Field Evaluation of the Cepheid GeneXpert Chlamydia trachomatis assay for Detection of Infection in a Trachoma Endemic Community in Tanzania.

\ud \ud To determine the sensitivity, specificity, and field utility of the Cepheid GeneXpert Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) Assay (GeneXpert) for ocular chlamydia infection compared to Roche Amplicor CT assay (Amplicor). In a trachoma-endemic community in Kongwa Tanzania, 144 children ages 0 to 9 were surveyed to assess clinical trachoma and had two ocular swabs taken. One swab was processed at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore MD, using Amplicor, (Roche Molecular Diagnostics) and the other swab was processed at a field station in Kongwa using the GeneXpert Chlamydia trachomatis/Neisseria gonorrhoeae assay (Cepheid). The sensitivity and specificity of GeneXpert was compared to the Amplicor assay. Of the 144 swabs taken the prevalence of follicular trachoma by clinical exam was 43.7%, and by evidence of infection according to Amplicor was 28.5%. A total of 17 specimens (11.8%) could not be processed by GeneXpert in the field due to lack of sample volume, other specimen issues or electricity failure. The sensitivity of GeneXpert when compared to Amplicor was 100% and the specificity was 95%. The GeneXpert test identified more positives in individuals with clinical trachoma than Amplicor, 55% versus 52%. The GeneXpert test for C. trachomatis performed with high sensitivity and specificity and demonstrated excellent promise as a field test for trachoma control.\u

Vulnerable Children, Young People, and Families: Policy, Practice, and Social Justice in England and Scotland

This chapter begins by highlighting the rise of vulnerability as a term in social policy, and the three-level approach that is used to examine it. The first level is definitional, examining the possibility of defining vulnerability and vulnerabilities through a consideration of relevant literature and a number of recent policy documents. The second looks at how policy developments in Scotland and England have diverged, particularly since 2010, and how vulnerability has become more central to education policy in England. The third level focuses on practice, presenting research undertaken by the authors into a programme developed to support vulnerable children, young people, and families in Northern England as a case study exemplifying some of the factors affecting the effectiveness of programmes in which schools played an important but not central part. This practice perspective is still too often overlooked in discussions of policy and definition, and it is suggested that its inclusion will contribute to the ongoing debate about both how best to support vulnerable families and the implications for education and social justice