Abstract. We have developed two diagnostic assays based on the specific detection of Plasmodium lactate dehydrogenase (pLDH) activity. These assays exploit a panel of monoclonal antibodies that capture the parasite enzyme and allow for the quantitation and speciation of human malaria infections. An immunocapture pLDH activity assay (ICpLDH) allows for the rapid purification and measurement of pLDH from infected blood using the NAD analog APAD, which reacts specifically with Plasmodium LDH isoforms. An immunochromatographic test (the OptiMAL assay) was also formatted and allowed the detection of parasite infections of ϳ200 parasites/l of blood. By using a combination of antibodies, both tests can not only detect but differentiate between P. falciparum and non-P. falciparum malaria. Both assays show a sensitivity comparable with other commercial nonmicroscopic tests; importantly, we found very few instances of false-positive samples, especially with samples from patients recently cleared of malaria infection. Furthermore, we find that when one uses the quantitative ICpLDH assay, the levels of pLDH activity closely mirror the levels of parasitemia in both initial diagnosis and while following patient therapy. We conclude that diagnostic tests based on the detection of pLDH are both sensitive and practical for the detection, speciation, and quantitation of all human Plasmodium infections and can also be used to indicate drug-resistant infections.

The results of this study will help to determine educational needs and clinical practice of CAM therapies with CNSs at this academic medical center. The survey used and the research results from this study can be a template for other CNSs to use to begin to address this topic of CAM use in other hospitals and clinical settings. This survey could be used to explore CAM use by patients in specialty areas for practice enhancement.

No abstract

The challenges of transforming our educational systems to fulfill enduring needs for equity, justice, and responsiveness will take a multitude of partners. Research-practice partnerships (RPPs) arrange collaboration and engagement with research to bring about shared commitments and resources to tackle these challenges. Just as sociocultural and political dynamics can shape educational politics generally, without close and intentional attention to the politics of starting, operating, and sustaining RPPs, those political dynamics can potentially derail a partnership. In this article, we consider the emerging research on the politics in and around RPPs pursuing educational transformation and propose a framework to reflect these dynamics. To introduce this special issue, we also deconstruct RPP politics into four major phases of RPP work, and describe the articles addressing each phase. This compilation of articles contributes a wealth of expertise and evidence illuminating how politics can shape both RPPs and their goals of equity and transformation.

Research-practice partnerships (RPPs) are long-term collaborations between researchers and practitioners aimed at educational improvement and transformation through engagement with research. Yet RPPs can be challenging to implement, and even long running RPPs experience bumps in their work together. Caitlin Farrell, Laura Wentworth, and Michelle Nayfack discuss what conditions helped school district leaders and researchers from the partnership between Stanford University and San Francisco Unified School District be more or less successful in influencing school district policies and practices, and they share recommendations on how to develop or support conditions for successful partnerships.

Awareness for patient safety led a team to develop an electronic handoff communication tool for noncomplicated routine patients. The structure of SBAR (situation, background, assessment, and recommendation) was used when transferring patients to and from the progressive care unit and cardiac laboratories. The electronic SBAR gave staff a reliable and standard way to provide a patient handoff.

Background/Context The passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002 and the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015 spurred changes in the way educators use data. On the one hand, the policies inspired educators’ awareness of large gaps in achievement between subgroups based on gender, race, and socioeconomic status. On the other hand, the policies inspired the use of data-based indicators in day-to-day routines in schools. In some cases, practitioners started working with researchers to analyze data using advanced measurement techniques to develop “early warning indicators.” These indicators identify when students are at risk of not achieving key milestones, such as graduating from high school, in hopes of providing practitioners with time to intervene early enough to change the students’ trajectories. Educational leaders have created “early warning systems” that produce reports summarizing these indicators, provide a process for the leaders to organize interventions based on the indicator reports, and a further process to examine whether students are back on track toward milestones such as high school graduation as a result of the intervention. Given the pace at which the science and use of these indicators is advancing, the topic is in need of a new resource explaining the most up-to-date elements involved with early warning indicators. Purpose/Focus of the Study This article will describe the evolution of the research, use, and conditions that influence the use of early warning indicators. The review of the literature includes a description of each of the yearbook articles and how they summarize some of the most recent advancements in early warning indicators in education. Research Design This is a review of literature. Findings As indicators in education have improved, these indicators show practitioners when students are not on track to reach certain milestones and provide practitioners with time to intervene early enough to change the child's trajectory. Allensworth and other authors (e.g., Balfanz et al.; Faria et al.; and Soland) provide evidence that these early warning indicators are impactful when used by practitioners in certain ways. Earlier efforts around early warning indicators focused on identifying measures that were predictive of key outcomes, such as high school graduation. As efforts to use indicators in practice became more mature, the focus expanded from providing information through indicators and information systems to ensuring that practitioners had the capacity and opportunity to engage in indicator use to guide their daily practice, and that the conditions in schools, school districts, and states supported indicator use. More recently, methodological advances around data analytics and a growing interest in social–emotional learning have expanded the approach and scope of indicators and their use. That said, the research on the nature and use of these indicators needs further documentation to keep up with the rapid pace at which the indicators are advancing and becoming more precise. The field still lacks a robust research base on how to use the indicators to improve practices and policies, and what conditions support the development and use of the indicators in education. Conclusions/Recommendations We will explain how the studies in this yearbook provide more up-to-date information on measurement related to the indicators, on the influence of certain approaches to using the indicators, as well as research on how conditions interact with the development and use of the indicators. The article demonstrates an important slice of what the field knows, as well as challenges and opportunities for further work to improve the development and use of early warning indicators.

San Francisco Unified School District's Assistant Superintendent Bill Sanderson needed data. It was 2010, and the district's board of education had just passed a resolution to pilot an ethnic studies course in a set of its high schools. The goals for the course were ambitious: Reduce the achievement gap and increase graduation rates. The school board was considering longer term plans to make this course a graduation requirement. Sanderson needed data that would tell him whether the ethnic studies course achieved its intended goals.For years, researchers have been working in school districts conducting studies that produce findings. Some of the studies address pressing policy and practice questions like the example above. But most of this research is read primarily by researchers; it rarely affects policy. Because educational research and the practice of education are centered in very different institutions with different expectations, incentives, and cultures, the connections have been tenuous at best.Cynthia Coburn and Mary Stein document the challenges of researchers and practitioners in their 2010 book, Research and Practice in Education: Building Alliances, Bridging the Divide (Rowman & Littlefield). Coburn and Stein describe how incentives for professors and researchers clash. Time constraints and political pressure often prompt practitioners to use research to reinforce but not necessarily inform their decisions. The incentive structure for researchers drives them toward research that is valued by peer-reviewed journals and the academic community rather than research that has a high likelihood of being used by practitioners. Even when educational research can be used to guide educational policy and practice, decision makers may not be aware of it or the relevance may not be obvious.Meanwhile, there is increasing demand for data-based decision making -careful analysis of information on what works and what doesn't. While a steady march toward improvement requires education leaders to learn from successes and mistakes and to share those lessons learned with the field broadly, practitioners do not usually have the capacity to conduct research. A shift toward using systematic research to guide practice thus requires new kinds of connections between the institutions in which researchers and practitioners work. It means creating new partnerships, new skills, knowledge, practices, and structures 66 Kappan