Ten plays for primary grades

Thesis (Ed.M.)--Boston Universit

An Evaluation of the NHS England Youth Forum

More than five decades ago the Platt Report (Ministry of Health, 1959) recommended that hospitalised children needed to be treated differently to adults. It took until the 1980s for evidence to emerge that healthcare staff were beginning to implement Platt’s recommendations; Davies (2010) attributes this long awaited change of approach to a new generation of practitioners and a renewed focus from the Government that acknowledged the distinct needs of children and young people. In the early 1990s James and Prout (1990) produced work to suggest that children should not be viewed as passive recipients of care but should be recognised as having their own voice, referred to as the “emergence of children’s voice” (Hallett and Prout, 2003: 1)Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

The Key Events Dose-Response Framework: Its Potential for Application to Foodborne Pathogenic Microorganisms

The Key Events Dose-Response Framework (KEDRF) is an analytical approach that facilitates the use of currently available data to gain insight regarding dose-response relationships. The use of the KEDRF also helps identify critical knowledge gaps that once filled, will reduce reliance on assumptions. The present study considers how the KEDRF might be applied to pathogenic microorganisms, using fetal listeriosis resulting from maternal ingestion of food contaminated with L. monocytogenes as an initial example. Major biological events along the pathway between food ingestion and the endpoint of concern are systematically considered with regard to dose (i.e., number of organisms), pathogen factors (e.g., virulence), and protective host mechanisms (e.g., immune response or other homeostatic mechanisms). It is concluded that the KEDRF provides a useful structure for systematically evaluating the complex array of host and pathogen factors that influence the dose-response relationship. In particular, the KEDRF supports efforts to specify and quantify the sources of variability, a prerequisite to strengthening the scientific basis for food safety decision making

Abstracts from the NIHR INVOLVE Conference 2017

n/

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.]

Psychology and aggression

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/68264/2/10.1177_002200275900300301.pd

Evidence synthesis to inform model-based cost-effectiveness evaluations of diagnostic tests: a methodological systematic review of health technology assessments

Background: Evaluations of diagnostic tests are challenging because of the indirect nature of their impact on patient outcomes. Model-based health economic evaluations of tests allow different types of evidence from various sources to be incorporated and enable cost-effectiveness estimates to be made beyond the duration of available study data. To parameterize a health-economic model fully, all the ways a test impacts on patient health must be quantified, including but not limited to diagnostic test accuracy. Methods: We assessed all UK NIHR HTA reports published May 2009-July 2015. Reports were included if they evaluated a diagnostic test, included a model-based health economic evaluation and included a systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy. From each eligible report we extracted information on the following topics: 1) what evidence aside from test accuracy was searched for and synthesised, 2) which methods were used to synthesise test accuracy evidence and how did the results inform the economic model, 3) how/whether threshold effects were explored, 4) how the potential dependency between multiple tests in a pathway was accounted for, and 5) for evaluations of tests targeted at the primary care setting, how evidence from differing healthcare settings was incorporated. Results: The bivariate or HSROC model was implemented in 20/22 reports that met all inclusion criteria. Test accuracy data for health economic modelling was obtained from meta-analyses completely in four reports, partially in fourteen reports and not at all in four reports. Only 2/7 reports that used a quantitative test gave clear threshold recommendations. All 22 reports explored the effect of uncertainty in accuracy parameters but most of those that used multiple tests did not allow for dependence between test results. 7/22 tests were potentially suitable for primary care but the majority found limited evidence on test accuracy in primary care settings. Conclusions: The uptake of appropriate meta-analysis methods for synthesising evidence on diagnostic test accuracy in UK NIHR HTAs has improved in recent years. Future research should focus on other evidence requirements for cost-effectiveness assessment, threshold effects for quantitative tests and the impact of multiple diagnostic tests

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.]