Within-family associations of parent–adolescent relationship quality and adolescent affective well-being

Background: Parent–adolescent relationship quality is theorized to be an important correlate of adolescent affective well-being. Little is known about the within-family processes underlying parent–adolescent relationship quality and affective well-being over a period of months. This three-wave, preregistered study examined within- and between-family associations between parent–adolescent relationship quality (support and conflict) and adolescent well-being (negative and positive affect). In addition, we examined whether the associations differed between mothers and fathers, and for adolescents' affective well-being in different social contexts (at home, at school, with peers). Methods: The sample consisted of 244 Dutch adolescents (61.5% girls; age range: 12–17 years; mean age = 13.8 years). Random-intercept cross-lagged panel models were used. Results: At the between-family level, higher levels of support and lower levels of conflict were associated with higher levels of positive affect and lower levels of negative affect. At the within-family level, increases in support and decreases in conflict were concurrently associated with increases in positive affect and decreases in negative affect. More parent–adolescent conflict than typical also predicted increases in negative affect, 3 months later, and more negative affect and less positive affect than typical predicted increased conflict, 3 months later. These within-family effects were largely similar for fathers and mothers. Associations for conflict occurred through bidirectional processes: Parent–adolescent conflict shaped and was shaped by adolescents' emotions at home, at school, and with peers. Conclusion: Results suggest that parent–adolescent relationship quality (especially conflict) and adolescent affective well-being cofluctuate and predict each other over time within families.</p

Within-family associations of parent–adolescent relationship quality and adolescent affective well-being

Background: Parent–adolescent relationship quality is theorized to be an important correlate of adolescent affective well-being. Little is known about the within-family processes underlying parent–adolescent relationship quality and affective well-being over a period of months. This three-wave, preregistered study examined within- and between-family associations between parent–adolescent relationship quality (support and conflict) and adolescent well-being (negative and positive affect). In addition, we examined whether the associations differed between mothers and fathers, and for adolescents' affective well-being in different social contexts (at home, at school, with peers). Methods: The sample consisted of 244 Dutch adolescents (61.5% girls; age range: 12–17 years; mean age = 13.8 years). Random-intercept cross-lagged panel models were used. Results: At the between-family level, higher levels of support and lower levels of conflict were associated with higher levels of positive affect and lower levels of negative affect. At the within-family level, increases in support and decreases in conflict were concurrently associated with increases in positive affect and decreases in negative affect. More parent–adolescent conflict than typical also predicted increases in negative affect, 3 months later, and more negative affect and less positive affect than typical predicted increased conflict, 3 months later. These within-family effects were largely similar for fathers and mothers. Associations for conflict occurred through bidirectional processes: Parent–adolescent conflict shaped and was shaped by adolescents' emotions at home, at school, and with peers. Conclusion: Results suggest that parent–adolescent relationship quality (especially conflict) and adolescent affective well-being cofluctuate and predict each other over time within families.</p

Should we welcome robot teachers?

Abstract Current uses of robots in classrooms are reviewed and used to characterise four scenarios: (s1) Robot as Classroom Teacher; (s2) Robot as Companion and Peer; (s3) Robot as Care-eliciting Companion; and (s4) Telepresence Robot Teacher. The main ethical concerns associated with robot teachers are identified as: privacy; attachment, deception, and loss of human contact; and control and accountability. These are discussed in terms of the four identified scenarios. It is argued that classroom robots are likely to impact children’s’ privacy, especially when they masquerade as their friends and companions, when sensors are used to measure children’s responses, and when records are kept. Social robots designed to appear as if they understand and care for humans necessarily involve some deception (itself a complex notion), and could increase the risk of reduced human contact. Children could form attachments to robot companions (s2 and s3), or robot teachers (s1) and this could have a deleterious effect on their social development. There are also concerns about the ability, and use of robots to control or make decisions about children’s behaviour in the classroom. It is concluded that there are good reasons not to welcome fully fledged robot teachers (s1), and that robot companions (s2 and 3) should be given a cautious welcome at best. The limited circumstances in which robots could be used in the classroom to improve the human condition by offering otherwise unavailable educational experiences are discussed

Genetic and neurological foundations of customer orientation: field and experimental evidence

We explore genetic and neurological bases for customer orientation (CO) and contrast them with sales orientation (SO). Study 1 is a field study that establishes that CO, but not SO, leads to greater opportunity recognition. Study 2 examines genetic bases for CO and finds that salespeople with CO are more likely to have the 7R variant of the DRD4 gene. This is consistent with basic research on dopamine receptor activity in the brain that underlies novelty seeking, the reward function, and risk taking. Study 3 examines the neural basis of CO and finds that salespeople with CO, but not SO, experience greater activation of their mirror neuron systems and neural processes associated with empathy. Managerial and research implications are discussed

The effect of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy on long-term survival outcomes in patients with invasive lobular breast cancer treated with endocrine therapy:A retrospective cohort study

