Effects of pyramidal behavior skills training on the procedural integrity of school staff when delivering functional communication training to students.

Behavioral skills training (BST) is a commonly used, well-researched method for delivering training that has been shown to generate mastery and fidelity across multiple populations and skills. Despite the evidence supporting its use across multiple settings with a variety of populations, few studies have examined the use of pyramidal BST to train educators in a public school setting in the implementation of functional communication training (FCT). This study utilized a concurrent multiple probe across participants design to examine the effects of pyramidal BST on the procedural integrity of general education teachers providing FCT as part of an intervention plan. BST was provided by the researcher to a special education teacher participant in one training session; the special education teacher then utilized BST to provide FCT implementation training to general education staff in single subsequent training sessions. No additional coaching was provided beyond these training sessions. Data collected throughout the study indicated that pyramidal BST provided in one session resulted in an increase in procedural integrity across all general education teacher participants with strong positive effect sizes (dp estimates range: 11.97 – 16.56). Social validity data indicate that the teacher participants viewed the training as valuable and expressed an interest in receiving further training. The results of this study support the use of pyramidal BST to train general education teachers in the implementation of FCT

Falls in young, middle-aged and older community dwelling adults: perceived cause, environmental factors and injury

BACKGROUND: Falls in older people have been characterized extensively in the literature, however little has been reported regarding falls in middle-aged and younger adults. The objective of this paper is to describe the perceived cause, environmental influences and resultant injuries of falls in 1497 young (20–45 years), middle-aged (46–65 years) and older (> 65 years) men and women from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study on Aging. METHODS: A descriptive study where participants completed a fall history questionnaire describing the circumstances surrounding falls in the previous two years. RESULTS: The reporting of falls increased with age from 18% in young, to 21% in middle-aged and 35% in older adults, with higher rates in women than men. Ambulation was cited as the cause of the fall most frequently in all gender and age groups. Our population reported a higher percentage of injuries (70.5%) than previous studies. The young group reported injuries most frequently to wrist/hand, knees and ankles; the middle-aged to their knees and the older group to their head and knees. Women reported a higher percentage of injuries in all age groups. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to compare falls in young, middle and older aged men and women. Significant differences were found between the three age groups with respect to number of falls, activities engaged in prior to falling, perceived causes of the fall and where they fell

Adverse maternal, fetal, and newborn outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION Despite a growing body of research on the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, there is continued controversy given heterogeneity in the quality and design of published studies. METHODS We screened ongoing studies in our sequential, prospective meta-analysis. We pooled individual participant data to estimate the absolute and relative risk (RR) of adverse outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with confirmed negative pregnancies. We evaluated the risk of bias using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS We screened 137 studies and included 12 studies in 12 countries involving 13 136 pregnant women.Pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection-as compared with uninfected pregnant women-were at significantly increased risk of maternal mortality (10 studies; n=1490; RR 7.68, 95% CI 1.70 to 34.61); admission to intensive care unit (8 studies; n=6660; RR 3.81, 95% CI 2.03 to 7.17); receiving mechanical ventilation (7 studies; n=4887; RR 15.23, 95% CI 4.32 to 53.71); receiving any critical care (7 studies; n=4735; RR 5.48, 95% CI 2.57 to 11.72); and being diagnosed with pneumonia (6 studies; n=4573; RR 23.46, 95% CI 3.03 to 181.39) and thromboembolic disease (8 studies; n=5146; RR 5.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 27.12).Neonates born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to be admitted to a neonatal care unit after birth (7 studies; n=7637; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.08); be born preterm (7 studies; n=6233; RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.29) or moderately preterm (7 studies; n=6071; RR 2.92, 95% CI 1.88 to 4.54); and to be born low birth weight (12 studies; n=11 930; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.40). Infection was not linked to stillbirth. Studies were generally at low or moderate risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS This analysis indicates that SARS-CoV-2 infection at any time during pregnancy increases the risk of maternal death, severe maternal morbidities and neonatal morbidity, but not stillbirth or intrauterine growth restriction. As more data become available, we will update these findings per the published protocol

sj-docx-1-foa-10.1177_10883576231221980 – Supplemental material for Evaluating the Evidence-Base Supporting Writing Instruction Strategies for Students With Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review of Experimental Research

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-foa-10.1177_10883576231221980 for Evaluating the Evidence-Base Supporting Writing Instruction Strategies for Students With Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review of Experimental Research by Erica B. McClure, Robert C. Pennington and Stacy Crawford Bewley in Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities</p

