Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"This book draws from both authors' extensive experience participating in community organizing efforts and teaching courses on community organizing to novices\"-- Provided by publisher.

Disinvestment (removal, reduction, or reallocation) of routinely provided health services can be difficult when there is little published evidence examining whether the services are effective or not. Evidence is required to understand if removing these services produces outcomes that are inferior to keeping such services in place. However, organisational imperatives, such as budget cuts, may force healthcare providers to disinvest from these services before the required evidence becomes available. There are presently no experimental studies examining the effectiveness of allied health services (e.g., physical therapy, occupational therapy, and social work) provided on weekends across acute medical and surgical hospital wards, despite these services being routinely provided internationally. The aim of this study was to understand the impact of removing weekend allied health services from acute medical and surgical wards using a disinvestment-specific non-inferiority research design. We conducted 2 stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trials between 1 February 2014 and 30 April 2015 among patients on 12 acute medical or surgical hospital wards spread across 2 hospitals. The hospitals involved were 2 metropolitan teaching hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. Data from n = 14,834 patients were collected for inclusion in Trial 1, and n = 12,674 in Trial 2. Trial 1 was a disinvestment-specific non-inferiority stepped-wedge trial where the 'current' weekend allied health service was incrementally removed from participating wards each calendar month, in a random order, while Trial 2 used a conventional non-inferiority stepped-wedge design, where a 'newly developed' service was incrementally reinstated on the same wards as in Trial 1. Primary outcome measures were patient length of stay (proportion staying longer than expected and mean length of stay), the proportion of patients experiencing any adverse event, and the proportion with an unplanned readmission within 28 days of discharge. The 'no weekend allied health service' condition was considered to be not inferior if the 95% CIs of the differences between this condition and the condition with weekend allied health service delivery were below a 2% increase in the proportion of patients who stayed in hospital longer than expected, a 2% increase in the proportion who had an unplanned readmission within 28 days, a 2% increase in the proportion who had any adverse event, and a 1-day increase in the mean length of stay. The current weekend allied health service included physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, dietetics, social work, and allied health assistant services in line with usual care at the participating sites. The newly developed weekend allied health service allowed managers at each site to reprioritise tasks being performed and the balance of hours provided by each professional group and on which days they were provided. Analyses conducted on an intention-to-treat basis demonstrated that there was no estimated effect size difference between groups in the proportion of patients staying longer than expected (weekend versus no weekend; estimated effect size difference [95% CI], p-value) in Trial 1 (0.40 versus 0.38; estimated effect size difference 0.01 [-0.01 to 0.04], p = 0.31, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin), but the proportion staying longer than expected was greater with the newly developed service compared to its no weekend service control condition (0.39 versus 0.40; estimated effect size difference 0.02 [0.01 to 0.04], p = 0.04, CI was completely below non-inferiority margin) in Trial 2. Trial 1 and 2 findings were discordant for the mean length of stay outcome (Trial 1: 5.5 versus 6.3 days; estimated effect size difference 1.3 days [0.9 to 1.8], p < 0.001, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin; Trial 2: 5.9 versus 5.0 days; estimated effect size difference -1.6 days [-2.0 to -1.1], p < 0.001, CI was completely below non-inferiority margin). There was no difference between conditions for the proportion who had an unplanned readmission within 28 days in either trial (Trial 1: 0.01 [-0.01 to 0.03], p = 0.18, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin; Trial 2: -0.01 [-0.02 to 0.01], p = 0.62, CI completely below non-inferiority margin). There was no difference between conditions in the proportion of patients who experienced any adverse event in Trial 1 (0.01 [-0.01 to 0.03], p = 0.33, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin), but a lower proportion of patients had an adverse event in Trial 2 when exposed to the no weekend allied health condition (-0.03 [-0.05 to -0.004], p = 0.02, CI completely below non-inferiority margin). Limitations of this research were that 1 of the trial wards was closed by the healthcare provider after Trial 1 and could not be included in Trial 2, and that both withdrawing the current weekend allied health service model and installing a new one may have led to an accommodation period for staff to adapt to the new service settings. Stepped-wedge trials are potentially susceptible to bias from naturally occurring change over time at the service level; however, this was adjusted for in our analyses. In Trial 1, criteria to say that the no weekend allied health condition was non-inferior to current weekend allied health condition were not met, while neither the no weekend nor current weekend allied health condition demonstrated superiority. In Trial 2, the no weekend allied health condition was non-inferior to the newly developed weekend allied health condition across all primary outcomes, and superior for the outcomes proportion of patients staying longer than expected, proportion experiencing any adverse event, and mean length of stay. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613001231730 and ACTRN12613001361796.

