Comparative Value of Four Measures of Retention in Expert Care in Predicting Clinical Outcomes and Health Care Utilization in HIV Patients

This study compared the ability of four measures of patient retention in HIV expert care to predict clinical outcomes. This retrospective study examined Veterans Health Administration (VHA) beneficiaries with HIV (ICD-9-CM codes 042 or V08) receiving expert care (defined as HIV-1 RNA viral load and CD4 cell count tests occurring within one week of each other) at VHA facilities from October 1, 2006, to September 30, 2008. Patients were ≥18 years old and continuous VHA users for at least 24 months after entry into expert care. Retention measures included: Annual Appointments (≥2 appointments annually at least 60 days apart), Missed Appointments (missed ≥25% of appointments), Infrequent Appointments (>6 months without an appointment), and Missed or Infrequent Appointments (missed ≥25% of appointments or >6 months without an appointment). Multivariable nominal logistic regression models were used to determine associations between retention measures and outcomes. Overall, 8,845 patients met study criteria. At baseline, 64% of patients were virologically suppressed and 37% had a CD4 cell count >500 cells/mm3. At 24 months, 82% were virologically suppressed and 46% had a CD4 cell count >500 cells/mm3. During follow-up, 13% progressed to AIDS, 48% visited the emergency department (ED), 28% were hospitalized, and 0.3% died. All four retention measures were associated with virologic suppression and antiretroviral therapy initiation at 24 months follow-up. Annual Appointments correlated positively with CD4 cell count >500 cells/mm3. Missed Appointments was predictive of all primary and secondary outcomes, including CD4 cell count ≤500 cells/mm3, progression to AIDS, ED visit, and hospitalization. Missed Appointments was the only measure to predict all primary and secondary outcomes. This finding could be useful to health care providers and public health organizations as they seek ways to optimize the health of HIV patients

Epistemic Practices and Science Education

Epistemic practices are the socially organized and interactionally accomplished ways that members of a group propose, communicate, assess, and legitimize knowledge claims. Drawing from studies of science and education, this chapter argues that epistemic practices are interactional (constructed among people through concerted activity), contextual (situated in social practices and cultural norms), intertextual (communicated through a history of coherent discourses, signs, and symbols), and consequential (legitimized knowledge instantiates power and culture). Through a review of science studies, the argument for the relevance of a focus on epistemic practices is developed. This chapter draws from the empirical studies of scientific practice to derive implications for science teaching and learning. There has been considerable empirical work from multiple disciplinary perspectives (cognitive science, sociology, anthropology, and rhetoric) informing perspectives about science and the inner workings of scientific communities. These studies examine the practices, discourses, and cultures of scientists and scientific communities. These perspectives are applied to three types of educational approaches for science learning (through inquiry, engineering, and socioscientific issues) to examine ways that engaging in epistemic practices supports goals of scientific literacy. The chapter shows how a focus on the knowledge construction processes in schools offers contributions to thinking about science education