Disability and support relationships: What role does policy play?

Very little is known about how relationships between people with disabilities and their paid support workers are positioned in policy. With the policy shift toward choice of provider, individualised approaches, person centredness and self‐directed funding, the nature of their relationship assumes a more prominent role in the quality of support practice. The policy analysis in this article explores the extent to which current disability policy acknowledges, promotes, or diminishes the relationships between people with disabilities and workers, in their organisational context. It uses Honneth's conditions for recognition—love (cared for), rights (respected) and solidarity or social esteem (valued)—to understand how policy positions mutuality in the relationship. The policy review applied a three‐stage process: categorisation of policies, textual analysis and content analysis to policy documents at four levels—international, Australian federal, state and organisational in two case studies. The analysis revealed that while a rights framework is explicit in most policies, the emphases on the conditions for recognition within a relationship between people with disabilities and workers are compromised in instructional policies that attempt to manage the tension between choice and risk, particularly at the organisational level.     

Does victimization reduce self-control? A longitudinal analysis

Purpose

To examine the effect of victimization on self-control.

Method

Five waves of data from the GREAT survey are analyzed; the effect of prior victimization on subsequent self-control is estimated using the dynamic panel generalized-method of moments.

Results

Victimization reduces subsequent self-control in the near term.

Conclusions

The findings point to another source of low self-control, help to explain why prior victimization is linked to subsequent victimization, and provide support for general strain theory - which predicts that strains such as victimization will reduce self-control.     

The potential of urinary androstdiene markers to identify 4-androstenediol (4-ADIOL) administration in athletes

Doping control laboratories accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) require criteria that allow endogenous steroids to be distinguished from their synthetic analogues in urine. Methodology based on "looking outside the metabolic box" was used in this study to identify diagnostic urinary markers of 4-androstenediol (4-ADIOL) administration. Androst-2,4-diene-17-one and androst-3,5-diene-17-one are proposed to be formed in urine from acid-catalyzed hydrolysis of 4-ADIOL sulfoconjugate, a major phase II metabolic product of 4-ADIOL. The presence of these markers in the routine gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) steroid screen was suitable to identify samples requiring confirmation by gas chromatography-combustion-isotope ratio mass spectrometry (GC-C-IRMS) - to measure the carbon isotope ratio (δ(13)C) of the androstdiene markers and confirm their likely synthetic origin based on depleted (13)C content.