose an understanding of patients' experiences, in particular their emotional salience for the patient. Conclusions A refined defining of questioning practices is necessary to improve communication in psychiatry. The use of declarative questions may enhance alliance and adherence, or index their manifestation in talk, e.g. better mutual understanding. The function of ‘so’-prefaced declaratives, also used in psychotherapy, is more nuanced than negatively connotated ‘leading’ questions. Hearable as displays of empathy, they attend closely to patient experience, while balancing the tasks of assessment and treatment

The effect of questions used by psychiatrists on therapeutic alliance and adherence

Background Psychiatrist questions are the mechanism for achieving clinical objectives and managing the formation of a therapeutic alliance - consistently associated with patient adherence. No research has examined the nature of this relationship and the different practices used in psychiatry. Questions are typically defined in binary terms e.g. ‘open’ vs ‘closed’ that may have limited application in practice. Aims To undertake a detailed examination of the types of questions psychiatrists ask patients and explore their association with the therapeutic alliance and patient adherence. Method A coding protocol was developed to classify questions from 134 outpatient consultations, predominantly by syntactic form. Bivariate correlations with measures of patient adherence and the therapeutic alliance (psychiatrist-rated) were examined and assessed using Generalised Estimating Equations, adjusting for patient symptoms, psychiatrist ID and amount of speech. Results Psychiatrists used a small subset (4/10) of question types regularly 1) yes/no auxiliary questions 2) wh questions 3) declarative questions and 4) tag questions. Only declarative questions predicted better adherence and perceptions of the therapeutic relationship. Conversely, wh questions - associated with positive symptoms – predicted poorer perceptions of the therapeutic relationship. Declarative questions were frequently used to propose an understanding of patients’ experiences, in particular their emotional salience for the patient. Conclusions A more granular definition of questioning practices is necessary to improve communication in psychiatry. The use of declarative questions may enhance the alliance and adherence - or index their manifestation in talk e.g. better mutual understanding. The function of ‘soprefaced’ declaratives, also found in psychotherapy, are more nuanced than negatively connotated ‘leading’ questions. Hearable as displays of empathy, they attend closely to patient experience, while balancing the tasks of assessment and treatment

How psychiatrists recommend treatment and its relationship with patient uptake

Consultations for patients with chronic mental health conditions are conceived as meetings of experts: medical and experiential, respectively. Treatment decisions, in these terms, become a joint responsibility rather than handed down ex-cathedra. One resource for constituting decisions as ‘shared’ is the treatment recommendation – decisional authority can be invoked through its design. There is concern that people diagnosed with schizophrenia are infrequently involved in treatment decisions. However, the methods psychiatrists actually employ remain undefined. This article advances our understanding of psychiatric practice by mapping alternative methods used by psychiatrists to recommend treatment in outpatient consultations in situ. First, we unpack the types of treatments psychiatrists recommend. Then, we ask how psychiatrists recommend treatment? Applying a novel coding taxonomy, informed by the conversation analytic principle that recommendations represent different social actions, we identify the distribution of alternative formulations for psychiatrists’ recommendations (pronouncements, suggestions, proposals, and offers). We also propose one linguistic dimension, personal pronouns, on which recommending actions often depend, implicative for who is projected as ‘accountable’ for the decision. Finally, we examine the relationship between action type and patient uptake: is a particular type of recommendation more likely to attract acceptance/resistance from patients? And how does this relate to decisional accountability

Evaluating the effects of a multi-component support service for people recently diagnosed with dementia and their carers: A qualitative study

Abstract Introduction Although prior research has provided an understanding of the needs of people living with dementia (PLWD) and their carers, less is known about how tailored multicomponent interventions impact their lives. This study explored the effect of providing ongoing support to people who had been recently diagnosed with dementia and to their carers. Methods We conducted interviews with a convenience sample of key stakeholders: 11 interviews with people who had dementia and their familial carers (n = 14) and six interviews with staff and other practitioners involved with the service (n = 13). Inductive thematic analysis was performed on the data. Results Four themes were developed: the service as a source of respite, peer support, activities as facilitators of emotional wellbeing, and social support. The service was well‐respected, credible, and trusted and was highly valued by practitioners, clients, and carers. It had a clear role in supporting PLWD and their carers. Peer support provided through the service contributed to greatly reducing self‐reported carer burden. Conclusion Recommendations arising from this study include offering holistic services to PLWD and their carers, developing activities for men, raising awareness of services among practitioners working with PLWD, and improving partnerships between services and agencies working with older people. Patient or Public Contribution Service users were consulted on the themes generated from the data and were asked to provide feedback to help guide the interpretation of the data and ensure this reflected their views and experiences

Experiments on the Effects of Fee Shifting and Discovery on the Efficient Settlement of Tort Claims

In this paper, we apply the methods of experimental economics pioneered by 2002 Nobel Prize winner Vernon Smith to the study of the effects of several proposed tort reform options. Specifically, we study the effects of fee shifting and discovery on the efficient use of the courts. Because it is difficult, if not impossible, to measure efficiency in the real world, we believe that controlled experiments offer valuable contributions to the debate on tort reform. The experiments presented in this paper point to the following main conclusions: First, a symmetric cost-shifting rule, as embodied in Section 998, California Code of Civil Procedure (similar to proposed changes to Rule 68 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure), produces no difference in pre-trial settlement rates when compared to an environment without cost-shifting. Second, the inclusion of attorneys’ fees as recoverable costs under Section 998 improves settlement rates. Third, liberal discovery rules, which improve information symmetry, cause an improvement in pre-trial settlement rates. Finally, when efficiency is measured relative to the final bargaining positions in pre-trial negotiations, we find a much greater inefficiency in the use of the courts when attorneys’ fee are included over when they are not. This last conclusion suggests that policies directed towards tort reform are in fact ignoring an important feature of tort settlements, i.e., the hardening of positions as parties attempt to reduce their disagreement over a reasonable settlement

Cytokine and hormonal regulation of bone marrow immune cell Wnt10b expression

This study is funded by National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (https://nccih.nih.gov/), U.S National Institutes of Health (Grant Code: 1R01AT007695-01) awarded to LRM and NP and by National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (www.niddk.nih.gov/), U.S National Institutes of Health (Grant code: R01DK101050) awarded to LRM and NP. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD