What is Family Preservation and Why Does it Matter?

This paper describes competing ideas about family preservation, defined both as a defined program of social services and a philosophical approach to helping troubled families. A straightforward definition has become almost impossible because the phrase has taken on so many different meanings, provoking controversy about its "real" meaning and value. Indeed, "family preservation" has become the proverbial elephant whose splendors and horrors are described with great certainty by those impressed by only one of its aspects. While skirmishes between "child savers" and "family preservers" have been part of the child welfare field since its beginning at the turn of the last century, recent debates over family preservation have been especially heated, generating more confusion and animosity than might be expected from the ranks of the small and usually mild-mannered social work profession. The debate is so heated that the director of one of the nation's largest child welfare agencies said recently that he is afraid to "even use the two words on the same page." <1> While the debate about the value of family preservation is unresolved, experimentation with different approaches to service delivery over the last two decades has helped to lay the groundwork for a resurgence of interest in family and community-centered reforms. Better understanding of the family preservation "debates" may be helpful if these reforms are to be successful over the long term. The paper discusses the competing ideas, values, and perceptions that have led observers to their different understandings of family preservation. It briefly chronicles the history of child welfare and examines key theories that have helped lay the groundwork for the resurgence of interest in family-centered services. It concludes with observations about how the competing values at stake in family preservation may affect the next generation of reforms.

Monte Carlo and analytical dose calculations for ocular proton therapy

Uveal melanoma is a rare but life-threatening form of ocular cancer. Contemporary treatment techniques include proton therapy, which enables conservation of the eye and its useful vision. Dose to the proximal structures is widely believed to play a role in treatment side effects, therefore, reliable dose estimates are required for properly evaluating the therapeutic value and complication risk of treatment plans. Unfortunately, current simplistic dose calculation algorithms can result in errors of up to 30% in the proximal region. In addition, they lack predictive methods for absolute dose per monitor unit (D/MU) values. ^ To facilitate more accurate dose predictions, a Monte Carlo model of an ocular proton nozzle was created and benchmarked against measured dose profiles to within ±3% or ±0.5 mm and D/MU values to within ±3%. The benchmarked Monte Carlo model was used to develop and validate a new broad beam dose algorithm that included the influence of edgescattered protons on the cross-field intensity profile, the effect of energy straggling in the distal portion of poly-energetic beams, and the proton fluence loss as a function of residual range. Generally, the analytical algorithm predicted relative dose distributions that were within ±3% or ±0.5 mm and absolute D/MU values that were within ±3% of Monte Carlo calculations. Slightly larger dose differences were observed at depths less than 7 mm, an effect attributed to the dose contributions of edge-scattered protons. Additional comparisons of Monte Carlo and broad beam dose predictions were made in a detailed eye model developed in this work, with generally similar findings. ^ Monte Carlo was shown to be an excellent predictor of the measured dose profiles and D/MU values and a valuable tool for developing and validating a broad beam dose algorithm for ocular proton therapy. The more detailed physics modeling by the Monte Carlo and broad beam dose algorithms represent an improvement in the accuracy of relative dose predictions over current techniques, and they provide absolute dose predictions. It is anticipated these improvements can be used to develop treatment strategies that reduce the incidence or severity of treatment complications by sparing normal tissue. ^

Measuring value in cancer-related health care: A case study in head and neck cancer

In the current climate of escalating health care costs, defining value and accurately measuring it are two critical issues affecting not only the future of cancer care in particular but also the future of health care in general. Specifically, measuring and improving value in cancer-related health care are critical for continued advancements in research, management, and overall delivery of care. However, in oncology, most of this research has focused on value as it relates to insurance industry and payment reform, with little attention paid to value as the output of clinical interventions that encompass integrated clinical teams focusing on the entire cycle of care and measuring objective outcomes that are most relevant to patients. ^ In this study, patient-centered value was defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent, and calculated using objective functional outcomes and total care costs. The analytic sample comprised patients diagnosed with three common head and neck cancers—cancer of the larynx, oral cavity, and oropharynx—who were treated in an integrated tertiary care center over an approximately 10-year period. The results of this study provide initial empirical data that can be used to assess and ultimately to help improve the quality and value of head and neck cancer care, and more importantly they can be used by patients and clinicians to make better-informed decisions about care, particularly what therapeutic services and outcomes matter the most to patients.^