Analysis of the effects of online homework on the achievement, persistence, and attitude of developmental mathematics students

Thesis (Ph.D.) University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2014This dissertation summarizes a study of the use of online homework with developmental mathematics students at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. To address the problem of high failure rates in developmental mathematics courses this study investigated the relationship between online homework and academic achievement, persistence, and attitude. Special focus was placed on non-traditional and Alaska Native students. A matched pair experimental design was employed. The independent variable was homework type and the dependent variables were achievement, persistence, and attitude. Nineteen sections of developmental mathematics, six instructors, and 423 student participants were involved. The main effect of homework type was not statistically significant to any of the dependent variables. However, the effect of the interaction between homework type and course level was significant (p = 0.005). Upon further analysis it was found that one of the four levels (beginning algebra) had significantly higher post-test scores when online homework was assigned. The interaction effects of homework type/ Native status and homework type/ non-traditional status were not statistically significant on any of the dependent variables. Also, results from homework questionnaires were compared. In general, students rated paper homework slightly higher than online homework. Instructors rated online homework higher than students did. Non-traditional students scored paper homework higher than online homework. The conclusion of this study is that while students have a slightly more favorable attitude toward paper homework, online homework in conjunction with graded paper quizzes and face-to-face instruction does not have a negative effect on achievement or persistence

Understanding the full burden of drowning: a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of fatal and non-fatal drowning in Australia

Objectives: The epidemiology of fatal drowning is increasingly understood. By contrast, there is relatively little population-level research on non-fatal drowning. This study compares data on fatal and non-fatal drowning in Australia, identifying differences in outcomes to guide identification of the best practice in minimising the lethality of exposure to drowning. Design: A subset of data on fatal unintentional drowning from the Royal Life Saving National Fatal Drowning Database was compared on a like-for-like basis to data on hospital separations sourced from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's National Hospital Morbidity Database for the 13-year period 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2015. A restrictive definition was applied to the fatal drowning data to estimate the effect of the more narrow inclusion criteria for the non-fatal data (International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes W65-74 and first reported cause only). Incidence and ratios of fatal to non-fatal drowning with univariate and X 2 analysis are reported and used to calculate case-fatality rates. ' Setting: Australia, 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2015. Participants: Unintentional fatal drowning cases and cases of non-fatal drowning resulting in hospital separation. Results: 2272 fatalities and 6158 hospital separations occurred during the study period, a ratio of 1:2.71. Children 0-4 years (1:7.63) and swimming pools (1:4.35) recorded high fatal to non-fatal ratios, whereas drownings among people aged 65-74 years (1:0.92), 75+ years (1:0.87) and incidents in natural waterways (1:0.94) were more likely to be fatal. Conclusions: This study highlights the extent of the drowning burden when non-fatal incidents are considered, although coding limitations remain. Documenting the full burden of drowning is vital to ensuring that the issue is fully understood and its prevention adequately resourced. Further research examining the severity of non-fatal drowning cases requiring hospitalisation and tracking outcomes of those discharged will provide a more complete picture

Using a retrospective cross-sectional study to analyse unintentional fatal drowning in Australia: ICD-10 coding-based methodologies verses actual deaths

Objectives: Fatal drowning estimates using a single underlying cause of death (UCoD) may under-represent the number of drowning deaths. This study explores how data vary by International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 coding combinations and the use of multiple underlying causes of death using a national register of drowning deaths. Design: An analysis of ICD-10 external cause codes of unintentional drowning deaths for the period 2007-2011 as extracted from an Australian total population unintentional drowning database developed by Royal Life Saving Society-Australia (the Database). The study analysed results against three reporting methodologies: primary drowning codes (W65-74), drowning-related codes, plus cases where drowning was identified but not the UCoD. Setting: Australia, 2007-2011. Participants: Unintentional fatal drowning cases. Results: The Database recorded 1428 drowning deaths. 866 (60.6%) had an UCoD of W65-74 (accidental drowning), 249 (17.2%) cases had an UCoD of either T75.1 (0.2%), V90 (5.5%), V92 (3.5%), X38 (2.4%) or Y21 (5.9%) and 53 (3.7%) lacked ICD coding. Children (aged 0-17 years) were closely aligned (73.9%); however, watercraft (29.2%) and non-aquatic transport (13.0%) were not. When the UCoD and all subsequent causes are used, 67.2% of cases include W65-74 codes. 91.6% of all cases had a drowning code (T75.1, V90, V92, W65-74, X38 and Y21) at any level. Conclusion: Defining drowning with the codes W65-74 and using only the UCoD captures 61% of all drowning deaths in Australia. This is unevenly distributed with adults, watercraft and non-aquatic transport-related drowning deaths under-represented. Using a wider inclusion of ICD codes, which are drowning-related and multiple causes of death minimises this under-representation. A narrow approach to counting drowning deaths will negatively impact the design of policy, advocacy and programme planning for prevention

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication

Tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p<0·0001). Interpretation: In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings: Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93–1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94–1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93–1·05; p=0·79). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Excellence in Teaching Award

To recognize the excellence in teaching of Northern Michigan University faculty