Assessing the multilevel validity of program-level inferences based on aggregate student perceptions about their general learning

Aggregate survey results are commonly used by universities in Canada to compare effective educational practices across program majors within a university and between equivalent majors across campuses. Despite this recurrent practice, many researchers neglect to examine the multilevel validity of inferences made from program-level responses. This study illustrates the importance of determining the multilevel validity of program-level inferences prior to making conclusions based on survey data. Survey responses regarding student perceptions about their general learning outcomes and ratings about the learning environment were collected from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and the Undergraduate Experience Survey (UES). The analytic procedures used in this study included two-level exploratory multilevel factor analyses (MFA) and three statistical approaches to determine the appropriateness of aggregation: analysis of variance (ANOVA), the within and between analysis (WABA), and the unconditional multilevel model. Multilevel regression models were applied to survey data to examine the relationships of program-level characteristics with perceived student learning outcomes. The results led to four conclusions regarding the use of student survey results aggregated to the program level. First, results from the MFA revealed that the multilevel structure of items regarding perceived learning were consistent across the student and program levels for most samples, but the multilevel structure of items regarding the learning environment was not supported at the program level. Second, results from the ANOVA and unconditional multilevel models indicated that aggregation to the program level for perceived learning was statistically appropriate for three out of the four study samples; however, WABA results indicated that aggregation to a level lower than the program major was more suitable. Aggregation to the program level was not supported for any the learning environment scales across all three procedures. Third, aggregation was variable dependent as demonstrated by lower levels of within-program agreement on ratings of the learning environment, but larger levels of agreement with perceived learning outcomes. Finally, student-level perceptions about learning were partially influenced by student- and program-level characteristics; however, program means were not highly reliable and results did not support making program comparisons. Implications for educational research and recommendations for further research were discussed.Education, Faculty ofEducational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education (ECPS), Department ofGraduat

Ranking BC secondary schools : a multilevel analysis approach

This study is an investigation of the current methods used to rank schools. An example used throughout this current study was the "Report Card on British Columbia's Secondary Schools", published annually by the Fraser Institute. However, the methodology applied for ranking schools concealled relationships within and between schools because it only included aggregate data. The interest for researchers lies not only in the average relationship between schools, but in how this relationship varies across schools. As an alternative approach, multilevel analysis simultaneously model disaggregate and aggregate data, which provides more information to the researcher about within and between school variance. The principal idea underlying the theoretical framework of multilevel analysis is that schools are hierarchical structures. This present study adopted the multilevel assumption and aimed to investigate three research questions. First, how much of the variability in school performance on Grade 12 provincial examinations could be attributable to differences between schools and how much to differences within schools? Secondly, to what extent does the school attended influence the students' academic attainment? Thirdly, are there factors at the student and school levels that account for variability at either level? The findings in this study highlight how the sample of secondary schools in BC differed on examination achievement, and how including student-level information and school context allows researchers to identify the complicated relationships that occur within and between schools. The samples of schools were ranked according to their empirical Bayes estimates with 95% confidence intervals, which demonstrated that it was statistically invalid to compare a majority of schools based on the information collected in the present study. The results from this study established a benefit of using multilevel models and the limitations to using report cards based on a single numerical score for comparing the differences between schools in BC.Education, Faculty ofEducational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education (ECPS), Department ofGraduat

Nurses' use of qualitative research approaches to investigate tobacco use and control

Qualitative research methods are increasingly used by nurse scientists to explore a wide variety of topics relevant to practice and/or health policy issues. The purpose of this chapter is to review the contributions of nurse scientists to the field of tobacco control through the use of qualitative research methods. A systematic literature search strategy was used to identify 51 articles published between 1980 and 2008. The majority (84%) of reviewed articles were authored by North American nurse scientists. Cessation was the most commonly (85%) studied aspect of tobacco control. Six qualitative research approaches were used: qualitative descriptive (55%), narrative analysis (8%), phenomenology (6%), grounded theory (14%), ethnography (12%), and case study (6%). Qualitative descriptive methods were primarily one-off studies to address practical problems or issues encountered in practice, and often validated current understandings related to tobacco. Researchers who used other types of qualitative methods and who conducted qualitative studies as part of programs of research were more likely to make more substantive contributions to the evolving field of tobacco control. These contributions related to how smoking intertwines with personal and social identities, the influence of social context on tobacco use, and nurses' involvement in tobacco control (both of their own tobacco use and in assisting others). Nurse scientists interested in exploring tobacco-related issues are encouraged to consider the full range of qualitative research approaches. Qualitative research methods contribute to our understanding of tobacco use arising from nursing practice, health care and policy, along with the field of tobacco control in general

Nurses’ Use of Qualitative Research Approaches to Investigate Tobacco Use and Control

Qualitative research methods are increasingly used by nurse scientists to explore a wide variety of topics relevant to practice and/or health policy issues. The purpose of this chapter is to review the contributions of nurse scientists to the field of tobacco control through the use of qualitative research methods. A systematic literature search strategy was used to identify 51 articles published between 1980 and 2008. The majority (84%) of reviewed articles were authored by North American nurse scientists. Cessation was the most commonly (85%) studied aspect of tobacco control. Six qualitative research approaches were used: qualitative descriptive (55%), narrative analysis (8%), phenomenology (6%), grounded theory (14%), ethnography (12%), and case study (6%). Qualitative descriptive methods were primarily one-off studies to address practical problems or issues encountered in practice, and often validated current understandings related to tobacco. Researchers who used other types of qualitative methods and who conducted qualitative studies as part of programs of research were more likely to make more substantive contributions to the evolving field of tobacco control. These contributions related to how smoking intertwines with personal and social identities, the influence of social context on tobacco use, and nurses' involvement in tobacco control (both of their own tobacco use and in assisting others). Nurse scientists interested in exploring tobacco-related issues are encouraged to consider the full range of qualitative research approaches. Qualitative research methods contribute to our understanding of tobacco use arising from nursing practice, health care and policy, along with the field of tobacco control in general

An international observational study to assess the impact of the Omicron variant emergence on the clinical epidemiology of COVID-19 in hospitalised patients

Background: Whilst timely clinical characterisation of infections caused by novel SARS-CoV-2 variants is necessary for evidence-based policy response, individual-level data on infecting variants are typically only available for a minority of patients and settings. Methods: Here, we propose an innovative approach to study changes in COVID-19 hospital presentation and outcomes after the Omicron variant emergence using publicly available population-level data on variant relative frequency to infer SARS-CoV-2 variants likely responsible for clinical cases. We apply this method to data collected by a large international clinical consortium before and after the emergence of the Omicron variant in different countries. Results: Our analysis, that includes more than 100,000 patients from 28 countries, suggests that in many settings patients hospitalised with Omicron variant infection less often presented with commonly reported symptoms compared to patients infected with pre-Omicron variants. Patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital after Omicron variant emergence had lower mortality compared to patients admitted during the period when Omicron variant was responsible for only a minority of infections (odds ratio in a mixed-effects logistic regression adjusted for likely confounders, 0.67 [95% confidence interval 0.61-0.75]). Qualitatively similar findings were observed in sensitivity analyses with different assumptions on population-level Omicron variant relative frequencies, and in analyses using available individual-level data on infecting variant for a subset of the study population. Conclusions: Although clinical studies with matching viral genomic information should remain a priority, our approach combining publicly available data on variant frequency and a multi-country clinical characterisation dataset with more than 100,000 records allowed analysis of data from a wide range of settings and novel insights on real-world heterogeneity of COVID-19 presentation and clinical outcome

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83–7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97–2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14–1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25–1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable