Search

A common problem for people with disabilities, particularly those who rely on mobility devices, is learning to navigate a new environment. This is especially troublesome for students who are attending a new university and need to figure out how to get from one place to another. All Together Now is a mobile multi-player cooperative game developed for two purposes. First, the game, developed by two computer scientists and a disability studies scholar, is intended to give disabled students a fun way to learn their way around campus, learn how to report accessibility issues on that campus, and make friends with people who have similar disabilities. Second, the game can be used as a way of fostering awareness and advocacy among students without disabilities, by having them work in teams where one member is someone with a disability that causes them to rely on mobility devices. This article describes the implementation of the game within a disability studies course and the results of two pilot tests, with both disabled and non-disabled participants.

The article presents the topics tackled during a roundtable about people with disabilities. Among the attendees were James C. Wilson, professor of English and journalism at the University of Cincinnati, Kristina Chew, an Assistant Professor at Saint Peter's College, and John Duffy, an associate professor of English at the University of Notre Dame. The roundtable discussion included topics like neurodiversity, the concept of impairment, autism, education for disabled people, and experiences of autistic people such as violence.

Background: Within and beyond occupation-based scholarship, concerns abound regarding the pervasiveness of discourses that promote a negative, deficit-based view of intellectual disability and associated consequences for disabled people's lives. Such representations risk reducing the complexities of human doing and being and can limit the occupational possibilities of this group. Yet, there is a lack of critically reflexive research exploring how disability is discursively constructed in occupation-based literature., Aims/objectives: This paper critically analyses representations of intellectual disability within occupation-based literature. It considers the influence of such representations on the occupational possibilities of people labelled intellectually disabled., Methods: This review employed a critical interpretive synthesis of 21 peer-reviewed articles from occupational therapy and occupational science that focused on intellectual disability., Results: Three analytic threads were identified as contributing to how intellectual disability was represented across the reviewed literature: habilitating expected doings , becoming productive citizens , and activated, but insufficient ., Conclusion & Significance: Occupation-based discourses have powerful influence within society, particularly within occupational therapy, regarding understandings of intellectual disability and how these shape occupational possibilities for persons labelled intellectually disabled. Drawing attention to taken-for-granted representations of intellectual disability is essential to promote transformative occupational therapy practice and enhance occupational possibilities for this population.

Background: Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a directive patient-centred style of counselling, designed to help people to explore and resolve ambivalence about behaviour change. It was developed as a treatment for alcohol abuse, but may help smokers to a make a successful attempt to quit., Objectives: To determine the effects of motivational interviewing in promoting smoking cessation., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register for studies with terms (motivational OR motivation OR motivating OR motivate OR behavi* OR motivat*) and (interview* OR session* OR counsel* OR practi*) in the title or abstract, or as keywords. Date of the most recent search: April 2009., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials in which motivational interviewing or its variants were offered to smokers to assist smoking cessation., Data Collection and Analysis: We extracted data in duplicate. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates where available. Subjects lost to follow up were treated as continuing smokers. We performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model., Main Results: We identified 14 studies published between 1997 and 2008, involving over 10,000 smokers. Trials were conducted in one to four sessions, with the duration of each session ranging from 15 to 45 minutes. All but two of the trials used supportive telephone contacts, and supplemented the counselling with self-help materials. MI was generally compared with brief advice or usual care in the trials. Interventions were delivered by primary care physicians, hospital clinicians, nurses or counsellors. Our meta-analysis of MI versus brief advice or usual care yielded a modest but significant increase in quitting (RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.42). Subgroup analyses suggested that MI was effective when delivered by primary care physicians (RR 3.49; 95% CI 1.53 to 7.94) and by counsellors (RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.43), and when it was conducted in longer sessions (more than 20 minutes per session) (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.49). Multiple session treatments may be slightly more effective than single sessions, but both regimens produced positive outcomes. Evidence is unclear at present on the optimal number of follow-up calls.There was variation across the trials in treatment fidelity. All trials used some variant of motivational interviewing.Critical details in how it was modified for the particular study population, the training of therapists and the content of the counselling were sometimes lacking from trial reports., Authors' Conclusions: Motivational interviewing may assist smokers to quit. However, the results should be interpreted with caution due to variations in study quality, treatment fidelity and the possibility of publication or selective reporting bias.