Analysis of An Intervention to Reduce or Prevent Secondary Conditions for People with Spinal Cord Injuries

People with acute spinal cord injuries (SCI) are at risk for developing secondary conditions such as pressure sores, urinary tract infections, pain, weight gain and deconditioning, and depression. This study analyzed the effectiveness of an Internet assessment and feedback tool in determining secondary condition risk for this population based on individual responses to a knowledge and behavioral questionnaire. Seventy-one people with newly-diagnosed SCI who were treated at one of five Model Spinal Cord Injury Systems Centers were randomly assigned to either an experimental condition in which they received computerized feedback and one-on-one consultations based on their online questionnaire answers, or to a control condition in which they received no feedback until the study's completion. One year after the initial assessment, the online questionnaire was re-administered to all participants as a post-test. Three times between the pre- and post-test assessments researchers telephoned participants to administer phone surveys probing secondary condition development. Results indicate there were significant differences among race groups and between complete and incomplete injury status for pressure sore occurrence. This study represents a new era of interactive technology in health promotion that can serve as a basis for future research to decrease secondary condition risk for people with SCI.     

What You Know When You Know an Answer to a Question

A significant argument for the claim that knowing‐wh is knowing‐that, implicit in much of the literature, including Stanley and Williamson (2001), is spelt out and challenged. The argument includes the assumption that a subject's state of knowing‐wh is constituted by their involvement in a relation with an answer to a question. And it involves the assumption that answers to questions are propositions or facts. One of Lawrence Powers’ counterexamples to the conjunction of these two assumptions is developed, responses to it are rebutted, and the possibility of rejecting the second rather than the first of these assumptions is explored briefly.     

How to Stand for Something: Toward a Genealogy of Exemplars

This paper responds to the focus issue on exemplarity that includes contributions by Kyle Lambelet, Brian Hamilton, and Gustavo Maya. The paper calls attention to ancient, medieval, and modern precedents that ought to inform our thinking about the ethical and political significance of exemplars.