No abstract

Our objective was to describe racial/ethnic variations in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) ambulatory care use and its association with the presence of unmet health care needs. Using the 1992 National Survey of Veterans, we examined race/ethnicity and unmet health care need for ambulatory care users of VA and non-VA facilities. Black and Hispanic veterans were more likely to report any VA use. In unadjusted analyses, American Indian/Eskimo, Hispanic, and black veterans were 4.4, 2.5, and 1.9 times more likely, respectively, than white veterans to report an inability to get needed care. Adjusting for VA ambulatory care use diminished the disparity in inability to get needed care between American Indian/Eskimo or Hispanic veterans and white veterans and eliminated the disparity between black and white veterans. Our findings support the VA's role as a medical safety net provider and suggest that VA ambulatory care use is effective in mitigating health-related racial disparities for some veterans. Additional facilitators for reducing unmet need should be explored.

This article presents the rationale for and description of a promising intervention, Time for Living and Caring (TLC), designed to enhance the effectiveness of respite services for family caregivers. It is guided by the theoretical principles of the Selective Optimization with Compensation (SOC) model, which individually coaches caregivers on how to assess their personal circumstances, identify their greatest needs and preferences, and engage in goal setting and attainment strategies to make better use of their respite time. Focusing on respite activities that match caregivers’ unique needs is likely to result in improved well-being. We report on a pilot study examining TLC’s feasibility and potential benefits and how caregivers viewed their participation. While additional research is needed to test and refine the intervention, we need to find more creative ways to enhance respite services.

Among new technologies for enhancing classroom-based education are audience response systems (ARS), also known as ''clickers.'' These handheld devices record student responses to instructor questions and send them electronically to a receiver that tallies the responses. Summary results are then projected, usually as a graph. Instructors piloted the use of clickers in undergraduate social work research and practice courses. Instructor and student experiences with the clickers were examined by type of course, frequency of use, ease of use, perceived impact on learning, and use by students with disabilities. Instructors and students in both types of courses found the clickers beneficial. Minor differences by type of course were found. Some students with disabilities noted problems using the clickers. More use of clickers and research on their use in social work education is recommended along with continued attention to universal design in course preparation. INTRODUCTIONAmong relatively new technologies for enhancing classroom-based education are audience response systems (ARS), also known as classroom response systems (CRS) and, informally, as ''clickers.'' Clickers are handheld devices that, at minimum, allow all students in the classroom to electronically respond to questions posed by the instructor. Clicker responses are then tallied by a receiver and presented in graph form in tandem with any projected software (e.g., PowerPoint). This instant feedback allows the instructor to create an interactive learning environment by stimulating further discussion, providing clarification where necessary, or even reteaching concepts if clicker responses reflect poor understanding of the lesson. Opinion-based as well as factual questions can be posed.Clickers are made by several companies and have varying features beyond the tallying and display of student responses. Clickers have been available for several years and some universities or individual instructors mandate that students purchase clickers. However, other than a description of using one manufacturer's ARS system (Quinn, 2007) and a more recent study by Quinn (2010) on student evaluation of their clicker experience in a human behavior class, the social work literature lacks any reference to the use of and=or efficacy of ARS in social work education. As ARS are adopted by universities, it is important that their use be critically examined, especially in the typically smaller social work foundation courses versus larger science courses. This paper presents findings from an exploratory study that involved the pilot testing of two different models of clickers in undergraduate social work research and practice courses, courses with contrasting learning expectations. It will compare the acceptability and desirability of ARS from both student and instructor perspectives in these two courses. Findings from student surveys on how the clickers impacted their learning and their recommendations on further use of clickers will be presented. Findings will be compared by type of ...