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.

Planning for the Unseen and Unheard: the child with ASD

“Children are a kind of indicator species.
If we can build a successful city for children,
we will have a successful city for all people.”

Enrique Peñalosa (former mayor of Bogotá)

Should society be judged by how they treat their weakest members, the concept of the Child Friendly City offers more than ample scope for critiquing the genuine health and inclusivity of our urban environments. If we accept childhood as a crucial human development phase that demands inclusive and welcoming places for play, exploration and growth, many cities today are becoming increasingly barren habitats, arguably full of nothing but empty childhoods. (Raven-Ellison 2015) With children today less able to roam and explore our streets than those of yesteryear, (Bird 2007) the situation is now developing where our young are becoming increasingly socially and spatially excluded from our supposedly shared Built Environment. That progressively restrictive urban realm is particularly pronounced for those with Autism Spectrum Disorder, for whom our cities can be disorientating, difficult and even frightening places.

As a profession we have a responsibility to provide inclusive built environments that do not preclude the presence of the most vulnerable in society, among them those with ASD. Accordingly this paper seeks to introduce emerging research into the current challenges facing these young urban stakeholders before discussing how planning processes and design interventions might make our cities more accessible to those with ASD.

References:

Bird, W. (2007) Natural Thinking, Sandy, Bedfordshire: RSPB.

Raven-Ellison, D. (2015) “London’s Empty Childhoods” in London Essays – Green Spaces, Issue 3 – found at: http://essays.centreforlondon.org/issues/green/londons-empty-childhoods/ accessed 9th May 2016.