How can alternative forms of a planning intervention tool be used to support children's emotional well-being in schools?

The questions of how best to support children’s behaviour and their emotional well-being in schools are pervasive ones, but are rarely treated simultaneously within the United Kingdom. The efficacy of two forms of a planning intervention tool to support these in a way which could address internalizing as well and externalizing emotional needs, which could promote early intervention and which was sustainable in schools was explored in the present Case Study. The planning intervention tool was based on principles of Multi-Element Plans (MEPS) and Target Monitoring and Evaluation (TME); an alternative form also included an explicit section on exploring the reasons underlying behaviour (ERB) in line with principles of Functional Analysis (FA). The efficacy of the alternative forms of the planning intervention tool was explored for twelve children across two primary schools, within the framework of a multiple-embedded case study. Data from scaling (TME), the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, the School Children’s Happiness Inventory, and interviews with school staff and the children themselves were analysed using a combination of descriptive, statistical and thematic analyses. Findings suggested that the planning intervention tool supported positive outcomes overall for the children, as well as the adults involved in the study, and indicated particular facilitatory as well as limiting features. There was not a clear additional benefit of incorporating ERB into the planning intervention tool in terms of outcomes for the children, although this may reflect a limitation in the training and the implementation of this feature. School staff generally reported that the use of either form of the planning intervention tool was sustainable and identified practical considerations, including some areas of support from Educational Psychologists.EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

Endocrine‐based treatments in clinically‐relevant subgroups of hormone receptor‐positive/HER2‐negative metastatic breast cancer: systematic review and meta‐analysis

A precise assessment of the efficacy of first‐/second‐line endocrine therapies (ET) ± target therapies (TT) in clinically‐relevant subgroups of hormone receptor‐positive (HR+)/HER2‐negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has not yet been conducted. To improve our current knowledge and support clinical decision‐making, we thus conducted a systematic literature search to identify all first‐/second‐line phase II/III randomized clinical trials (RCT) of currently approved or most promising ET ± TT. Then, we performed a meta‐analysis to assess progression‐free (PFS) and/or overall survival (OS) benefit in several clinically‐relevant prespecified subgroups. Thirty‐five RCT were included (17,595 patients). Pooled results show significant reductions in the risk of relapse or death of 26–41% and 12–27%, respectively, depending on the clinical subgroup. Combination strategies proved to be more effective than single‐agent ET (PFS hazard ratio (HR) range for combinations: 0.60–0.65 vs. HR range for single agent ET: 0.59–1.37; OS HR range for combinations: 0.74–0.87 vs. HR range for single agent ET: 0.68–0.98), with CDK4/6‐inhibitors(i) + ET being the most effective regimen. Single agent ET showed comparable efficacy with ET+TT combinations in nonvisceral (p = 0.63) and endocrine sensitive disease (p = 0.79), while mTORi‐based combinations proved to be a valid therapeutic option in endocrine‐resistant tumors, as well as PI3Ki + ET in PIK3CA‐mutant tumors. These results strengthen international treatment guidelines and can aid therapeutic decision‐making

Endocrine-Based Treatments in Clinically-Relevant Subgroups of Hormone Receptor-Positive/HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

peer reviewedA precise assessment of the efficacy of first-/second-line endocrine therapies (ET) ± target therapies (TT) in clinically-relevant subgroups of hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has not yet been conducted. To improve our current knowledge and support clinical decision-making, we thus conducted a systematic literature search to identify all first-/second-line phase II/III randomized clinical trials (RCT) of currently approved or most promising ET ± TT. Then, we performed a meta-analysis to assess progression-free (PFS) and/or overall survival (OS) benefit in several clinically-relevant prespecified subgroups. Thirty-five RCT were included (17,595 patients). Pooled results show significant reductions in the risk of relapse or death of 26-41% and 12-27%, respectively, depending on the clinical subgroup. Combination strategies proved to be more effective than single-agent ET (PFS hazard ratio (HR) range for combinations: 0.60-0.65 vs. HR range for single agent ET: 0.59-1.37; OS HR range for combinations: 0.74-0.87 vs. HR range for single agent ET: 0.68-0.98), with CDK4/6-inhibitors(i) + ET being the most effective regimen. Single agent ET showed comparable efficacy with ET+TT combinations in non-visceral (p = 0.63) and endocrine sensitive disease (p = 0.79), while mTORi-based combinations proved to be a valid therapeutic option in endocrine-resistant tumors, as well as PI3Ki + ET in PIK3CA-mutant tumors. These results strengthen international treatment guidelines and can aid therapeutic decision-making