Literatura académica sobre el tema "Cultural disability studies"

Anthropocentric museums are “an important place in public debate, creation and questioning ideas” because they can have a positive impact on the lives of underprivileged or marginalized people. They can also strengthen specific communities and contribute to the creation of fairer societies. The science of Museology together with the science of Special Education and Training (SET) support with the Targeted Individual Structured and Integrated Program for Students with Special Educational needs (TISIPfSEN), in children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SENDs). The purpose of this work was to study museology applications in accordance with the pedagogical tool TISIPfSEN. The main working hypothesis explored access to theatre and entertainment events, museums and archaeological sites of people with SENDs, which is not always an easy process given that they are a heterogeneous group due to their inherent or acquired specificity. The applications also drew pedagogical materials through the charm of the art of theatre and puppetry. In this context, performances were given free of charge through the Kalamata Experimental Stage to children and young people with SENDs, in the city of Kalamata and Sparta. This project led to voluntary application from students of department of history of University of Peloponnese. The results showed that people’s disability does not always mean impotence. Accessibility to museum programs and theatrical events in modern organized societies is possible. The learning process becomes accessible with the pedagogical tool TISIPfSEN to people with special needs. Necessary conditions, knowledge in the SET and the necessary training of all according to universal design. In conclusion, TISIPfSEN museum pedagogical programs facilitate different social groups in approaching, understanding the differential material culture, with alternative forms of communication and learning, given that heterogeneity in nature is a universal phenomenon.

The POERUP project This paper presents research, analysis and policy recommendations from the POERUP (Policies for OER Up Take) project. The overall aim is to develop policies to promote the uptake of OER, especially across the EU, in all main educational sectors. The project has already created an inventory of more than 400 OER initiatives worldwide, documented on the project wiki. POERUP has produced 11 country reports and 19 mini-reports and is finalising seven case studies of notable OER initiatives. Outcomes of our research In the schools sector, it appears that there are very large numbers of European OERs which are potentially appropriate for K-12 education, a significant proportion of which emanate from museums, galleries, archives and national broadcasters. Although there appears to be some uncertainty concerning the availability of K-12 OER, they form potentially a valuable element in policy responses to austerity and to improve the learner experience in the school sector. However our research reports a range of barriers and disincentives to using OER. Although the development of vocational training has been a subject of enhanced political cooperation at the European level during the past decade, only one of the notable OER initiatives we have catalogued is targeted towards the VET sector and there is little evidence of any national or regional policies on OER for VET. In Universities the various schemes for quality in OER are so far ignored by national HE quality agencies or governments - not surprising when they mostly ignore similar schemes for quality in e-learning, even though e-learning (on- or off-campus) has far greater penetration than OER. Types of policy interventions Our research leads us to recommend three strands of policy interventions: o Linking OER to open access to research and to standards. o Fostering the phenomena that OER is said to facilitate. o Reducing the barriers to creation of innovative institutions and innovative practices. POERUP has produced three draft EU-level policy documents for universities, VET and schools. This paper integrates recommendations from the three sectors. POERUP is also producing policy documents for 5 Member States. Policy recommendations for the Commission and Member States OER is part of the broader fields of e-learning and distance learning and many of our recommendations are applicable in these broader contexts. They are grouped under seven headings and all are mapped against Opening Up Education; recommendations to Member States are specified. Communication and awareness raising: o Continue to promote the OER related initiatives currently being funded. o Facilitate exchange of experiences from national programmes between Member States. o Mount a campaign to educate university and school staff on IPR issues. Funding mechanisms and licensing issues o Ensure that any public outputs from EU programmes are available as open resources. o Continue to promote the availability and accessibility of open resources created through its cultural sector programmes. o Create an innovation fund for the development of online learning resources and assembling/ creating pathways to credentials. o Use Erasmus+ and Horizon 2020 to encourage partnerships between creators of educational content to increase the supply of quality OER and other digital educational materials in different languages, to develop new business models and to develop technical solutions. o Establish