Mothers Who Kill Children They Have Adopted

A mother killing her child is a disturbing and puzzling crime. While extensive research has been conducted on mothers who kill their biological children, little information is known about mothers who kill children they have adopted. Previous research has suggested specific typologies and characteristics of mothers who kill their biological children. The current research reviews these typologies and investigates whether they can be applied to the mothers who kill adopted children. A review of the cases in the United States from 1993 through 2013 that involved mothers who killed children they had adopted was conducted. The similarities and differences between mothers who kill their adopted children and mothers who kill their biological children are described. The common factors and general patterns that exist among these mothers are examined to help create a new typology and propose a theory for why a mother decides to kill her adopted child

Inmate Education as a Service Learning Opportunity for Students: Preparation, Benefits, and Lessons Learned

There is mounting evidence that prison inmates benefit from educational opportunities but may not be offered to them. In addition, when they are offered, priority is given to prisoners who will be released in the near future, and those serving long-term or life sentences are less likely to have access to classes. A service learning opportunity was created where students taught a life span development class to women serving long-term sentences. This article provides a guide to setting up the class while avoiding obstacles along the way. It also outlines benefits to students, inmates, supervising faculty, and society. In order to teach, students must apply what they have learned, and the prison experience challenges them to consider their power and privilege

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Perceived Impact Scale

The Perceived Impact Scale (Meyer et al., 2016) was developed to measure inmates\u27 self-reports of the impact that a life span human development class had on their level of knowledge, abilities, and other characteristics, such as self-awareness, emotional growth, and confidence. Following completion of the first class, a focus group was held with inmates who had completed the class to determine in what ways it had impacted them. There were no scales available in the literature to measure the array of constructs they identified as having changed so a scale was created. A sample of women serving long-term sentences provided two ratings on the last day of class, one for their recalled assessment of themselves on each construct before the course and one for their current assessment on each construct after the course. In addition, at the end of the scale, the women were asked to answer the item, Overall, how has this human developmental class affected your sense of purpose on a scale from 1 to 5. Psychometrics specific to this 37-item scale were not presented by the authors. (PsycTests Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved

Inmates Course Evaluation

The Inmates Course Evaluation (Meyer et al., 2016), was developed within the context of a study investigating an inmate educational course in a sample of female inmates serving long-term or life sentences. The measure assesses inmates\u27 evaluation of educational courses in prison covering the structure of the course, the content and workload, the overall quality of the instructors, and the contributions the course made to their learning. Inmates complete a short 3-item evaluation of each class meeting to provide feedback to the student instructors. The measure was revised after teaching the class one time because the prior scale was more applicable to a traditional college class. The final version consisted of 17-item on a Likert-type scale of 1 (agree) to 5 (disagree). No specific psychometric data were provided for the measure. (PsycTests Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved

Inmates Course Evaluation

The Inmates Course Evaluation (Meyer et al., 2016), was developed within the context of a study investigating an inmate educational course in a sample of female inmates serving long-term or life sentences. The measure assesses inmates\u27 evaluation of educational courses in prison covering the structure of the course, the content and workload, the overall quality of the instructors, and the contributions the course made to their learning. Inmates complete a short 3-item evaluation of each class meeting to provide feedback to the student instructors. The measure was revised after teaching the class one time because the prior scale was more applicable to a traditional college class. The final version consisted of 17-item on a Likert-type scale of 1 (agree) to 5 (disagree). No specific psychometric data were provided for the measure. (PsycTests Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved

Perceived Impact Scale

The Perceived Impact Scale (Meyer et al., 2016) was developed to measure inmates\u27 self-reports of the impact that a life span human development class had on their level of knowledge, abilities, and other characteristics, such as self-awareness, emotional growth, and confidence. Following completion of the first class, a focus group was held with inmates who had completed the class to determine in what ways it had impacted them. There were no scales available in the literature to measure the array of constructs they identified as having changed so a scale was created. A sample of women serving long-term sentences provided two ratings on the last day of class, one for their recalled assessment of themselves on each construct before the course and one for their current assessment on each construct after the course. In addition, at the end of the scale, the women were asked to answer the item, Overall, how has this human developmental class affected your sense of purpose on a scale from 1 to 5. Psychometrics specific to this 37-item scale were not presented by the authors. (PsycTests Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved