Random Comments

To commemorate the fortieth anniversary of the publication of The Death and Life of Great American Cities, the Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review and the Carroll School of Management invited Jane Jacobs to a symposium in her honor. To accommodate Ms. Jacobs, the symposium participants were divided into two panels. After each panel’s presentations, Ms. Jacobs offered her comments, and she and the panel members responded to audience questions. This essay, in part, reflects some of the comments Ms. Jacobs made both after the panel presentations and in response to audience questions. Her candor at the symposium was as refreshing as it is in her writing

A geography of big things

This paper sketches some conceptual tools by which cultural geographers might advance geographies of architecture. It does so by thinking specifically about one architectural form: the modernist residential highrise, which is the ‘big thing’ of this paper. The paper draws on recent developments in material semiotics in order to interrogate features often uniquely associated with the highrise, such as its global reach, uniformity, and scale. The paper first rethinks how cultural geography has traditionally explained the movement of built forms, explicitly turning from diffusionist accounts to the notion of translation. It then offers a reconsideration of the way geographers might think about scale in relation to a ‘big’ and ‘global’ thing like the modernist highrise, arguing that scale is produced relationally and in specific contexts. Finally, it offers a template for cultural geographical scholarship which takes seriously the technical work entailed in things, like a highrise, materialising or de-materializing. It does so by way of two illustrative stories: one about the productive social science of highrise suicides in Singapore; the other about the destructive role of the inquiry into collapse of Ronan point in the UK

Neonatal Glycemia and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes at 2 Years

From McKinlay, C. J. D., Alsweiler, J. M., Ansell, J. M., Anstice, N. S., Chase, J. G., Gamble, G. D., … Harding, J. E. (2015). Neonatal Glycemia and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes at 2 Years. New England Journal of Medicine, 373(16), 1507–1518. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1504909 Copyright © 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society. Reprinted with permission.Neonatal hypoglycemia is a common and readily treatable risk factor for neurologic impairment in children. Although associations between prolonged symptomatic neonatal hypoglycemia and brain injury are well established,1 the effect of milder hypoglycemia on neurologic development is uncertain.2 Consequently, large numbers of newborns are screened and treated for low blood glucose concentrations, which involves heel-stick blood tests, substantial costs, and the possibility of iatrogenic harm. Under current guidelines,3 up to 30% of neonates are considered to be at risk for hypoglycemia, 15% receive a diagnosis of hypoglycemia, and approximately 10% require admission to a neonatal intensive care unit,4 costing an estimated $2.1 billion annually in the United States alone.5 Associated formula feeding and possible separation of mother and baby reduce breast-feeding rates,6 with potentially adverse effects on broader infant health and development. In addition, pain-induced stress in neonates, such as repeated heel sticks, may itself impair brain development.7 Thus, to determine appropriate glycemic thresholds for treatment, there have been repeated calls for studies of the effect of neonatal hypoglycemia on long-term development.2,8 We report the results of the Children with Hypoglycaemia and Their Later Development (CHYLD) study, a large prospective cohort study of term and late-preterm neonates born at risk for hypoglycemia. The study investigated the relation between the duration, frequency, and severity of low glucose concentrations in the neonatal period and neuropsychological development at 2 years.Supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD069622), the Health Research Council of New Zealand (10-399), and the Auckland Medical Research Foundation (1110009)

Common Extra House Lab: Recipes for Citizenship in Transition or the Domestic-collective Usage of the Common Good

Este artículo describe acciones que simulan mejoras en el modo de habitar de redes de ciudadanos. El marco formativo es el último curso de arquitectura llamado Common Extra House Lab. En este no se fomenta la distinción entre aula, laboratorio y ciudad. Lo doméstico y su espacio público inmediato (el extra-house) constituyen el punto de partida para nuevos experimentos sociotécnicos. La metodología resultó ser experimental para lo habitual del marco académico y produjo una colección de acciones y formatos de foros híbridos que gestionaban personas, tecnologías, escenarios y recursos, que acabaron formulándose como recetas para una ciudadanía en transición y se convirtieron en el legado para el siguiente curso.This article describes actions that have led to progress in ways of living in citizen networks. The training framework is the last architecture course called Common Extra House Lab, in which it was encouraged to consider that there is no distinction between classroom, laboratory, and city. The domestic and its immediate public space (the extra-house) are the starting point for new socio-technical experiments which could be considered experimental comparing them with academic standards, producing hybrid forums managed by people, technologies and resources. They ended up becoming recipes for citizens in transition and turned into the legacy for the next course

Developing core outcomes sets: methods for identifying and including patient-reported outcomes (PROs)

BACKGROUND: Synthesis of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data is hindered by the range of available PRO measures (PROMs) composed of multiple scales and single items with differing terminology and content. The use of core outcome sets, an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported in all trials of a specific condition, may improve this issue but methods to select core PRO domains from the many available PROMs are lacking. This study examines existing PROMs and describes methods to identify health domains to inform the development of a core outcome set, illustrated with an example. METHODS: Systematic literature searches identified validated PROMs from studies evaluating radical treatment for oesophageal cancer. PROM scale/single item names were recorded verbatim and the frequency of similar names/scales documented. PROM contents (scale components/single items) were examined for conceptual meaning by an expert clinician and methodologist and categorised into health domains. A patient advocate independently checked this categorisation. RESULTS: Searches identified 21 generic and disease-specific PROMs containing 116 scales and 32 single items with 94 different verbatim names. Identical names for scales were repeatedly used (for example, ‘physical function’ in six different measures) and others were similar (overlapping face validity) although component items were not always comparable. Based on methodological, clinical and patient expertise, 606 individual items were categorised into 32 health domains. CONCLUSION: This study outlines a methodology for identifying candidate PRO domains from existing PROMs to inform a core outcome set to use in clinical trials

Developing core outcomes sets: Methods for identifying and including patient-reported outcomes (PROs)

Background: Synthesis of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data is hindered by the range of available PRO measures (PROMs) composed of multiple scales and single items with differing terminology and content. The use of core outcome sets, an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported in all trials of a specific condition, may improve this issue but methods to select core PRO domains from the many available PROMs are lacking. This study examines existing PROMs and describes methods to identify health domains to inform the development of a core outcome set, illustrated with an example.Methods: Systematic literature searches identified validated PROMs from studies evaluating radical treatment for oesophageal cancer. PROM scale/single item names were recorded verbatim and the frequency of similar names/scales documented. PROM contents (scale components/single items) were examined for conceptual meaning by an expert clinician and methodologist and categorised into health domains. A patient advocate independently checked this categorisation.Results: Searches identified 21 generic and disease-specific PROMs containing 116 scales and 32 single items with 94 different verbatim names. Identical names for scales were repeatedly used (for example, 'physical function' in six different measures) and others were similar (overlapping face validity) although component items were not always comparable. Based on methodological, clinical and patient expertise, 606 individual items were categorised into 32 health domains.Conclusion: This study outlines a methodology for identifying candidate PRO domains from existing PROMs to inform a core outcome set to use in clinical trials