This topical reader provides a critical stock take of the state of user involvement and will be an important resource for students studying health and social care and social work researchers and user activists.

Imprisonment provides opportunities for the diagnosis and successful treatment of HIV, however, the benefits of antiretroviral therapy are frequently lost following release due to suboptimal access and utilization of health care and services. In response, some have advocated for development of intensive case-management interventions spanning incarceration and release to support treatment adherence and community re-entry for HIV-infected releasees. We conducted a randomized controlled trial of a motivational Strengths Model bridging case management intervention (BCM) beginning approximately 3 months prior to and continuing 6 months after release versus a standard of care prison-administered discharge planning program (SOC) for HIV-infected state prison inmates. The primary outcome variable was self-reported access to post-release medical care. Of the 104 inmates enrolled, 89 had at least 1 post-release study visit. Of these, 65.1% of BCM and 54.4% of SOC assigned participants attended a routine medical appointment within 4 weeks of release ( P  > 0.3). By week 12 post-release, 88.4% of the BCM arm and 78.3% of the SOC arm had at attended at least one medical appointment ( P  = 0.2), increasing in both arms at week 24–90.7% with BCM and 89.1% with SOC ( P  > 0.5). No participant without a routine medical visit by week 24 attended an appointment from weeks 24 to 48. The mean number of clinic visits during the 48 weeks post release was 5.23 (SD = 3.14) for BCM and 4.07 (SD = 3.20) for SOC ( P  > 0.5). There were no significant differences between arms in social service utilization and re-incarceration rates were also similar. We found that a case management intervention bridging incarceration and release was no more effective than a less intensive pre-release discharge planning program in supporting health and social service utilization for HIV-infected individuals released from prison.

In North Korea in the decade following the Korean War, labor became the defining means of state control and national unity. In pursuit of rapid industrial growth, the North Korean state stressed order and consistency in everyday life, at both work and home. In Heroes and Toilers, Cheehyung Harrison Kim offers an unprecedented account of life and labor in postwar North Korea that looks at both governance and popular resistance. Kim traces the state's pursuit of progress through industrialism and examines how ordinary people challenged the state every step of the way. More than coercion or violence, he argues, work was crucial to state control. Industrial labor was both mode of production and mode of governance, characterized by repetitive work, mass mobilization, labor heroes, and the insistence on convergence between living and working. At the same time, workers challenged and reconfigured state power to accommodate their circumstances - coming late to work, switching jobs, fighting with bosses, and profiting from the black market, as well as following approved paths to secure their livelihood, resolve conflict, and find happiness. Heroes and Toilers is a groundbreaking analysis of postwar North Korea that avoids the pitfalls of exoticism and exceptionalism to offer a new answer to the fundamental question of North Korea's historical development.

Background Chronic homelessness is a problem characterised by longstanding inability to attain or maintain secure accommodation. Longitudinal research with homeless populations is challenging, and randomised controlled trials that evaluate the effectiveness of intensive, case management interventions aimed at improving housing and health-related outcomes for chronically homelessness people are scant. More research is needed to inform programmatic design and policy frameworks in this area. This study protocol details an evaluation of the Journey to Social Inclusion – Phase 2 program, an intervention designed to reduce homelessness and improve outcomes in chronically homeless adults. Methods/design J2SI Phase 2 is a three-year, mixed methods, multi-site, RCT that enrolled 186 participants aged 25 to 50 years between 07 January 2016 and 30 September 2016 in Melbourne. The intervention group ( n  = 90 recruited) receives the J2SI Phase 2 program, a trauma-informed intervention that integrates intensive case management and service coordination; transition to housing and support to sustain tenancy; and support to build social connections, obtain employment and foster independence. The comparison group ( n  = 96 recruited) receives standard service provision. Prior to randomisation, participants completed a baseline survey. Follow-up surveys will be completed every six months for three years (six in total). In addition to self-report data on history of homelessness and housing, physical and mental health, substance use, quality of life, social connectedness and public service utilisation, linked administrative data on participants’ public services utilisation (e.g., hospitalisation, justice system) will be obtained for the three-year period pre- and post-randomisation. Semi-structured, qualitative interviews will be conducted with a randomly selected subset of participants and service providers at three time-points to explore changes in key outcome variables and to examine individual experiences with the intervention and standard service provision. An economic evaluation of the intervention and associated costs will also be undertaken. Discussion Results of this trial will provide robust evidence on the effectiveness of J2SI Phase 2 compared to standard service provision. If the intervention demonstrates effectiveness in improving housing, health, quality-of-life, and other social outcomes, it may be considered for broader national and international dissemination to improve outcomes among chronically homeless adults. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616000162415 (retrospectively registered 10-February-2016).

