Using Empowerment Evaluation to Evaluate a Consumer -Operated Drop -in Center: A Narrative of a Case Study

273 p.Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2001.Empowerment evaluation involves a program's stakeholders in designing and implementing an evaluation of their own program, thus contributing to the program's improvement and self-determination (Fetterman, 1994, 1996). Consumer-operated drop-in centers are run for and by mental health consumers, in order to promote collaboration and self-sufficiency. Empowerment evaluation therefore appeared to be an appropriate evaluation practice for the consumer-operated drop-in center in this study, since their missions and philosophies were similar. However, encouraging participation among the staff and patrons in the evaluation was challenging, because of their lack of familiarity with evaluation, transient attendance, and competing priorities. The evaluation process was thus adapted in order to meet the needs of the stakeholders, with the evaluator taking on most of the responsibility for designing and conducting the evaluation, but incorporating substantial input from the stakeholders at every stage of the evaluation. Careful attention to the roles that the evaluator played in relation to the stakeholders was also important. In order to promote empowerment, as well as develop as useful, feasible, respectful, and accurate an evaluation as is possible, the evaluator should be flexible in his or her roles, the methods used, and delegation of responsibilities. Adaptations must consider the values and structure of the program, as well as balance the stakeholders' need for resources with their rights for autonomy.U of I OnlyRestricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETD

Using Empowerment Evaluation to Evaluate a Consumer -Operated Drop -in Center: A Narrative of a Case Study

273 p.Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2001.Empowerment evaluation involves a program's stakeholders in designing and implementing an evaluation of their own program, thus contributing to the program's improvement and self-determination (Fetterman, 1994, 1996). Consumer-operated drop-in centers are run for and by mental health consumers, in order to promote collaboration and self-sufficiency. Empowerment evaluation therefore appeared to be an appropriate evaluation practice for the consumer-operated drop-in center in this study, since their missions and philosophies were similar. However, encouraging participation among the staff and patrons in the evaluation was challenging, because of their lack of familiarity with evaluation, transient attendance, and competing priorities. The evaluation process was thus adapted in order to meet the needs of the stakeholders, with the evaluator taking on most of the responsibility for designing and conducting the evaluation, but incorporating substantial input from the stakeholders at every stage of the evaluation. Careful attention to the roles that the evaluator played in relation to the stakeholders was also important. In order to promote empowerment, as well as develop as useful, feasible, respectful, and accurate an evaluation as is possible, the evaluator should be flexible in his or her roles, the methods used, and delegation of responsibilities. Adaptations must consider the values and structure of the program, as well as balance the stakeholders' need for resources with their rights for autonomy.U of I OnlyRestricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETD

Novel electronic refreshers for cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background Currently the American Red Cross requires that individuals renew their cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) certification annually; this often requires a 4- to 8-hour refresher course. Those trained in CPR often show a decrease in essential knowledge and skills within just a few months after training. New electronic means of communication have expanded the possibilities for delivering CPR refreshers to members of the general public who receive CPR training. The study’s purpose was to determine the efficacy of three novel CPR refreshers - online website, e-mail and text messaging – for improving three outcomes of CPR training - skill retention, confidence for using CPR and intention to use CPR. These three refreshers may be considered “novel” in that they are not typically used to refresh CPR knowledge and skills. Methods The study conducted two randomized clinical trials of the novel CPR refreshers. A mailed brochure was a traditional, passive refresher format and served as the control condition. In Trial 1, the refreshers were delivered in a single episode at 6 months after initial CPR training. In Trial 2, the refreshers were delivered twice, at 6 and 9 months after initial CPR training, to test the effect of a repeated delivery. Outcomes for the three novel refreshers vs. the mailed brochure were determined at 12 months after initial CPR training. Results Assignment to any of three novel refreshers did not improve outcomes of CPR training one year later in comparison with receiving a mailed brochure. Comparing outcomes for subjects who actually reviewed some of the novel refreshers vs. those who did not indicated a significant positive effect for one outcome, confidence for performing CPR. The website refresher was associated with increased behavioral intent to perform CPR. Stated satisfaction with the refreshers was relatively high. The number of episodes of refreshers (one vs. two) did not have a significant effect on any outcomes. Conclusions There was no consistent evidence for the superiority of novel refreshers as compared with a traditional mailed brochure, but the low degree of actual exposure to the materials does not allow a definitive conclusion. An online web-based approach seems to have the most promise for future research on electronic CPR refreshers.</p

Efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies, sotrovimab and BRII-196 plus BRII-198, for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (TICO): a randomised controlled trial

We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19. In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978. Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50–72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74–1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67–1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74–1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68–1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91–1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88–1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90. Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Spee