The Effect of a Paired Lab on Course Completion and Grades in Nonmajors Introductory Biology

This paper explores the effect of a paired lab course on students’ course outcomes in nonmajors introductory biology at the University of Alaska Anchorage. We compare course completion and final grades for 10,793 students (3736 who simultaneously enrolled in the lab and 7057 who did not). Unconditionally, students who self-select into the lab are more likely to complete the course and to earn a higher grade than students who do not. However, when we condition on observable course, academic, and demographic characteristics, we find much of this difference in student performance outcomes is attributable to selection bias, rather than an effect of the lab itself. The data and discussion challenge the misconception that labs serve as recitations for lecture content, noting that the learning objectives of science labs should be more clearly articulated and assessed independent of lecture course outcomes. This paper explores the effect of a paired lab course on students’ course outcomes in introductory biology for nonmajors at the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA), a large, open-enrollment, 4-year university. We compare outcomes for 10,793 students, 3736 who simultaneously enrolled in the lab and 7057 who did not, and analyze the degree to which they select into the lab on observable characteristics to explore the following research questions: 1. Are students who take a paired lab more likely to complete the lecture component (i.e., receive a final grade as opposed to withdrawing or receiving an Incomplete)? 2. Are students who take a paired lab more likely to receive a higher grade in the lecture component? 3. Does the laboratory experience differently affect course outcomes for students in specific demographic subgroups (e.g., gender, race, high school urbanicity, age, prior academic performance, and socioeconomic status)

Management of dyslipidaemia in patients with coronary heart disease: Results from the ESC-EORP EUROASPIRE V survey in 27 countries

Background and aims: One of the objectives of the ESC-EORP EUROASPIRE V survey is to determine how well European guidelines on the management of dyslipidaemias are implemented in coronary patients. Methods: Standardized methods were used by trained technicians to collect information on 7824 patients from 130 centers in 27 countries, from the medical records and at a visit at least 6 months after hospitalization for a coronary event. All lipid measurements were performed in one central laboratory. Patients were divided into three groups: on high-intensity LDL-C-lowering-drug therapy (LLT), on low or moderate-intensity LLT and on no LLT. Results: At the time of the visit, almost half of the patients were on a high-intensity LLT. Between hospital discharge and the visit, LLT had been reduced in intensity or interrupted in 20.8% of the patients and had been started or increased in intensity in 11.7%. In those who had interrupted LLT or had reduced the intensity, intolerance to LLT and the advice of their physician were reported as the reason why in 15.8 and 36.8% of the cases, respectively. LDL-C control was better in those on a high-intensity LLT compared to those on low or moderate intensity LLT. LDL-C control was better in men than women and in patients with self-reported diabetes. Conclusions: The results of the EUROASPIRE V survey show that most coronary patients have a less than optimal management of LDL-C. More professional strategies are needed, aiming at lifestyle changes and LLT adapted to the need of the individual patient