a European Hub of Digitally Innovative Education institutions, complemented by a specific European Award of Digital Excellence. o Authorities developing the EHEA should reduce the regulatory barriers against new non-study-time-based modes of provision. o Encourage Member States to increase their scrutiny of the cost basis for university teaching and consider the benefits of output-based funding for qualifications. o Support the development of technological methods to provide more and standardised information on IPR to the users of digital educational content. o Member States should ensure that budgets for digital educational resources are flexible enough to support the development (and maintenance) of openly licensed materials. Quality issues o Require OER to meet (disability) accessibility standards and should ensure that accessibility is a central tenet of all OER programmes and initiatives. o Establish a European quality assurance standard for OER content produced in Europe. o Member States should ensure that OER are allowed to be included on approved instructional materials lists. o Member States should consider establishing and funding an OER evaluation and adoption panel. Teacher training and continuous professional development o Encourage Member States to establish incentive and award schemes for teachers engaged in online professional development of their pedagogic skills, including online learning. o Member States should establish a professional development programme to support CPD on the creation, use and re-use of OER, with coverage of distance learning, MOOCs and IPR issues. Certification and accreditation o Drive forward the development of EQF and encourage Europe-wide validation of learning acquired online. o Foster the development of transnational accrediting agencies and mutual recognition of accreditations across the EU. o Explore and test digital competence frameworks and self-assessment tools for learners, teachers and organisations, including the tailoring of 'open badges' to the needs of learners. Infrastructure issues o Continue its focus on improving the ICT in education infrastructure in Members States to enable them to exploit potential pedagogical and financial advantages of OER. Further research o Develop its understanding of new modes of learning (including online, distance, OER and MOOCs) and how they impact quality assurance and recognition. o Support research into the benefits of OER & sustainable business models. o Launch a platform open to all stakeholders to record and benchmark the digital state of educational institutions.

In the field of Product design, basic and applied research addresses the issue of inclusion through a theoretical-methodological and experimental development approach, aimed at specific user groups with personal needs (anthropometric, postural and use) or with reduced possibility of action and movement.Thus, the solutions and product innovations on the market are mostly partial, specialized and hyper-functional, and they don’t consider, as far as possible, everyone's needs through an inclusive approach to the project.Today, the culture of design evolves towards Design for All (DfA). It is the design for human diversity, social inclusion and equality (EIDD Declaration of Stockholm, 2004), which aims, instead, to extend the active and autonomous, comfortable and pleasant use of products to the widest variety of subjects, different from each other for culture or perceptive, motor and cognitive abilities.In this problematic context and in the perspective of the transition towards social inclusion, this paper proposes a discussion and a theoretical-critical reflection on the application of DfA tools and methods and presents the results of the elaboration and experimental development referred to a dynamic Top concept for a highly inclusive kitchen. The aim of this research is to prefigure a kitchen system able to offer users a more inclusive and personalized access, to respond to the cognitive and physical needs of the different possible targets, in an equitable way and without creating ghettoizations or specializations, to modify and adapt its own characteristics over time in order to guarantee a socially inclusive use.In particular, the studio is critically confronted with the experiences that take place in many parts of the world that develop and manufacture more accessible products in the kitchen supplies sector, to arrive at the development of a concept of a highly inclusive kitchen worktop by applying the methodology of DfA.The design process activities concern a pre-concept phase for the identification of problematic nodes, and, by means of an anthropometric verification, of the size and minimum dimensions of the product.This is followed by a phase of generation and selection of the most promising ideas to come finally, in the final phase, to the development of the product concept and a subsequent empirical validation of the degree of innovation achieved through virtual models and scale prototypes.The concept of a typically innovative kitchen worktop for all, represents the starting point and the methodological basis for the search for new solutions in the various areas of Product design, able of responding effectively to the pressing and urgent questions posed by inclusive society. The result demonstrates the concrete possibility of overcoming the concept of design for disability by proposing as an alternative a design for all approach that promotes equality and equity of use.

