scholarly journals Trajectories of Evidence Based Treatment for School Children with Autism: What’s the Right Level for the Implementation?

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 881-892
Author(s):  
Victor Lushin ◽  
David Mandell ◽  
Rinad Beidas ◽  
Steven Marcus ◽  
Heather Nuske ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (10) ◽  
pp. 498-509
Author(s):  
Linda Rafter ◽  
Mark Rafter

Clinicians are under increasing pressure to provide high-quality patient outcomes at a reduced cost. Increasingly, community staff must acquire knowledge on advanced wound care products to cope with the growing caseload demands. This article describes the use of PolyMem® dressings to reduce pain, inflammation, oedema and bruising and their ability to debride and absorb exudate while providing an optimum healing environment. The PolyMem range includes multifunctional dressings for various painful chronic wounds. This article also presents five case studies with particularly good patient outcomes where PolyMem dressings were the primary dressing. All five patients were holistically assessed to enable consistent evidence-based treatment decisions. In four cases, the new PolyMem Silicone Border dressing was used. The patients found the PolyMem Silicone Border dressing comfortable and gentle on removal even when the skin was extremely fragile. The right dressing used at the right time on the right patient can improve patient outcomes.


2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 625-635 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Mercer

Purpose: To review and assess theory and research supporting DIR/Floortime™, a method proposed for treatment of young children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Methods: Published materials describing the principles of DIR/Floortime™ were evaluated. Published outcome research articles were assessed for the adequacy of their design and implementation and the extent to which their conclusions were supported. Results: The theoretical basis of DIR/Floortime™ appears to be generally plausible. Of the 10 outcome research articles in print, all concluding that DIR™ effectively treated ASD, five provided a comparison group, or used a randomized design, or did both. These studies failed to equalize the duration and frequency of DIR™ and the comparison treatment. Conclusions: DIR™ can be considered by social work practitioners as a possibility for evidence-based practice (EBP), but not as an evidence-based treatment (EBT). Further outcome research needs to concentrate not only on randomized design but on other design issues.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document