Learning Support Volunteer Students' Learning in Volunteer Activities : A Comparison of Psychology Students and Education Students

本研究は，学習支援ボランティアに参加している大学生・大学院生の所属や専攻によって，ニーズの違いがあるのかを明らかにすることを目的とし，学習支援ボランティアの大学生・大学院生の内，心理学履修学生と教職課程履修学生にそれぞれ半構造化面接を実施し，両者の比較検討を行った。その結果，心理学履修学生は，臨床心理士になるため，スクールカウンセラーになるため，教職課程履修学生は，教師になるために学習支援ボランティア活動を行っていた。児童・生徒への対応や気づきなどについても両者に違いが見られた。今後，履修の違いに基づき，学習支援ボランティア活動への指導を行っていくことを検討する必要がある。The purpose of this study is to clarify if there are differences in needs depending on the affiliation and specialty among undergraduate students and graduate students, both participating as learning support volunteers. As a method, we used semi-structured interviews for psychology students and education students who were acting as learning support volunteers. In the survey, we asked what they felt about the teachers and what they got from the learning support volunteer activities. Next, we conducted a comparative study of both. The result was as follows: psychology students became clinical psychologists and school counselors, while education students engaged in learning support volunteer activities to become teachers. There was a difference between the two groups. As for the future, it seems necessary to give students some guidance concerning the learning support volunteer activities based on the differences in the course

Nationwide surveillance of bacterial respiratory pathogens conducted by the surveillance committee of Japanese Society of Chemotherapy, the Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases, and the Japanese Society for Clinical Microbiology in 2010: General view of the pathogens\u27 antibacterial susceptibility

The nationwide surveillance on antimicrobial susceptibility of bacterial respiratory pathogens from patients in Japan, was conducted by Japanese Society of Chemotherapy, Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases and Japanese Society for Clinical Microbiology in 2010.The isolates were collected from clinical specimens obtained from well-diagnosed adult patients with respiratory tract infections during the period from January and April 2010 by three societies. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was conducted at the central reference laboratory according to the method recommended by Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institutes using maximum 45 antibacterial agents.Susceptibility testing was evaluable with 954 strains (206 Staphylococcus aureus, 189 Streptococcus pneumoniae, 4 Streptococcus pyogenes, 182 Haemophilus influenzae, 74 Moraxella catarrhalis, 139 Klebsiella pneumoniae and 160 Pseudomonas aeruginosa). Ratio of methicillin-resistant S.aureus was as high as 50.5%, and those of penicillin-intermediate and -resistant S.pneumoniae were 1.1% and 0.0%, respectively. Among H.influenzae, 17.6% of them were found to be β-lactamase-non-producing ampicillin (ABPC)-intermediately resistant, 33.5% to be β-lactamase-non-producing ABPC-resistant and 11.0% to be β-lactamase-producing ABPC-resistant strains. Extended spectrum β-lactamase-producing K.pneumoniae and multi-drug resistant P.aeruginosa with metallo β-lactamase were 2.9% and 0.6%, respectively.Continuous national surveillance of antimicrobial susceptibility of respiratory pathogens is crucial in order to monitor changing patterns of susceptibility and to be able to update treatment recommendations on a regular basis

Head-to-head comparison of the safety of tocilizumab and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis patients (RA) in clinical practice: Results from the registry of Japanese RA patients on biologics for long-term safety (REAL) registry

Introduction: The objective of this study was to directly compare the safety of tocilizumab (TCZ) and TNF inhibitors (TNFIs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in clinical practice. Methods: This prospective cohort study included RA patients starting TCZ [TCZ group, n = 302, 224.68 patient-years (PY)] or TNFIs [TNFI group, n = 304, 231.01 PY] from 2008 to 2011 in the registry of Japanese RA patients on biologics for long-term safety registry. We assessed types and incidence rates (IRs) of serious adverse events (SAEs) and serious infections (SIs) during the first year of treatment. Risks of the biologics for SAEs or SIs were calculated using the Cox regression hazard analysis. Results: Patients in the TCZ group had longer disease duration (P <0.001), higher disease activity (P = 0.019) and more frequently used concomitant corticosteroids (P <0.001) than those in the TNFI group. The crude IR (/100 PY) of SIs [TCZ 10.68 vs. TNFI 3.03; IR ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]), 3.53 (1.52 to 8.18)], but not SAEs [21.36 vs. 14.72; 1.45 (0.94 to 2.25)], was significantly higher in the TCZ group compared with the TNFI group. However, after adjusting for covariates using the Cox regression hazard analysis, treatment with TCZ was not associated with higher risk for SAEs [hazard ratio (HR) 1.28, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19] or SIs (HR 2.23, 95% CI 0.93 to 5.37). Conclusions: The adjusted risks for SAEs and SIs were not significantly different between TCZ and TNFIs, indicating an influence of clinical characteristics of the patients on the safety profile of the biologics in clinical practice