\"An insightful study in disaster anthropology, The Aftermath of the 2011 East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami takes as its focus the fishing town of Otsuchi in Japan's Iwate Prefecture, one of the worst damaged areas in the mammoth 2011 tsunami. Here,1,281 of the pre-tsunami population of 15,000 were killed and 60 percent of houses destroyed. To make matters worse, the town's administrative organs were completely obliterated and fire ravaged the downtown area for three days, blocking external rescue attempts. Complete with vivid and detailed witness testimony collected by the author, this book covers the eighteen months since the first day of the disaster through the subsequent months of community life in the evacuation centers and the struggles between the citizens and local governments in formulating reconstruction plans. It particularly addresses community interactions within the post-disaster context, assessing locals' varying degrees of success in organizing emergency committees to deal with such tasks as clearing rubble, hunting down food, obtaining fuel, and inquiring into the sociological reasons for these differences. It also casts new light on administrative failings that significantly augmented the loss of human lives in the diaster, and are threatening to bring further damage through insistence on reconstruction centered on enormous sea walls, agains local citizens' wishes\"--Back cover.

Background Medically complex urban patients experiencing homelessness comprise a disproportionate number of high-cost, high-need patients. There are few studies of interventions to improve care for these populations; their social complexity makes them difficult to study and requires clinical and research collaboration. We present a protocol for a trial of the streamlined unified meaningfully managed interdisciplinary team (SUMMIT) team, an ambulatory ICU (A-ICU) intervention to improve utilization and patient experience that uses control populations to address limitations of prior research. Methods/design Participants are patients at a Federally Qualified Health Center in Portland, Oregon that serves patients experiencing homelessness or who have substance use disorders. Participants meet at least one of the following criteria: > 1 hospitalization over past 6 months; at least one medical co-morbidity including uncontrolled diabetes, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, liver disease, soft-tissue infection; and 1 mental health diagnosis or substance use disorder. We exclude patients if they have < 6 months to live, have cognitive impairment preventing consent, or are non-English speaking. Following consent and baseline assessment, we randomize participants to immediate SUMMIT intervention or wait-list control group. Participants receiving the SUMMIT intervention transfer care to a clinic-based team of physician, complex care nurse, care coordinator, social worker, and pharmacist with reduced panel size and flexible scheduling with emphasis on motivational interviewing, patient goal setting and advanced care planning. Wait-listed participants continue usual care plus engagement with community health worker intervention for 6 months prior to joining SUMMIT. The primary outcome is hospital utilization at 6 months; secondary outcomes include emergency department utilization, patient activation, and patient experience measures. We follow participants for 12 months after intervention initiation. Discussion The SUMMIT A-ICU is an intensive primary care intervention for high-utilizers impacted by homelessness. Use of a wait-list control design balances community and staff stakeholder needs, who felt all participants should have access to the intervention, while addressing research needs to include control populations. Design limitations include prolonged follow-up period that increases risk for attrition, and conflict between practice and research; including partner stakeholders and embedded researchers familiar with the population in study planning can mitigate these barriers. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03224858, Registered 7/21/17 retrospectively registered https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03224858

Objectives. We examined whether the Communities That Care (CTC) system sustained effects 1.5 years after study funding ended on prevention system constructs expected to be important for community-level reductions in drug use and antisocial behaviors among youths. Methods. Data were from a community trial of 24 towns in the United States randomized to either the CTC intervention or control conditions. Participants were 928 community key leaders interviewed at 1 to 4 waves from 2001 to 2009. Intervention activities, including training and technical assistance, were conducted between 2003 and 2008 in the CTC communities. Results. Leaders from CTC communities reported higher levels of adoption of a science-based approach to prevention and a higher percentage of funding desired for prevention activities in 2009 than did leaders in control communities. CTC communities showed a higher increase over time in community norms against adolescent drug use as well as adoption of a science-based approach compared with control communities. Conclusions. These findings indicated that CTC implementation produced enduring transformation of important prevention system constructs in intervention communities, which might, in turn, produce long-term reductions in youth problem behaviors.

This study evaluated the effectiveness of a technology-based psychoeducational intervention for family caregivers of dementia patients. An additional objective was to determine if the intervention could be implemented by a community-based social service agency. Forty-six caregivers were randomly assigned to either a technology-based intervention or an information-only control condition. Caregivers assigned to the intervention condition reported a significant decrease in burden postintervention and those who evidenced high depression at baseline experienced a significant decline in depression. This study provides evidence that technology offers a cost-effective and practical method for delivering interventions to caregivers.