Search

Across Asia, countries have signed the UNCRPD and to a greater or lesser extent are pursuing inclusive education (IE). In this article, we present case studies from Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, and China analyzing them for common themes around the education of students intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), and noting commonalities, challenges, and emerging issues. While the definition of IE (being the philosophy, process and practice of welcoming, valuing and supporting all learners in general education environments) and the conceptual distinction between integration and segregation are clear in the UNCRPD and subsequent comments, the terminology used in some of the countries is inconsistent with these definitions. This makes interpretation of reports from government instrumentalities difficult. In some cases, misuse of terminology allows justification of practices that are contrary to the UNCRPD. Terminology differences coupled with challenges of finding data related to the education of children with IDD, if the data exist, make a regional analysis of progress towards IE complex. In our paper, we have drawn on previous reviews and reports to discuss common issues and make suggestions for ways forward. Our findings add to the few other reviews from Asia on IE and draw attention to the continuing need for improved access to any education at all for learners with IDD. Provision of IE is caught up in dilemmas in the region about teacher preparation and professional learning, and how to provide specialist support in inclusive settings. School structure decisions including staffing provision and class sizes affect the education outcomes of students with IDD. School leadership, with the fundamental role of translating policy into practice, is critical for the development of IE and must be aligned with system and country priorities. Collaboration across the region has the potential to share best practice and continue to improve the educational opportunities for learners with IDD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the present paper was to compare the efficacy and safety of duloxetine with paroxetine in the acute treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). In a randomized, double-blind trial of 8 weeks active treatment, patients with non-psychotic MDD were randomized to duloxetine 60 mg ( n = 238) or paroxetine 20 mg ( n = 240) once daily. Efficacy was primarily measured on change in the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD17) using a non-inferiority test with a margin of 2.2. Secondary efficacy measures included the HAMD17 subscales, Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety, Clinical Global Impressions–Severity, Patient Global Impressions–Improvement, Somatic Symptoms Inventory and Visual Analog Scales (VAS) for pain. Safety measures included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE), vital signs, weight, laboratory analyses and electrocardiograms. Non-inferiority of duloxetine to paroxetine was demonstrated because the upper bound of the confidence interval for mean difference in HAMD17 change (0.71) was less than the non-inferiority margin. Secondary efficacy end-points did not differ significantly between treatments with the exception of VAS back pain, where the pooled mean was lower in the duloxetine group (17.1) compared with the paroxetine group (20.3, P = 0.048). No significant differences were observed in the number of early discontinuations and overall TEAE. However, significantly greater proportions of patients in the duloxetine group experienced nausea and palpitations. No clinically relevant changes in laboratory values, vital signs, weight or electrocardiograms were observed with either treatment. The present study verifies the utility of duloxetine as an efficacious and safe treatment for both emotional and physical symptoms of MDD in this predominantly Asian patient sample. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]