Teachers' Beliefs, Values, and Likelihood of Talking about Group-Based Discrimination.

A teacher survey (N = 290) based on the social reasoning developmental model investigated (1) beliefs and values about using class time for discussing discrimination and reported frequency of discussing discrimination based on different social identities and (2) factors predicting teachers' frequency for discussing racial discrimination in the classroom. Most participants reported beliefs that all five identities were worth discussing in class, yet teachers most strongly believed that wealth, race, and native language affect students' education. Higher beliefs that prejudice can change, school support, and beliefs that race affects students' education predicted higher teacher reports for talking about racial discrimination.

Children's Perspectives on Fairness and Inclusivity in the Classroom.

School represents an important context for children's social, moral, and identity development. Research indicates that supportive teacher-student relationships are significantly related to positive student academic achievement. Unfortunately, teacher bias as well as peer exclusion based on group identity (gender, race, ethnicity, and nationality) pervade many school contexts. The presence of these biases in the classroom is negatively related to students' academic development, especially for children who are minoritized and marginalized. Very little research has connected teacher bias and children's reasoning about bias and inequalities in the classroom context. The classroom is a complex environment in which to examine children's social and moral reasoning about bias, given teachers' position of authority which often includes power, status, and prestige. We propose that understanding both teacher bias and peer intergroup exclusion are essential for promoting more fair classrooms. This paper reviews foundational theory as well as the social reasoning developmental model as a framework for studying how children think about fairness and bias in the classroom context. We then discuss current research on children's social-cognitive and moral capacities, particularly in the contexts of societal inequality and social inclusion or exclusion. Finally, this article proposes new directions for research to promote fairness and inclusivity in schools and suggests how these new lines of research might inform school-based interventions.

Children’s Perspectives on Fairness and Inclusivity in the Classroom

School represents an important context for children’s social, moral, and identity development. Research indicates that supportive teacher-student relationships are significantly related to positive student academic achievement. Unfortunately, teacher bias as well as peer exclusion based on group identity (gender, race, ethnicity, and nationality) pervade many school contexts. The presence of these biases in the classroom is negatively related to students’ academic development, especially for children who are minoritized and marginalized. Very little research has connected teacher bias and children’s reasoning about bias and inequalities in the classroom context. The classroom is a complex environment in which to examine children’s social and moral reasoning about bias, given teachers’ position of authority which often includes power, status, and prestige. We propose that understanding both teacher bias and peer intergroup exclusion are essential for promoting more fair classrooms. This paper reviews foundational theory as well as the social reasoning developmental model as a framework for studying how children think about fairness and bias in the classroom context. We then discuss current research on children’s social-cognitive and moral capacities, particularly in the contexts of societal inequality and social inclusion or exclusion. Finally, this article proposes new directions for research to promote fairness and inclusivity in schools and suggests how these new lines of research might inform school-based interventions. (AU)

Health care resource use and associated costs among patients with seasonal versus perennial allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Health care resource use (HRU) and costs among patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) have not been widely studied. OBJECTIVE: To develop an algorithm to classify patients with SAR and patients with PAR, and to evaluate treatment patterns, HRU, and costs among these patients. METHODS: Patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) were identified retrospectively by using electronic medical records and administrative claims data, with an index date as the earlier of the date of AR diagnosis or allergy medication use. Patients with AR were followed-up from 12 months before the index date through 12 months after the index date (follow-up) and were classified as SAR or PAR based on medication patterns during follow-up. AR-related HRU, allergy immunotherapy administration, and costs per patient per year during follow-up were compared between patients with SAR and those with PAR, with analyses stratified by asthma diagnosis before the index date and by physician specialty (primary care physician versus specialist). RESULTS: Approximately 23% of patients with AR were classified as having PAR and 77% as having SAR. During follow-up, the patients with PAR had more allergy medication prescriptions versus the patients with SAR (8.0 versus 2.4 prescriptions), higher prescription medication costs ($1551 versus $313), higher allergy immunotherapy cost ($180 versus. $118), and higher total AR-related costs ($1944 versus $643); all with p < 0.001. Patients with asthma had higher costs than those without asthma. Patients seen by a specialist has higher costs than those treated by a primary care physician. CONCLUSION: Patients with PAR experienced more AR-related prescription drug use and higher health care costs than patients with SAR, with prescription drug costs being the main cost driver. Treatments that reduce the need for ongoing prescription medication use have the potential to be cost saving.

Mortality and Vascular Events Among Elderly Patients With Chronic Myeloid Leukemia: A Retrospective Analysis of Linked SEER-Medicare Data.

BACKGROUND: Tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs) can be associated with vascular events (VEs). The expected VE rates in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) are unknown. The present study examined the event rates and mortality among elderly patients with and without CML. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry and Medicare claims data were used to identify patients aged ≥ 66 years with an incident (index) diagnosis of CML from 2004 to 2009. A comparison cohort of patients without cancer was matched 1:1 to the CML cohort. All patients were followed up from 12 months before the index diagnosis through death or December 31, 2010. The overall survival and rates of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, pulmonary embolism (PE), and peripheral arterial disease (PAD) were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 1466 patients with CML (mean age, 78 years; average follow-up period, 25 months) were identified and matched 1:1 to a noncancer cohort (mean age, 78 years; follow-up period, 42 months). Compared with the noncancer patients, those with CML had greater mortality (63% vs. 23% died during the follow-up period; median survival, 23 vs. > 84 months) and greater rates of MI (33.0 vs. 11.9 per 1000 person-years), stroke (83.2 vs. 43.0), PE (6.6 vs. 2.6), and PAD (92.1 vs. 59.3; P < .01 for all). Of the 15% of CML patients with TKI claims, 97% had received imatinib. The event rates were not elevated for TKI-treated patients compared with the overall group of patients with CML. CONCLUSION: Elderly patients with CML had greater mortality and greater rates of MI, stroke, PE, and PAD than did noncancer patients. The event rates were not elevated among the TKI-treated (primary imatinib) patients, suggesting that the VE risk in these patients with CML was driven primarily by the underlying factors associated with CML.