Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- effectiveness (3) (remove)
Institute
In der vorliegenden Evaluationsstudie wurde die Wirkung der Lehre des universitären Lehrprojektes ‚Expertise und Kooperation für eine Basisqualifikation Inklusion‘ (EKBI) auf inklusionsbezogene Einstellungen, Haltungen und Selbstwirksamkeitserwartungen untersucht. Diese Lehre schloss jeweils Lehrtandems aus mindestens zwei Dozierenden sowie interdisziplinäre Kooperationen ein. Die Teilnehmenden der Kurse (Experimentalgruppe, n = 101) sowie Studierende, die nicht daran teilgenommen hatten (Kontrollgruppe, n = 54), wurden vor und nach dem Semester, in dem die Lehre stattfand, mittels Fragebogen untersucht. Bei der Entwicklung allgemeinerer Einstellungen, Haltungen und Bedenken konnte kein signifikanter Effekt der Zeit in Abhängigkeit von der Gruppe verzeichnet werden. Es zeigte sich aber, dass sowohl die spezifischen unterrichtsbezogenen Einstellungen als auch die subjektiv eingeschätzte Lehrer*innenwirksamkeit in Bezug auf Inklusion in der Experimentalgruppe stärker anstiegen als in der Kontrollgruppe. Es ist zu schlussfolgern, dass die Tandemlehre mindestens kurzfristig wirksam in Bezug auf eine proinklusive Entwicklung ist. Zukünftige Studien könnten die Nachhaltigkeit der Effekte sowie ihren Praxistransfer untersuchen.
Introduction: Prophylaxis with factor VIII (FVIII) concentrates in children with haemophilia A (HA) is current standard of care. The benefit of prophylactic treatment for adult HA patients is not commonly accepted.
Aim: To investigate the benefit of prophylaxis over on‐demand treatment in adult and elderly patients with severe or non‐severe HA in a real‐life setting.
Methods: Data from 163 patients comprising 1202 patient‐years were evaluated for 7.5 (±5.3) years. The effects on the annual bleeding rate (ABR, including spontaneous and traumatic bleeds) of treatment with a plasma‐derived FVIII concentrate, the patient's age and disease severity were investigated. The effect of changing the treatment from on demand to continuous prophylaxis on the patients’ ABRs was further analysed.
Results: Prophylaxis had the greatest effect on the ABRs of patients of any age with severe or non‐severe HA. The difference in ABR of all patients treated on demand (median 31.4; interquartile range (IQR) 27.6; N = 83) compared with those treated prophylactically (median 1.3; IQR 3.6; N = 122) was statistically significant (P < .05), even for patients with non‐severe HA (median 8.4; IQR 15.5; N = 11) vs median 1.5; IQR 4.2 (N = 17), P < .05). Patients, aged up to 88 years, switching from on demand to continuous prophylaxis showed the lowest median ABR (1.1; N = 51) after their regimen change.
Conclusion: Any (even low‐frequency) prophylaxis results in lower ABR than on‐demand treatment. Patients switching to prophylaxis benefitted the most, irrespective of age or HA severity. Prophylactic treatment—even tertiary—is the regimen of choice for patients of any age, including elderly patients, with severe or non‐severe HA.
It is widely thought that the international community, taken as a whole, is required to take action to prevent terrorism. Yet, what each state is required to do in this project is unclear and contested. This article examines a number of bases on which we might assign responsibilities to conduct counterterrorist operations to states. I argue that the ways in which other sorts of responsibilities have been assigned to states by political philosophers will face significant limitations when used to assign the necessary costs of preventing terrorism. I go on to suggest that appealing to the principle of fairness—which assigns obligations on the basis of benefits received from cooperative endeavours—may be used to make up the shortfall, despite this principle having received relatively little attention in existing normative accounts of states’ responsibilities.