Search

This study compared the effects of a conventional approach and a progressive approach to discrete trial teaching when teaching tact relations to 12 children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The conventional approach was informed by best practice guidelines for teaching receptive and expressive language (Green "Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities," 16(2), 72-85, 2001; Grow & Leblanc "Behavior Analysis in Practice," 6(1), 56-75, 2013) and other relevant research (e.g., Graff & Karsten "Behavior Analysis in Practice," 5(2), 37-48, 2012; León & Rosales "Journal of Behavioral Education," 27(1), 81-100, 2018; Majdalany et al. "Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis," 47(3), 657-662, 2014). The progressive approach was informed by guidelines outlined by Leaf, Cihon, Leaf, et al. "International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education," 9(2), 361-372, (2016a) and Leaf, Leaf, McEachin, et al. "Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders," 46(2), 720-731, (2016c). In this study, highly vocal-verbal participants diagnosed with ASD were randomly assigned to the conventional or progressive condition and received 20 sessions of intervention. Following intervention, statistical analysis was used to evaluate and compare the effects of each condition. Although both were effective in teaching the participants tact relations, there was a statistically significant difference in the number of tact relations learned in the progressive condition when compared to the conventional condition.

Background The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed the Core Antimicrobial Stewardship (AS) Curriculum to meet the increasing demand for infectious diseases (ID) providers with AS expertise. Notable diversity in implementation approaches has been observed among ID fellowship programs using the curriculum. We sought to describe individual approaches and develop a curriculum implementation roadmap. Methods We surveyed ID fellowship programs that had previously implemented the IDSA Core AS curriculum. The survey included questions regarding program characteristics, curriculum participants and presentation format, resources and barriers, and implementation strategies. Commonly reported program features were summarized in the context of the self-reported implementation strategies. Implementation guides were developed based on the most common characteristics observed. Results Of 159 programs that had purchased the curriculum, 37 responded, and 34 (21%) were included in the analysis. The curriculum was primarily taught by AS physicians (85%) and AS pharmacists (47%). The most common conference structure was a longitudinal conference series (32%), and eLearning was the most common presentation format. Limited AS faculty time (76%) and limited first-year fellow availability (62%) were frequently reported as barriers, and dedicated AS curricular time was a resource available to most programs (67%); implementation guides were created for these 3 program features. Conclusions Programs reported a variety of implementation barriers and resources, with several common themes emerging, allowing for the development of tailored curriculum planners for 3 commonly observed program characteristics. This work will equip fellowship programs with curriculum implementation strategies and guide future enhancements of the IDSA Core and Advanced AS curricula. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is routinely performed with a 24F, 26F, or a 28F scope. Proponents of the larger scopes propose that a bigger sheath size allows for superior flow and visibility leading to a more efficient operation and better hemostasis. Those utilizing the smaller scopes suggest that the smaller sheath is less traumatic, resulting in lower stricture rates and temporary incontinence. We sought to compare outcomes of ambulatory HoLEP using the 24F and 28F laser scope. Materials and Methods: From May 2022 to March 2023, we randomized patients undergoing HoLEP (<200 cm3 in size) 1:1 to either a 24F or 28F scope. The primary outcome was differences in surgical duration between groups (minutes). Secondary outcomes included surgeon scope evaluation and postoperative patient results. Results: There was no difference in patient characteristics in those randomized to 28F (n = 76) vs 24F (n = 76) (p > 0.05) scopes. Procedural duration and efficiencies were not different between groups (all p > 0.05). The 28F scope was associated with improved surgeon-graded irrigation flow and visibility (p < 0.001). Patients treated with the 28F scope were more likely to achieve effective same-day trial of void (SDTOV) (28F 94.3% vs 24F 82.1%, p = 0.048) and have a shorter length of stay (LOS) (28F 7.0 vs 24F 11.9 hours, p = 0.014), however, rates of same-day discharge (SDD) were not statistically different (28F 87.8% vs 24F 78.4%, p = 0.126). There was no difference between the cohorts in rates of 90-day emergency room presentations, re-admissions, complications, or functional ouctomes (p > 0.05). Conclusions: We identified no clear advantage of scope size with regard to intraoperative or postoperative outcomes at 3-month follow-up due to scope size. However, if SDD is part of your postoperative pathway, the 28F scope may shorten LOS and increase rates of effective SDTOV. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05308017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]