13 research outputs found

    Adult Intellectual Developmental Disorder: Adverse Childhood Experiences and Problem Behaviors

    Get PDF
    Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) have detrimental effects on health and psychological outcomes in the general population (Felitti et al., 1998). Individuals with the diagnosis of intellectual developmental disorder (IDD) are at increased risk for adverse events and may be vulnerable to poor outcomes, including problem behaviors (Hatton & Emerson, 2004; Hulbert-Williams et al., 2014). The present study examined relationships among Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) questionnaire (Felitti et al., 1998) items, total score, and problem behaviors for adults with IDD receiving community-based care. Participants (N = 41) were referred by a developmental services agency for a review of their archived records, which were used to rate the ACE questionnaire and count incidents of problem behaviors. Odds Ratios revealed the ACE item Parental Drug Abuse increased the odds 6-fold for elopement (p \u3c .05), and 11-fold for property destruction (p \u3c .01). Kendall’s Tau-B correlations revealed significant positive correlations of Parental Alcohol Abuse and elopement (Tb = .34, p \u3c .05). Adoption had a significant, but small positive correlation with total incident reports (Tb = .27, p \u3c .05), and total ACE scores of 4 or greater increased the odds for criminal charges (OR = 6.23, 95% CI= 1.39, 27.84, p \u3c .05). There were also significant negative correlations between the ACE items, Witnessing Domestic Violence, Forced Rape, and Parental Incarceration with aggression (p \u3c .05). Total ACE scores and ACE item, Forced Rape, also had significant negative correlations with total incident reports (p \u3c .05). These results, as well as improvements in the collection of patient data for trauma-informed care among development service agencies, are discussed

    Global public policy, transnational policy communities, and their networks

    Get PDF
    Public policy has been a prisoner of the word "state." Yet, the state is reconfigured by globalization. Through "global public–private partnerships" and "transnational executive networks," new forms of authority are emerging through global and regional policy processes that coexist alongside nation-state policy processes. Accordingly, this article asks what is "global public policy"? The first part of the article identifies new public spaces where global policies occur. These spaces are multiple in character and variety and will be collectively referred to as the "global agora." The second section adapts the conventional policy cycle heuristic by conceptually stretching it to the global and regional levels to reveal the higher degree of pluralization of actors and multiple-authority structures than is the case at national levels. The third section asks: who is involved in the delivery of global public policy? The focus is on transnational policy communities. The global agora is a public space of policymaking and administration, although it is one where authority is more diffuse, decision making is dispersed and sovereignty muddled. Trapped by methodological nationalism and an intellectual agoraphobia of globalization, public policy scholars have yet to examine fully global policy processes and new managerial modes of transnational public administration

    The Molecular Identification of Organic Compounds in the Atmosphere: State of the Art and Challenges

    Full text link

    The Molecular Identification of Organic Compounds in the Atmosphere: State of the Art and Challenges

    Get PDF
    SSCI-VIDE+ATARI:CARE+BNO:BDAInternational audienc

    U.S. URBAN TRANSPORTATION POLICY: A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

    No full text

    Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

    No full text
    Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health
    corecore