Reintegrative and Disintegrative Shaming:Legal and Ethical Issues

Abstract
This chapter considers a range of legal and ethical issues raised by the use of reintegrative and disintegrative shaming techniques (Braithwaite, 1989) with sex offenders. ‘Disintegrative shaming’ labels and stigmatises offenders, ostracises them from the local community and may result in violence directed towards offenders (McAlinden, 2005, 2007). ‘Reintegrative shaming’, on the other hand, focuses on rehabilitating the offender within a supportive community environment and assisting the offender in their efforts to change. The former is evident in the range of recent legislative responses designed to protect the community from sex offenders such as notification as well as the popular demand for measures which ‘name and shame’ known sex offenders. The latter is more clearly related to restorative measures such as circles of support and accountability. This chapter argues that although traditionally at opposite ends of the intervention spectrum, each type of mechanism gives rise to potentially difficult legal and ethical considerations.

Agreement between self-report and medical records on signs and symptoms of respiratory illness

Background: Information on patient symptoms can be obtained by patient self-report or medical records review. Both methods have limitations. Aims: To assess the agreement between self-report and documentation in the medical records of signs/symptoms of respiratory illness (fever, cough, runny nose, sore throat, headache, sinus problems, muscle aches, fatigue, earache, and chills). Methods: Respondents were 176 research participants in the Hutterite Influenza Prevention Study during the 2008-2009 influenza season with information about the presence or absence of signs/symptoms from both self-report and primary care medical records. Results: Compared with medical records, lower proportions of self-reported fever, sore throat, earache, cough, and sinus problems were found. Total agreements between self-report and medical report of symptoms ranged from 61% (for sore throat) to 88% (for muscle aches and earache), with kappa estimates varying from 0.05 (for chills) to 0.41 (for cough) and 0.51 (for earache). Negative agreement was considerably higher (from 68% for sore throat to 93% for muscle aches and earache) than positive agreement (from 13% for chills to 58% for earache) for each symptom except cough where positive agreement (77%) was higher than negative agreement (64%). Agreements varied by age group. We found better agreement for earache (kappa=0.62) and lower agreements for headache, sinus problems, muscle aches, fatigue, and chills in older children (aged =5 years) and adults. Conclusions: Agreements were variable depending on the specific symptom. Contrary to research in other patient populations which suggests that clinicians report fewer symptoms than patients, we found that the medical record captured more symptoms than selfreport. Symptom agreement and disagreement may be affected by the perspectives of the person experiencing them, the observer, the symptoms themselves, measurement error, the setting in which the symptoms were observed and recorded, and the broader community and cultural context of patients. © 2012 Primary Care Respiratory Society UK. All rights reserved.

Positioning Clinical Nurse Specialists and Nurse Practitioners as Change Champions to Implement a Pain Protocol in Long-Term Care

Pain management for older adults in long-term care (LTC) has been recognized as a problem internationally. The purpose of this study was to explore the role of a clinical nurse specialist (CNS) and nurse practitioner (NP) as change champions during the implementation of an evidence-based pain protocol in LTC. In this exploratory, multiple-case design study, we collected data from two LTC homes in Ontario, Canada. Three data sources were used: participant observation of an NP and a CNS for 18 hours each over a 3-week period; CNS and NP diaries recording strategies, barriers, and facilitators to the implementation process; and interviews with members of the interdisciplinary team to explore perceptions about the NP and CNS role in implementing the pain protocol. Data were analyzed using thematic content analysis. The NP and CNS used a variety of effective strategies to promote pain management changes in practice including educational outreach with team members, reminders to nursing staff to highlight the pain protocol and educate about practice changes, chart audits and feedback to the nursing staff, interdisciplinary working group meetings, ad hoc meetings with nursing staff, and resident assessment using advanced skills. The CNS and NP are ideal champions to implement pain management protocols and likely other quality improvement initiatives.

Multi-centre research in Australia:analysis of a recent National Health and Medical Research Council-funded project

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Human research ethics committees provide essential review of research projects to ensure the ethical conduct of human research. Several recent reports have highlighted a complex process for successful application for human research ethics committee approval, particularly for multi-centre studies. Limited resources are available for the execution of human clinical research in Australia and around the world.

METHODS: This report overviews the process of ethics approval for a National Health and Medical Research Council-funded multi-centre study in Australia, focussing on the time and resource implications of such applications in 2007 and 2008.

RESULTS: Applications were submitted to 16 hospital and two university human research ethics committees. The total time to gain final approval from each committee ranged between 13 and 77 days (median = 46 days); the entire process took 16 months to complete and the research officer's time was estimated to cost $A34 143.

CONCLUSIONS: Obstacles to timely human research ethics committee approval are reviewed, including recent, planned and potential initiatives that could improve the ethics approval of multi-centre research.

Predictors of numeracy performance in undergraduate psychology, nursing and medical students

Psychology, nursing and medicine are undergraduate degrees that require students to attain a level of numerical competence for graduation. Yet, the numeracy aspect of these courses is often actively disliked and poorly performed. This study's aim was to identify what factors most strongly predict performance in such courses. Three hundred and twenty-five undergraduate students from these three disciplines were given measures of numeracy performance, maths anxiety, maths attitudes and various demographic and educational variables. From these data three separate path analysis models were formed, showing the predictive effects of affective, demographic and educational variables on numeracy performance. Maths anxiety was the strongest affective predictor for psychology and nursing students, with motivation being more important for medical students. Across participant groups, pre-university maths qualifications were the strongest demographic/educational predictor of performance. The results can be used to suggest ways to improve performance in students having difficulty with numeracy-based modules.

Empathy in UK pharmacy students: assessing differences by gender, level in the degree programme, part-time employment and medical status

Background: Empathy is an important aspect of patient–healthcare professional interactions.Aims: To investigate whether gender, level in the degree programme, employment and health status affected empathy scores of undergraduate pharmacy students.Method: All undergraduate pharmacy students (n=529) at Queen’s University Belfast were invited via email to completean online validated empathy questionnaire. Empathy scores were calculated and non-parametric tests used to determine associations between factors.Results: Response rate was 60.1% (318/529) and the mean empathy score was 106.19. Scores can range from 20 to 140,with higher scores representing a greater degree of empathy. There was no significant difference between genders (p=0.211). There was a significant difference in scores across the four levels of the programme (p<0.001); scores were lowest at Level 1 and greatest at Level 4 (final year). There were no significant differences in scores for respondents who had a part-time job, a chronic condition, or took regular medication in comparison to those who did not (p=0.028,p=0.880, p=0.456, respectively).Conclusion: A reasonable level of empathy was found relative to other studies; this could be further enhanced at lower levels of the degree pathway.