Background Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer death worldwide.(1) It is the fifth most commonly diagnosed cancer in Australia (12,741 cases diagnosed in 2018) and the leading cause of cancer death.(2) The number of years of potential life lost to lung cancer in Australia is estimated to be 58,450, similar to that of colorectal and breast cancer combined.(3) While tobacco control strategies are most effective for disease prevention in the general population, early detection via low dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening in high-risk populations is a viable option for detecting asymptomatic disease in current (13%) and former (24%) Australian smokers.(4) The purpose of this Evidence Check review is to identify and analyse existing and emerging evidence for LDCT lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals to guide future program and policy planning. Evidence Check questions This review aimed to address the following questions: 1. What is the evidence for the effectiveness of lung cancer screening for higher-risk individuals? 2. What is the evidence of potential harms from lung cancer screening for higher-risk individuals? 3. What are the main components of recent major lung cancer screening programs or trials? 4. What is the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening programs (include studies of cost–utility)? Summary of methods The authors searched the peer-reviewed literature across three databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Embase) for existing systematic reviews and original studies published between 1 January 2009 and 8 August 2019. Fifteen systematic reviews (of which 8 were contemporary) and 64 original publications met the inclusion criteria set across the four questions. Key findings Question 1: What is the evidence for the effectiveness of lung cancer screening for higher-risk individuals? There is sufficient evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of combined (pooled) data from screening trials (of high-risk individuals) to indicate that LDCT examination is clinically effective in reducing lung cancer mortality. In 2011, the landmark National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST, a large-scale randomised controlled trial [RCT] conducted in the US) reported a 20% (95% CI 6.8% – 26.7%; P=0.004) relative reduction in mortality among long-term heavy smokers over three rounds of annual screening. High-risk eligibility criteria was defined as people aged 55–74 years with a smoking history of ≥30 pack-years (years in which a smoker has consumed 20-plus cigarettes each day) and, for former smokers, ≥30 pack-years and have quit within the past 15 years.(5) All-cause mortality was reduced by 6.7% (95% CI, 1.2% – 13.6%; P=0.02). Initial data from the second landmark RCT, the NEderlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (known as the NELSON trial), have found an even greater reduction of 26% (95% CI, 9% – 41%) in lung cancer mortality, with full trial results yet to be published.(6, 7) Pooled analyses, including several smaller-scale European LDCT screening trials insufficiently powered in their own right, collectively demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in lung cancer mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73–0.91).(8) Despite the reduction in all-cause mortality found in the NLST, pooled analyses of seven trials found no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90–1.00).(8) However, cancer-specific mortality is currently the most relevant outcome in cancer screening trials. These seven trials demonstrated a significantly greater proportion of early stage cancers in LDCT groups compared with controls (RR 2.08, 95% CI 1.43–3.03). Thus, when considering results across mortality outcomes and early stage cancers diagnosed, LDCT screening is considered to be clinically effective. Question 2: What is the evidence of potential harms from lung cancer screening for higher-risk individuals? The harms of LDCT lung cancer screening include false positive tests and the consequences of unnecessary invasive follow-up procedures for conditions that are eventually diagnosed as benign. While LDCT screening leads to an increased frequency of invasive procedures, it does not result in greater mortality soon after an invasive procedure (in trial settings when compared with the control arm).(8) Overdiagnosis, exposure to radiation, psychological distress and an impact on quality of life are other known harms. Systematic review evidence indicates the benefits of LDCT screening are likely to outweigh the harms. The potential harms are likely to be reduced as refinements are made to LDCT screening protocols through: i) the application of risk predication models (e.g. the PLCOm2012), which enable a more accurate selection of the high-risk population through the use of specific criteria (beyond age and smoking history); ii) the use of nodule management algorithms (e.g. Lung-RADS, PanCan), which assist in the diagnostic evaluation of screen-detected nodules and cancers (e.g. more precise volumetric assessment of nodules); and, iii) more judicious selection of patients for invasive procedures. Recent evidence suggests a positive LDCT result may transiently increase psychological distress but does not have long-term adverse effects on psychological distress or health-related quality of life (HRQoL). With regards to smoking cessation, there is no evidence to suggest screening participation invokes a false sense of assurance in smokers, nor a reduction in motivation to quit. The NELSON and Danish trials found no difference in smoking cessation rates between LDCT screening and control groups. Higher net cessation rates, compared with general population, suggest those who participate in screening trials may already be motivated to quit. Question 3: What are the main components of recent major lung cancer screening programs or trials? There are no systematic reviews that capture the main