Eight very vary(s): towards a program of mistakes-on-purpose

In 2007, I spent eight weeks in Residency at the Architectural body Research Foundation (Houston Street, NY, NY) with Arakawa and Madeline. In addition to discussion current projects, meeting researcher practitioners and students who would come by the office or talking to people on the phone who had just written or done something of interest, reviewing texts and discussing pressing ideas, Madeline had started work on an Encyclopaedia of Mistakes prompted by the mistakes on Purpose procedure. Every afternoon we would spend three hours or more at the end of the day working on the spectrum and placement of mistakes on the spectrum, lists of mistakes and refinement of what the role of mistakes might be across the organism-person-surround and the potential for perceptual knowing. As the work is an unfinished 31 page manuscript, I will not cite it directly but rather speak about it and the thinking process that went into the many many versions and amendments that produced in February and March of 2007.

A new era in the treatment of multiple sclerosis

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune disease of the central nervous system with a multifactorial aetiology and highly variable natural history. A growing understanding of the immunopathogenesis of the condition has led to an expanding array of therapies for this previously untreatable disease. While a cure for MS remains elusive, the potential to reduce inflammatory disease activity by preventing relapses and minimising disease progression is achievable. The importance of early treatment in minimising long-term disability is increasingly recognised. Most of the newer, more effective therapies are associated with risks and practical problems that necessitate an active management strategy and continuous vigilance. While the initiation of these therapies is likely to remain the responsibility of neurologists, other specialist physicians and general practitioners will be involved in the identification and management of adverse effects.

A process evaluation of the Supermarket Healthy Eating for Life (SHELf) randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Supermarket Healthy Eating for Life (SHELf) was a randomized controlled trial that operationalized a socioecological approach to population-level dietary behaviour change in a real-world supermarket setting. SHELf tested the impact of individual (skill-building), environmental (20 % price reductions), and combined (skill-building + 20 % price reductions) interventions on women's purchasing and consumption of fruits, vegetables, low-calorie carbonated beverages and water. This process evaluation investigated the reach, effectiveness, implementation, and maintenance of the SHELf interventions.

METHODS: RE-AIM provided a conceptual framework to examine the processes underlying the impact of the interventions using data from participant surveys and objective sales data collected at baseline, post-intervention (3 months) and 6-months post-intervention. Fisher's exact, χ (2) and t-tests assessed differences in quantitative survey responses among groups. Adjusted linear regression examined the impact of self-reported intervention dose on food purchasing and consumption outcomes. Thematic analysis identified key themes within qualitative survey responses.

RESULTS: Reach of the SHELf interventions to disadvantaged groups, and beyond study participants themselves, was moderate. Just over one-third of intervention participants indicated that the interventions were effective in changing the way they bought, cooked or consumed food (p < 0.001 compared to control), with no differences among intervention groups. Improvements in purchasing and consumption outcomes were greatest among those who received a higher intervention dose. Most notably, participants who said they accessed price reductions on fruits and vegetables purchased (519 g/week) and consumed (0.5 servings/day) more vegetables. The majority of participants said they accessed (82 %) and appreciated discounts on fruits and vegetables, while there was limited use (40 %) and appreciation of discounts on low-calorie carbonated beverages and water. Overall reported satisfaction with, use, and impact of the skill-building resources was moderate. Maintenance of newly acquired behaviours was limited, with less than half of participants making changes or using study-provided resources during the 6-month post-intervention period.

CONCLUSIONS: SHELf's reach and perceived effectiveness were moderate. The interventions were more effective among those reporting greater engagement with them (an implementation-related construct). Maintenance of newly acquired behaviours proved challenging.