Background: Despite histological and molecular differences between invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) and invasive carcinoma of no special type, according to national treatment guidelines no distinction is made regarding the use of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. Studies on the long-term outcome of chemotherapy in patients with ILC are scarce and show inconclusive results. Methods:All patients with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative ILC with an indication for chemotherapy treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy were selected from the Erasmus Medical Center Breast Cancer database. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the effect of chemotherapy on recurrence-free survival (RFS), breast cancer–specific survival (BCSS), and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 520 patients were selected, of whom 379 were treated with chemotherapy and 141 were not. Patients in the chemotherapy group were younger (51 vs. 61 years old; p &lt;.001), had a higher T status (T3+, 33% vs. 14%; p &lt;.001), and more often had lymph node involvement (80% vs. 49%; p &lt;.001) in comparison to the no-chemotherapy group. After adjusting for confounders, chemotherapy treatment was not associated with better RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63–2.31), BCSS (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.60–2.58), or OS (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.56–1.66). This was also reflected by adjusted Cox survival curves in the chemotherapy versus no-chemotherapy group for RFS (75% vs. 79%), BCSS (80% vs. 84%), and OS (72% vs. 71%). Conclusions:Chemotherapy is not associated with improved RFS, BCSS, or OS for patients with ER+/HER2− ILC treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy and with an indication for chemotherapy.</p

The effect of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy on long-term survival outcomes in patients with invasive lobular breast cancer treated with endocrine therapy:A retrospective cohort study

Background: Despite histological and molecular differences between invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) and invasive carcinoma of no special type, according to national treatment guidelines no distinction is made regarding the use of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. Studies on the long-term outcome of chemotherapy in patients with ILC are scarce and show inconclusive results. Methods:All patients with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative ILC with an indication for chemotherapy treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy were selected from the Erasmus Medical Center Breast Cancer database. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the effect of chemotherapy on recurrence-free survival (RFS), breast cancer–specific survival (BCSS), and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 520 patients were selected, of whom 379 were treated with chemotherapy and 141 were not. Patients in the chemotherapy group were younger (51 vs. 61 years old; p &lt;.001), had a higher T status (T3+, 33% vs. 14%; p &lt;.001), and more often had lymph node involvement (80% vs. 49%; p &lt;.001) in comparison to the no-chemotherapy group. After adjusting for confounders, chemotherapy treatment was not associated with better RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63–2.31), BCSS (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.60–2.58), or OS (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.56–1.66). This was also reflected by adjusted Cox survival curves in the chemotherapy versus no-chemotherapy group for RFS (75% vs. 79%), BCSS (80% vs. 84%), and OS (72% vs. 71%). Conclusions:Chemotherapy is not associated with improved RFS, BCSS, or OS for patients with ER+/HER2− ILC treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy and with an indication for chemotherapy.</p

Debating the Desirability of New Biomedical Technologies: Lessons from the Introduction of Breast Cancer Screening in the Netherlands

Health technology assessment (HTA) was developed in the 1970s and 1980s to facilitate decision making on the desirability of new biomedical technologies. Since then, many of the standard tools and methods of HTA have been criticized for their implicit normativity. At the same time research into the character of technology in practice has motivated philosophers, sociologists and anthropologists to criticize the traditional view of technology as a neutral instrument designed to perform a specific function. Such research suggests that the tools and methods of more traditional forms of HTA are often inspired by an ‘instrumentalist’ conception of technology that does not fit the way technology actually works. This paper explores this hypothesis for a specific case: the assessments and deliberations leading to the introduction of breast cancer screening in the Netherlands. After reconstructing this history of HTA ‘in the making’ the stepwise model of HTA that emerged during the process is discussed. This model was rooted indeed in an instrumentalist conception of technology. However, a more detailed reconstruction of several episodes from this history reveals how the actors already experienced the inadequacy of some of the instrumentalist presuppositions. The historical case thus shows how an instrumentalist conception of technology may result in implicit normative effects. The paper concludes that an instrumentalist view of technology is not a good starting point for HTA and briefly suggests how the fit between HTA methods and the actual character of technology in practice might be improved

The Healthy Primary School of the Future:study protocol of a quasi-experimental study

Background: Unhealthy lifestyles in early childhood are a major global health challenge. These lifestyles often persist from generation to generation and contribute to a vicious cycle of health-related and social problems. This design article presents a study evaluating the effects of two novel healthy school interventions. The main outcome measure will be changes in children's body mass index (BMI). In addition, lifestyle behaviours, academic achievement, child well-being, socio-economic differences, and societal costs will be examined. Methods: In close collaboration with various stakeholders, a quasi-experimental study was developed, for which children of four intervention schools (n = 1200) in the southern part of the Netherlands are compared with children of four control schools (n = 1200) in the same region. The interventions started in November 2015. In two of the four intervention schools, a whole-school approach named 'The Healthy Primary School of the Future', is implemented with the aim of improving physical activity and dietary behaviour. For this intervention, pupils are offered an extended curriculum, including a healthy lunch, more physical exercises, and social and educational activities, next to the regular school curriculum. In the two other intervention schools, a physical-activity school approach called 'The Physical Activity School', is implemented, which is essentially similar to the other intervention, except that no lunch is provided. The interventions proceed during a period of 4 years. Apart from the effectiveness of both interventions, the process, the cost-effectiveness, and the expected legal implications are studied. Data collection is conducted within the school system. The baseline measurements started in September 2015 and yearly follow-up measurements are taking place until 2019. Discussion: A whole-school approach is a new concept in the Netherlands. Due to its innovative, multifaceted nature and sound scientific foundation, these integrated programmes have the potential to form a template for primary schools worldwide. The effects of this approach may extend further than the outcomes associated with well-being and academic achievement, potentially impacting legal and cultural aspects in our society. Trial registration: The study protocol was registered in the database ClinicalTrials.gov on 14-06-2016 with the reference number NCT02800616