components of recent major lung cancer screening trials and programs. We extracted evidence from original studies and clinical guidance documents and organised this into key groups to form a concise set of components for potential implementation of a national lung cancer screening program in Australia: 1. Identifying the high-risk population: recruitment, eligibility, selection and referral 2. Educating the public, people at high risk and healthcare providers; this includes creating awareness of lung cancer, the benefits and harms of LDCT screening, and shared decision-making 3. Components necessary for health services to deliver a screening program: a. Planning phase: e.g. human resources to coordinate the program, electronic data systems that integrate medical records information and link to an established national registry b. Implementation phase: e.g. human and technological resources required to conduct LDCT examinations, interpretation of reports and communication of results to participants c. Monitoring and evaluation phase: e.g. monitoring outcomes across patients, radiological reporting, compliance with established standards and a quality assurance program 4. Data reporting and research, e.g. audit and feedback to multidisciplinary teams, reporting outcomes to enhance international research into LDCT screening 5. Incorporation of smoking cessation interventions, e.g. specific programs designed for LDCT screening or referral to existing community or hospital-based services that deliver cessation interventions. Most original studies are single-institution evaluations that contain descriptive data about the processes required to establish and implement a high-risk population-based screening program. Across all studies there is a consistent message as to the challenges and complexities of establishing LDCT screening programs to attract people at high risk who will receive the greatest benefits from participation. With regards to smoking cessation, evidence from one systematic review indicates the optimal strategy for incorporating smoking cessation interventions into a LDCT screening program is unclear. There is widespread agreement that LDCT screening attendance presents a ‘teachable moment’ for cessation advice, especially among those people who receive a positive scan result. Smoking cessation is an area of significant research investment; for instance, eight US-based clinical trials are now underway that aim to address how best to design and deliver cessation programs within large-scale LDCT screening programs.(9) Question 4: What is the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening programs (include studies of cost–utility)? Assessing the value or cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening involves a complex interplay of factors including data on effectiveness and costs, and institutional context. A key input is data about the effectiveness of potential and current screening programs with respect to case detection, and the likely outcomes of treating those cases sooner (in the presence of LDCT screening) as opposed to later (in the absence of LDCT screening). Evidence about the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening programs has been summarised in two systematic reviews. We identified a further 13 studies—five modelling studies, one discrete choice experiment and seven articles—that used a variety of methods to assess cost-effectiveness. Three modelling studies indicated LDCT screening was cost-effective in the settings of the US and Europe. Two studies—one from Australia and one from New Zealand—reported LDCT screening would not be cost-effective using NLST-like protocols. We anticipate that, following the full publication of the NELSON trial, cost-effectiveness studies will likely be updated with new data that reduce uncertainty about factors that influence modelling outcomes, including the findings of indeterminate nodules. Gaps in the evidence There is a large and accessible body of evidence as to the effectiveness (Q1) and harms (Q2) of LDCT screening for lung cancer. Nevertheless, there are significant gaps in the evidence about the program components that are required to implement an effective LDCT screening program (Q3). Questions about LDCT screening acceptability and feasibility were not explicitly included in the scope. However, as the evidence is based primarily on US programs and UK pilot studies, the relevance to the local setting requires careful consideration. The Queensland Lung Cancer Screening Study provides feasibility data about clinical aspects of LDCT screening but little about program design. The International Lung Screening Trial is still in the recruitment phase and findings are not yet available for inclusion in this Evidence Check. The Australian Population Based Screening Framework was developed to “inform decision-makers on the key issues to be considered when assessing potential screening programs in Australia”.(10) As the Framework is specific to population-based, rather than high-risk, screening programs, there is a lack of clarity about transferability of criteria. However, the Framework criteria do stipulate that a screening program must be acceptable to “important subgroups such as target participants who are from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, people from disadvantaged groups and people with a disability”.(10) An extensive search of the literature highlighted that there is very little information about the acceptability of LDCT screening to these population groups in Australia. Yet they are part of the high-risk population.(10) There are also considerable gaps in the evidence about the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening in different settings, including Australia. The evidence base in this area is rapidly evolving and is likely to include new data from the NELSON trial and incorporate data about the costs of targeted- and immuno-therapies as these treatments become more widely available in Australia.