Search

This paper articulates the first 'general theory' of prison education, offering a new insight into the relevance of desistance theory and understanding of prison sociology to the lives of men engaged in education whilst in prison. Using a realist review method (Pawson, 2002b; Wong, 2013a) we develop a rough, initial general theory of prison education articulated in the form of three context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMO). We then 'test' these CMOs by assessing the current evidence base through a systematic review of literature. This paper articulates three inter-related CMOs that we ground in prison sociology and desistance literature: 'hook', 'safe space' and 'qualifications'. 'Hook' refers to engaging in prison education as a 'hook for change' and its impact on personal identity. 'Safe space' refers to the space an educational class can provide and its relevance to social identity. 'Qualifications' refers to the relevance of skills and qualifications gains. The literature review takes a targeted view of relevant fields to identify the most relevant evidence base for (or against) the three CMOs under scrutiny. We identify a stronger evidence base to support the 'safe space' and 'hook' CMOs than for the 'qualifications' CMO. However, the research is limited by a narrow focus on literature. We outline the next steps for future researchers to build on this work.

This article provides an overview of the plastic surgery program accreditation process by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). The Plastic Surgery Review Committee (RC) is responsible for accrediting training programs and ensures safe and ethical environments through comprehensive updates, surveys, and outcomes data. The RC reviews programs annually and makes accreditation decisions based on recommendations from independent reviewers. Programs can receive different accreditation statuses, including Initial Accreditation, Continued Accreditation, Probationary Accreditation, or Withdrawal of Accreditation, depending on their compliance with regulations. The article emphasizes the importance of trust and improvement in response to feedback from the ACGME. [Extracted from the article]

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is critically important in healthcare research. A useful starting point for researchers to understand the scope of PPIE is to review the definition from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) as, 'research being carried out "with" or "by" members of the public rather than "to", "about" or "for" them'. PPIE does not refer to participation in research, but to actively shaping its direction. The 'Effectiveness of a decision support tool to optimise community‐based tailored management of sleep for people living with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (TIMES)' study is funded through the NIHR programme grant for applied research. TIMES has thoroughly embraced PPIE by ensuring the person's voice is heard, understood, and valued. This editorial showcases how the TIMES project maximised inclusivity, and we share our experiences and top tips for other researchers. We base our reflections on the six key UK standards for public involvement; Inclusive Opportunities, Working Together, Support and Learning, Communications, Impact and Governance. We present our work, which had been co‐led by our PPIE leads, academics and partners including, together in dementia everyday, Innovations in Dementia, The UK Network of Dementia Voices (Dementia Engagement & Empowerment Project) and Liverpool Chinese Wellbeing. We have a Lived Experience Advisory Forum on Sleep, which includes people with dementia, family carers, representatives of the South Asian Community and the Chinese community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION: iWHELD is a digital person‐centered care program for people with dementia in nursing homes adapted for remote delivery during the COVID‐19 pandemic. METHODS: A 16‐week two‐arm cluster‐randomized controlled trial in 149 UK nursing homes compared iWHELD with treatment as usual (TAU). Primary outcome was the overall quality of life with secondary outcomes of agitation and psychotropic use. RESULTS: iWHELD conferred benefit to quality of life on the primary (F = 4.3, p = 0.04) and secondary measures of quality of life (F = 6.45, p = 0.01) and reduced psychotropic medication use (χ2 = 4.08, p = 0.04) with no worsening of agitation. Benefit was seen in participants who contracted COVID‐19, those with agitation at baseline, and those taking psychotropic medications. DISCUSSION: iWHELD confers benefits to quality of life and key measures of well‐being, can be delivered during the challenging conditions of a pandemic, and should be considered for use alongside any emerging pharmacological treatment for neuropsychiatric symptoms. Highlights: iWHELD is the only remote, digital delivery nursing home training programme for dementia careiWHELD improved quality of life in people with dementia and reduced antipsychotic use without worsening of agitationResidents who contracted Covid‐19 during the study also experienced benefits from iWHELDiWHELD offers a valuable, pandemic‐safe tool for improving dementia care [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Building on earlier neuropsychological work, we adopted anovel individual differences approach to examine therelationship between spatial language and a wide range ofboth verbal and nonverbal abilities. Three new measures weredeveloped for the assessment of spatial language processing:spatial naming, spatial verbal memory, and verbalcomprehension in spatial perspective taking. Results from asample of young adults revealed significant correlationsbetween performance on the spatial language tasks andperformance on both the analogous (non-spatial) verbalmeasures as well as on the (non-verbal) visual-spatialmeasures. Visual-spatial abilities, however, were morepredictive of spatial language processing than verbal abilities.Furthermore, results from a sample of older adults revealedimpairments in visual-spatial tasks and on spatial verbalmemory. The results support dual process accounts ofmeaning, and provide further evidence of the close connectionbetween the language of space and non-linguistic visualspatialcognition.

Governments in some of the world’s richest nations appear to be caught in a double challenge of declining social budgets even as social needs are increasing. In this context, Outcomes Based Commissioning (OBC), has been suggested as one way in which ‘more’ social services can be provided for ‘less’ public resources. This form of commissioning is often linked with a new financing tool for social services, referred to in the US as ‘Pay for Success and Payment by Results in the UK or as a ‘Social Impact Bond’ (SIB). However, to date, this approach is under-theorised and this is a limiting factor both for shaping a research and evaluation agenda around SIBs and in understanding how such instruments might develop in future. Without a theoretical rationale for SIBs, it is not straightforward to assess whether, and how well, they have achieved their goals, and how they might be developed further. In this paper we consider two broad approaches to theorising SIBs. One draws on public administration theories, the other on innovation theories. To date, SIBs have often been theorised as the logical next step in the New Public Management (NPM). But NPM itself is a contested theory and recent theoretical innovations in public administration, particularly the concept of New Public Governance might provide a more useful theoretical framework. A second broad approach through which to understand SIBs is their potential to improve the rate and dissemination of innovation. There are many different innovation models that might be applied to better understanding of SIBs. We look first at the concept of Open Innovation with its focus on distributed innovation processes in which knowledge flows across organisational boundaries and more recent articulations – Open Innovation 2.0 – which place greater emphasis on mixed economy collabarations involving: industry; government; universities; and communities and users (the so-called ‘quadruple helix’) to solve societal challenges. We go on to consider social innovation, with its clearer focus on using social means to deliver social outcomes and whether SIBs can be theorised through this lens. No one model is entirely satisfactory as an explanatory framework for SIBs and we conclude by suggesting that a supporting theory combining NPG with elements of Open Innovation 2.0 and social innovation might be a productive approach for shaping future research and, in addition, might suggest some future directions for the next generation of SIBs.