The COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted schools and learning formats. Children with epilepsy are at-risk for generalized academic difficulties. We investigated the potential impact of COVID-19 on learning in those with epilepsy by comparing achievement on well-established academic measures among school-age children with epilepsy referred prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and those referred during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This study included 466 children [52% male, predominately White (76%), MAge=10.75 years] enrolled in the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Consortium Epilepsy (PERC) Surgery database project who were referred for surgery and seen for neuropsychological testing. Patients were divided into two groups based on a proxy measure of pandemic timing completed by PERC research staff at each site (i.e., “were there any changes to typical in-person administration [of the evaluation] due to COVID?”). 31% of the sample (N = 144) were identified as having testing during the pandemic (i.e., “yes” response), while 69% were identified as having testing done pre-pandemic (i.e., “no” response). Of the 31% who answered yes, 99% of administration changes pertained to in-person testing or other changes, with 1% indicating remote testing. Academic achievement was assessed by performance measures (i.e., word reading, reading comprehension, spelling, math calculations, and math word problems) across several different tests. T-tests compared the two groups on each academic domain. Subsequent analyses examined potential differences in academic achievement among age cohorts that approximately matched grade level [i.e., grade school (ages 5-10), middle school (ages 11-14), and high school (ages 15-18)].

No significant differences were found between children who underwent an evaluation before the pandemic compared to those assessed during the pandemic based on age norms across academic achievement subtests (all p’s > .34). Similarly, there were no significant differences among age cohorts. The average performance for each age cohort generally fell in the low average range across academic skills. Performance inconsistently varied between age cohorts. The youngest cohort (ages 5-10) scored lower than the other cohorts for sight-word reading, whereas this cohort scored higher than the middle cohort (ages 11-14) for math word problems and reading comprehension. There were no significant differences between the two pandemic groups on demographic variables, intellectual functioning, or epilepsy variables (i.e., age of onset, number of seizure medications, seizure frequency).

Academic functioning was generally equivalent between children with epilepsy who underwent academic testing as part of a pre-surgical evaluation prior to the pandemic compared to those who received testing during the pandemic. Additionally, academic functioning did not significantly differ between age cohorts. Children with epilepsy may have entered the pandemic with effective academic supports and/or were accustomed to school disruptions given their seizure history. Replication is needed as findings are based on a proxy measure of pandemic timing and the extent to which children experienced in-person, remote, and hybrid learning is unknown. Children tested a year into the pandemic, after receiving instruction through varying educational methods, may score differently than those tested earlier. Future research can address these gaps. Although it is encouraging that academic functioning was not disproportionately impacted during the pandemic in this sample, children with epilepsy are at-risk for generalized academic difficulties and continued monitoring of academic functioning is necessary.

Children with epilepsy are at greater risk of lower academic achievement than their typically developing peers (Reilly and Neville, 2015). Demographic, social, and neuropsychological factors, such as executive functioning (EF), mediate this relation. While research emphasizes the importance of EF skills for academic achievement among typically developing children (e.g., Best et al., 2011; Spiegel et al., 2021) less is known among children with epilepsy (Ng et al., 2020). The purpose of this study is to examine the influence of EF skills on academic achievement in a nationwide sample of children with epilepsy.

Participants included 427 children with epilepsy (52% male; MAge= 10.71), enrolled in the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Consortium (PERC) Epilepsy Surgery Database who had been referred for surgery and underwent neuropsychological testing. Academic achievement was assessed by performance measures (word reading, reading comprehension, spelling, and calculation and word-based mathematics) and parent-rating measures (Adaptive Behavior Assessment System (ABAS) Functional Academics and Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) School Performance). EF was assessed by verbal fluency measures, sequencing, and planning measures from the Delis Kaplan Executive Function System (DKEFS), NEPSY, and Tower of London test. Rating-based measures of EF included the 'Attention Problems’ subscale from the CBCL and 'Cognitive Regulation’ index from the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF-2). Partial correlations assessed associations between EF predictors and academic achievement, controlling for fullscale IQ (FSIQ; A composite across intelligence tests). Significant predictors of each academic skill or rating were entered into a two-step regression that included FSIQ, demographics, and seizure variables (age of onset, current medications) in the first step with EF predictors in the second step.

Although zero-order correlations were significant between EF predictors and academic achievement (.29 < r’s < .63 for performance; -.63 < r’s < -.50 for rating measures), partial correlations controlling for FSIQ showed fewer significant relations. For performance-based EF, only letter fluency (DKEFS Letter Fluency) and cognitive flexibility (DKEFS Trails Condition 4) demonstrated significant associations with performance-based academic achievement (r’s > .29). Regression models for performance-based academic achievement indicated that letter fluency (ß = .22, p = .017) and CBCL attention problems (ß = -.21, p =.002) were significant predictors of sight-word reading. Only letter fluency (ß = .23, p =.006) was significant for math calculation. CBCL Attention Problems were a significant predictor of spelling performance (ß = -.21, p = .009) and reading comprehension (ß = -.18, p =.039). CBCL Attention Problems (ß = -.38, p <.001 for ABAS; ß = -.34, p =.002 for CBCL School) and BRIEF-2 Cognitive Regulation difficulties (ß = -.46, p < .001 for ABAS; ß = -.46, p =.013 for CBCL School) were significant predictors of parent-rated ABAS Functional Academics and CBCL School Performance.

Among a national pediatric epilepsy dataset, performance-based and ratings-based measures of EF predicted performance academic achievement, whereas only ratings-based EF predicted parent-rated academic achievement, due at least in part to shared method variance. These findings suggest that interventions that increase cognitive regulation, reduce symptoms of attention dysfunction, and promote self-generative, flexible thinking, may promote academic achievement among children with epilepsy.