Evidence and reporting standards in N-of-1 medical studies: a systematic review

Abstract N-of-1 trials, a special case of Single Case Experimental Designs (SCEDs), are prominent in clinical medical research and specifically psychiatry due to the growing significance of precision/personalized medicine. It is imperative that these clinical trials be conducted, and their data analyzed, using the highest standards to guard against threats to validity. This systematic review examined publications of medical N-of-1 trials to examine whether they meet (a) the evidence standards and (b) the criteria for demonstrating evidence of a relation between an independent and an outcome variable per the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards for SCEDs. We also examined the appropriateness of the data analytic techniques in the special context of N-of-1 designs. We searched for empirical journal articles that used N-of-1 design and published between 2013 and 2022 in PubMed and Web of Science. Protocols or methodological papers and studies that did not manipulate a medical condition were excluded. We reviewed 115 articles; 4 (3.48%) articles met all WWC evidence standards. Most (99.1%) failed to report an appropriate design-comparable effect size; neither did they report a confidence/credible interval, and 47.9% reported neither the raw data rendering meta-analysis impossible. Most (83.8%) ignored autocorrelation and did not meet distributional assumptions (65.8%). These methodological problems could lead to significantly inaccurate effect sizes. It is necessary to implement stricter guidelines for the clinical conduct and analyses of medical N-of-1 trials. Reporting neither raw data nor design-comparable effect sizes renders meta-analysis impossible and is antithetical to the spirit of open science

'Mixers' and 'Mixing': English across Cultures

World Englishes112-3173-181WOEN

Protocol for a sequential, prospective meta-analysis to describe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the pregnancy and postpartum periods.

We urgently need answers to basic epidemiological questions regarding SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant and postpartum women and its effect on their newborns. While many national registries, health facilities, and research groups are collecting relevant data, we need a collaborative and methodologically rigorous approach to better combine these data and address knowledge gaps, especially those related to rare outcomes. We propose that using a sequential, prospective meta-analysis (PMA) is the best approach to generate data for policy- and practice-oriented guidelines. As the pandemic evolves, additional studies identified retrospectively by the steering committee or through living systematic reviews will be invited to participate in this PMA. Investigators can contribute to the PMA by either submitting individual patient data or running standardized code to generate aggregate data estimates. For the primary analysis, we will pool data using two-stage meta-analysis methods. The meta-analyses will be updated as additional data accrue in each contributing study and as additional studies meet study-specific time or data accrual thresholds for sharing. At the time of publication, investigators of 25 studies, including more than 76,000 pregnancies, in 41 countries had agreed to share data for this analysis. Among the included studies, 12 have a contemporaneous comparison group of pregnancies without COVID-19, and four studies include a comparison group of non-pregnant women of reproductive age with COVID-19. Protocols and updates will be maintained publicly. Results will be shared with key stakeholders, including the World Health Organization (WHO) Maternal, Newborn, Child, and Adolescent Health (MNCAH) Research Working Group. Data contributors will share results with local stakeholders. Scientific publications will be published in open-access journals on an ongoing basis

Protocol for a sequential, prospective metaanalysis to describe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the pregnancy and postpartum periods

We urgently need answers to basic epidemiological questions regarding SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant and postpartum women and its effect on their newborns. While many national registries, health facilities, and research groups are collecting relevant data, we need a collaborative and methodologically rigorous approach to better combine these data and address knowledge gaps, especially those related to rare outcomes. We propose that using a sequential, prospective meta-analysis (PMA) is the best approach to generate data for policy- and practice-oriented guidelines. As the pandemic evolves, additional studies identified retrospectively by the steering committee or through living systematic reviews will be invited to participate in this PMA. Investigators can contribute to the PMA by either submitting individual patient data or running standardized code to generate aggregate data estimates. For the primary analysis, we will pool data using two-stage meta-analysis methods. The meta-analyses will be updated as additional data accrue in each contributing study and as additional studies meet study-specific time or data accrual thresholds for sharing. At the time of publication, investigators of 25 studies, including more than 76,000 pregnancies, in 41 countries had agreed to share data for this analysis. Among the included studies, 12 have a contemporaneous comparison group of pregnancies without COVID-19, and four studies include a comparison group of non-pregnant women of reproductive age with COVID-19. Protocols and updates will be maintained publicly. Results will be shared with key stakeholders, including the World Health Organization (WHO) Maternal, Newborn, Child, and Adolescent Health (MNCAH) Research Working Group. Data contributors will share results with local stakeholders. Scientific publications will be published in open-access journals on an ongoing basis