Non-word repetition in adolescents with Specific Language Impairment and Autism plus Language Impairments: a qualitative analysis

Non-word repetition (NWR) was investigated in adolescents with typical development, Specific Language Impairment (SLI) and Autism Plus language Impairment (ALI) (n = 17, 13, 16, and mean age 14;4, 15;4, 14;8 respectively). The study evaluated the hypothesis that poor NWR performance in both groups indicates an overlapping language phenotype (Kjelgaard & Tager-Flusberg, 2001). Performance was investigated both quantitatively, e.g. overall error rates, and qualitatively, e.g. effect of length on repetition, proportion of errors affecting phonological structure, and proportion of consonant substitutions involving manner changes. Findings were consistent with previous research (Whitehouse, Barry, & Bishop, 2008) demonstrating a greater effect of length in the SLI group than the ALI group, which may be due to greater short-term memory limitations. In addition, an automated count of phoneme errors identified poorer performance in the SLI group than the ALI group. These findings indicate differences in the language profiles of individuals with SLI and ALI, but do not rule out a partial overlap. Errors affecting phonological structure were relatively frequent, accounting for around 40% of phonemic errors, but less frequent than straight Consonant-for-Consonant or vowel-for-vowel substitutions. It is proposed that these two different types of errors may reflect separate contributory mechanisms. Around 50% of consonant substitutions in the clinical groups involved manner changes, suggesting poor auditory-perceptual encoding. From a clinical perspective algorithms which automatically count phoneme errors may enhance sensitivity of NWR as a diagnostic marker of language impairment. Learning outcomes: Readers will be able to (1) describe and evaluate the hypothesis that there is a phenotypic overlap between SLI and Autism Spectrum Disorders (2) describe differences in the NWR performance of adolescents with SLI and ALI, and discuss whether these differences support or refute the phenotypic overlap hypothesis, and (3) understand how computational algorithms such as the Levenshtein Distance may be used to analyse NWR data.

A normative method to analyse workarounds in a healthcare environment: motivations, consequences, and constraints

Healthcare information systems have the potential to enhance productivity, lower costs, and reduce medication errors by automating business processes. However, various issues such as system complexity and system abilities in a relation to user requirements as well as rapid changes in business needs have an impact on the use of these systems. In many cases failure of a system to meet business process needs has pushed users to develop alternative work processes (workarounds) to fill this gap. Some research has been undertaken on why users are motivated to perform and create workarounds. However, very little research has assessed the consequences on patient safety. Moreover, the impact of performing these workarounds on the organisation and how to quantify risks and benefits is not well analysed. Generally, there is a lack of rigorous understanding and qualitative and quantitative studies on healthcare IS workarounds and their outcomes. This project applies A Normative Approach for Modelling Workarounds to develop A Model of Motivation, Constraints, and Consequences. It aims to understand the phenomenon in-depth and provide guidelines to organisations on how to deal with workarounds. Finally the method is demonstrated on a case study example and its relative merits discussed.

Missing steps in a staircase: a qualitative study of the perspectives of key stakeholders on the use of adaptive designs in confirmatory trials

Background Despite the promising benefits of adaptive designs (ADs), their routine use, especially in confirmatory trials, is lagging behind the prominence given to them in the statistical literature. Much of the previous research to understand barriers and potential facilitators to the use of ADs has been driven from a pharmaceutical drug development perspective, with little focus on trials in the public sector. In this paper, we explore key stakeholders’ experiences, perceptions and views on barriers and facilitators to the use of ADs in publicly funded confirmatory trials. Methods Semi-structured, in-depth interviews of key stakeholders in clinical trials research (CTU directors, funding board and panel members, statisticians, regulators, chief investigators, data monitoring committee members and health economists) were conducted through telephone or face-to-face sessions, predominantly in the UK. We purposively selected participants sequentially to optimise maximum variation in views and experiences. We employed the framework approach to analyse the qualitative data. Results We interviewed 27 participants. We found some of the perceived barriers to be: lack of knowledge and experience coupled with paucity of case studies, lack of applied training, degree of reluctance to use ADs, lack of bridge funding and time to support design work, lack of statistical expertise, some anxiety about the impact of early trial stopping on researchers’ employment contracts, lack of understanding of acceptable scope of ADs and when ADs are appropriate, and statistical and practical complexities. Reluctance to use ADs seemed to be influenced by: therapeutic area, unfamiliarity, concerns about their robustness in decision-making and acceptability of findings to change practice, perceived complexities and proposed type of AD, among others. Conclusions There are still considerable multifaceted, individual and organisational obstacles to be addressed to improve uptake, and successful implementation of ADs when appropriate. Nevertheless, inferred positive change in attitudes and receptiveness towards the appropriate use of ADs by public funders are supportive and are a stepping stone for the future utilisation of ADs by researchers.