An official American thoracic society research statement: Comparative effectiveness research in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine

Background: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to inform decision making in clinical practice, and is central to patientcentered outcomes research (PCOR). Purpose: To summarize key aspects of CER definitions and provide examples highlighting the complementary nature of efficacy and CER studies in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Methods: An ad hoc working group of the American Thoracic Society with experience in clinical trials, health services research, quality improvement, and behavioral sciences in pulmonary, critical care, and sleepmedicinewas convened. The group used an iterative consensus process, including a reviewbyAmerican Thoracic Society committees and assemblies. Results: The traditional efficacy paradigm relies on clinical trials with high internal validity to evaluate interventions in narrowly defined populations and in research settings. Efficacy studies address the question, "Can it work in optimal conditions?" The CER paradigm employs a wide range of study designs to understand the effects of interventions in clinical settings. CER studies address the question, "Does it work in practice?" The results of efficacy and CER studies may or may not agree. CER incorporates many attributes of outcomes research and health services research, while placing greater emphasis on meeting the expressed needs of nonresearcher stakeholders (e.g., patients, clinicians, and others). Conclusions: CER complements traditional efficacy research by placing greater emphasis on the effects of interventions in practice, and developing evidence to address the needs of the many stakeholders involved in health care decisions. Stakeholder engagement is an important component of CER. Copyright © 2013 by the American Thoracic Society.

EU Social and Labour Rights and EU Internal Market Law: Study for the EMPL Committee

EU Social and Labour Rights have developed incrementally, originally through a set of legislative initiatives creating selective employment rights, followed by a non-binding Charter of Social Rights. Only in 2009, social and labour rights became legally binding through the Charter of Fundamental Rights for the European Union (CFREU). By contrast, the EU Internal Market - an area without frontiers where goods, persons, services and capital can circulate freely – has been enshrined in legally enforceable Treaty provisions from 1958. These comprise the economic freedoms guaranteeing said free circulation and a system ensuring that competition is not distorted within the Internal Market (Protocol 27 to the Treaty of Lisbon). Tensions between Internal Market law and social and labour rights have been observed in analyses of EU case law and legislation. This study explores responses by socio-economic and political actors at national and EU levels to such tensions, focusing on collective labour rights, rights to fair working conditions and rights to social security and social assistance (Articles 12, 28, 31, 34 Charter of Fundamental Rights for the European Union). On the basis of the current Treaties and the CFREU, the constitutionally conditioned Internal Market emerges as a way to overcome the perception that social and labour rights limit Internal Market law, or vice versa. On this basis, alternative responses to perceived tensions are proposed, focused on posting of workers, furthering fair employment conditions through public procurement and enabling effective collective bargaining and industrial action in the Internal Market.

Impact of the Roots of Empathy Programme on Social-Emotional Learning: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Roots of Empathy (ROE) is a universal, school-based social and emotional learning programme aimed at increasing prosocial behaviour and reducing difficult behaviour. This paper reports the findings of a cluster randomized controlled trial of the effects of ROE on 8-9 year old children. 74 schools and 1,181 children took part. The findings provide evidence that ROE is effective in increasing prosocial behaviour (g=+.20, p=.043) and some potential evidence that it may reduce difficult behaviour (g=-.15, p=.070). While ROE was found to lead to improvements in positive behaviour, these were not associated with improvements in empathy or other social and emotional learning outcomes.