Anxiety disorders are the most frequently diagnosed psychiatric conditions in children and adolescents. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is a well-established and effective treatment for anxiety and related disorders across the lifespan. Expectations of psychotherapy have been demonstrated to affect outcomes, yet there is sparse existing literature on adolescent patient and parent perspectives of CBT prior to engagement with treatment.

This study aimed to qualitatively explore the expectations and perceptions of CBT for anxiety and related disorders among adolescent patients and parents.

Fourteen adolescent patients and 16 parents participated in semi-structured individual interviews or focus groups consisting of 2–3 participants. Interview transcripts were analysed using inductive analysis.

Three themes were identified: worries about CBT, expectations and knowledge of the CBT process, and the role of parents and families. Overall, we found that adolescents and parents had generally positive views of CBT. The outset of CBT saw adolescents and parents express concern about stigma as well as the ambiguity of CBT. Parents continued to express a lack of understanding of what CBT entailed during their child’s treatment course.

These results suggest that both adolescents and parents would benefit from early discussion and reinforcement of expectations for CBT treatment. Further research efforts are warranted and should be directed towards determining appropriate expectations for parental involvement in a child’s CBT course and effective communication of treatment expectations to both adolescents and parents.

We summarize what we assess as the past year's most important findings within climate change research: limits to adaptation, vulnerability hotspots, new threats coming from the climate–health nexus, climate (im)mobility and security, sustainable practices for land use and finance, losses and damages, inclusive societal climate decisions and ways to overcome structural barriers to accelerate mitigation and limit global warming to below 2°C.

We synthesize 10 topics within climate research where there have been significant advances or emerging scientific consensus since January 2021. The selection of these insights was based on input from an international open call with broad disciplinary scope. Findings concern: (1) new aspects of soft and hard limits to adaptation; (2) the emergence of regional vulnerability hotspots from climate impacts and human vulnerability; (3) new threats on the climate–health horizon – some involving plants and animals; (4) climate (im)mobility and the need for anticipatory action; (5) security and climate; (6) sustainable land management as a prerequisite to land-based solutions; (7) sustainable finance practices in the private sector and the need for political guidance; (8) the urgent planetary imperative for addressing losses and damages; (9) inclusive societal choices for climate-resilient development and (10) how to overcome barriers to accelerate mitigation and limit global warming to below 2°C.

Science has evidence on barriers to mitigation and how to overcome them to avoid limits to adaptation across multiple fields.

1. (1) How can training of CBT techniques such as exposure occur prior to graduate education?

2. (2) Can self-efficacy in conducting exposures meaningfully increase in an experiential training of pre-professionals?

3. (3) How does an individual’s tolerance of disgust impact feelings of competence conducting exposures?

The impact of healthcare system integration on infection prevention programs is unknown. Using catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) prevention as an example, we hypothesize that US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) nursing homes have a more robust infection prevention infrastructure due to integration and centralization compared with non–VA nursing homes.

VA and non-VA nursing homes participating in the AHRQ Safety Program for Long-Term Care collaborative.

Nursing homes provided baseline information about their infection prevention programs to assess strengths and gaps related to CAUTI prevention via a needs assessment questionnaire.

A total of 353 of 494 nursing homes from 41 states (71%; 47 VA and 306 non-VA facilities) responded. VA nursing homes reported more hours per week devoted to infection prevention-related activities (31 vs 12 hours; P<.001) and were more likely to have committees that reviewed healthcare-associated infections. Compared with non-VA facilities, a higher percentage of VA nursing homes reported tracking CAUTI rates (94% vs 66%; P<.001), sharing CAUTI data with leadership (94% vs 70%; P=.014) and with nursing personnel (85% vs 56%, P=.003). However, fewer VA nursing homes reported having policies for appropriate catheter use (64% vs 81%; P=.004) and catheter insertion (83% vs 94%; P=.004).

Among nursing homes participating in an AHRQ-funded collaborative, VA and non-VA nursing homes differed in their approach to CAUTI prevention. Best practices from both settings should be applied universally to create an optimal infection prevention program within emerging integrated healthcare systems.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:287–293

To assess knowledge about infection prevention among nursing home personnel and identify gaps potentially addressable through a quality improvement collaborative.

Baseline knowledge assessment of catheter-associated urinary tract infection, asymptomatic bacteriuria, antimicrobial stewardship, and general infection prevention practices for healthcare-associated infections.

Nursing homes across 14 states participating in the national “Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Safety Program for Long-Term Care: Healthcare-Associated Infections/Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection.”

Licensed (RNs, LPNs, APRNs, MDs) and unlicensed (clinical nursing assistants) healthcare personnel.

Each facility aimed to obtain responses from at least 10 employees (5 licensed and 5 unlicensed). We assessed the percentage of correct responses.

A total of 184 (78%) of 236 participating facilities provided 1 response or more. Of the 1,626 respondents, 822 (50.6%) were licensed; 117 facilities (63.6%) were for-profit. While 99.1% of licensed personnel recognized the definition of asymptomatic bacteriuria, only 36.1% knew that pyuria could not distinguish a urinary tract infection from asymptomatic bacteriuria. Among unlicensed personnel, 99.6% knew to notify a nurse if a resident developed fever or confusion, but only 27.7% knew that cloudy, smelly urine should not routinely be cultured. Although 100% of respondents reported receiving training in hand hygiene, less than 30% knew how long to rub hands (28.5% licensed, 25.2% unlicensed) or the most effective agent to use (11.7% licensed, 10.6% unlicensed).

This national assessment demonstrates an important need to enhance infection prevention knowledge among healthcare personnel working in nursing homes to improve resident safety and quality of care.

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2016;1–6