A Preliminary Investigation of the Relationship of Transition Preparation and Self-Determination for Students With Disabilities in Postsecondary Educational Settings

This study examined the relationship between high school transition preparation (school and family based) and self-determination among postsecondary students with disabilities. Seventy-six participants from 4-year universities completed a two-part online survey. The first part of the survey measured three dependent variables: psychological empowerment, hope, and locus of control. The second part measured the independent variable quality of high school transition preparation. Correlational analyses were conducted between the quality of a student’s high school transition preparation and perceived self-determination (i.e., psychological empowerment, hope, and locus of control). Although significant correlations existed among the scales used to measure self-determination, the relationships between high school preparation and the role of families and self-determination was of interest.Yeshttps://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/manuscript-submission-guideline

Inferring disability status from corrupt data

In light of widespread concerns about the reliability of self-reported disability, we investigate what can be learned about the prevalence of work disability under various assumptions on the reporting error process. Developing a nonparametric bounding framework, we provide tight inferences under our strongest assumptions but then find that identification deteriorates rapidly as the assumptions are relaxed. For example, we find that inferences are highly sensitive to how one models potential inconsistencies between subjective self-assessments of work limitation and more objective measures of functional limitation. These two indicators appear to measure markedly different aspects of health status

A 3-Year Study of Middle, Junior High, and High School IEP Meetings

↵ JAMES E. MARTIN (CEC #456), Zarrow Endowed Professor in Special Education, Zarrow Center for Learning Enrichment, University of Oklahoma, Norman. LAURA HUBER MARSHALL (CEC # 382), Project Coordinator, Center for Self-Determination, College of Education, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. PAUL SALE (CEC #1043), Dean, College of Education, Radford University, Radford, Virginia.Yeshttps://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/manuscript-submission-guideline

Priority setting in health care: Lessons from the experiences of eight countries

All health care systems face problems of justice and efficiency related to setting priorities for allocating a limited pool of resources to a population. Because many of the central issues are the same in all systems, the United States and other countries can learn from the successes and failures of countries that have explicitly addressed the question of health care priorities

Australian health policy and end of life care for people with chronic disease: An analysis

End of life care for people with advanced chronic disease is a growing international imperative, with the majority of deaths in the world now related to chronic disease. The provision of care that meets the needs of people with advanced chronic disease must be guided by appropriate policy. The key policy areas impacting directly on end of life care are related to chronic disease, palliative care and, increasingly, aged care. This paper describes the outcomes of an audit of Australian chronic disease and end of life/palliative care policies. We identified that chronic disease health policies/strategies demonstrate a focus on prevention, early intervention and management, with scant recognition of end of life care needs. The majority assume that a referral to palliative care will address end of life care needs for people with chronic disease. By contrast, palliative care policies recognise the need for the incorporation of a palliative approach into advanced chronic disease care, but there are few connections between these two policy areas. Whilst palliative care policies intersect with carer and advance care planning policies, chronic disease policy does not. Key concerns requiring consideration when developing policy in this area are discussed and possible policy options identified.Teresa Burgess, Annette Braunack-Mayer, Gregory B. Crawford, Justin Beilb

A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the impact of a human rights based approach to dementia care in inpatient ward and care home settings

BackgroundAlthough it is widely recognised that adopting a person-centred approach is beneficial in the care of people living with dementia, a gap remains between the rhetoric and the reality of quality care. Some widely adopted care practices can result in the personhood of this group being threatened and their human rights being undermined.ObjectivesTo evaluate the impact of applying a human rights based approach in dementia inpatient wards and care homes on the quality of care delivered and the well-being of the person living with dementia.DesignA cluster randomised design was employed to compare the impact of implementing a human rights based approach intervention (i.e. training, applying the ‘Getting It Right’ assessment tool and receiving booster sessions) at 10 intervention sites with 10 control sites.SettingEight NHS dementia inpatient wards and 12 care homes in the north-west of England.ParticipantsPeople living with dementia who were residing on dementia inpatient wards or in care homes, and staff working at these sites. The aim was to recruit 280 people living with dementia.InterventionsA sample of staff (an average of 8.9 per site) at each of the sites was trained in a human rights based approach to care, including the application of the ‘Getting It Right’ assessment tool. The tool was then introduced at the site and monthly booster sessions were delivered.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure used in the research was the Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease scale to assess the subjective well-being of the person with dementia. Secondary outcome measures included measures of the quality of care provided (dementia care mapping) and direct measures of the effectiveness of the training in increasing knowledge of and attitudes towards human rights. The study also included an economic evaluation utilising the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, and the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit measure.ResultsThe study recruited 439 people living with dementia: 213 to the intervention arm and 226 to the control arm. Primary outcome data were analysed using a linear mixed model. There were no significant differences found in the reported quality of life of residents between the control and intervention groups after the intervention [F(1,16.51) = 3.63;p = 0.074]. The mean difference between the groups was 1.48 (95% confidence interval –7.86 to 10.82).ConclusionsDespite the fact that the training increased staff knowledge of and positive attitudes towards human rights, and although there were some changes in staff decision-making strategies in clinical situations, there was no change in the quality of care provided or in the reported well-being of people living with dementia in these settings. This led to questions about the efficacy of training in bringing about cultural change and improving care practices.LimitationsThere was limited uptake of the training and booster sessions that were integral to the intervention.Future workFuture work could usefully focus on understanding the difficulty in translating change in attitude and knowledge into behaviour.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN94553028.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full inHealth Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 6, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.</jats:sec