4-H Youth Development: The Past, the Present, and the Future

The 4-H Program within Cooperative Extension is more than 100 years old. As we celebrate 100 years of Cooperative Extension, the foundation built by the 4-H Program serves as grounds to meet the needs of today\u27s youth. The diversity of the youth who participate continues to grow, families continue to become less traditional, potential volunteers\u27 time continues to shrink, and the growing number of digital devices steal time. These changes demand 4-H adapt and innovate to remain relevant. This commentary examines the role that 4-H Youth Development will play in the next 100 years to face these challenges

Applying Coaching Strategies to Support Youth- and Family-Focused Extension Programming

In this article, we describe how a peer-coaching model has been applied to support community-based Extension programming through the Children, Youth, and Families at Risk (CYFAR) initiative. We describe the general approaches to coaching that have been used to help with CYFAR program implementation, evaluation, and sustainability efforts; we discuss strategies coaches use to maintain effective relationships with CYFAR stakeholders; and we review common characteristics of effective coaches. Finally, we discuss implications that coaching strategies might have for Extension programming in general and present future directions for research and practice related to peer coaching

A Formative Evaluation of the Children, Youth, and Families at Risk Coaching Model

In this article, we describe the results of a formative evaluation of a coaching model designed to support recipients of funding through the Children, Youth, and Families at Risk (CYFAR) initiative. Results indicate that CYFAR coaches draw from a variety of types of coaching and that CYFAR principle investigators (PIs) are generally satisfied with the coaches\u27 methods. Areas in which PIs would like to see changes to the coaching model include amount of technical coaching and amount of help with specific CYFAR funding requirements. We review strategies for incorporating this feedback into practice and discuss implications for CYFAR and for Extension in general

A 6-week, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, clinical safety study of lumiracoxib and rofecoxib in osteoarthritis patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Lumiracoxib is a selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) with a superior gastrointestinal (GI) safety profile as compared to traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs, ibuprofen and naproxen). This safety study compared the GI tolerability, the blood pressure (BP) profile and the incidence of oedema with lumiracoxib and rofecoxib in the treatment of OA. Rofecoxib was withdrawn worldwide due to an associated increased risk of CV events and lumiracoxib has been withdrawn from Australia, Canada, Europe and a few other countries following reports of suspected adverse liver reactions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This randomised, double-blind study enrolled 309 patients (aged greater than or equal to 50 years) with primary OA across 51 centres in Europe. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either lumiracoxib 400 mg od (four times the recommended dose in OA) (<it>n </it>= 154) or rofecoxib 25 mg od (<it>n </it>= 155). The study was conducted for 6 weeks and assessments were performed at Weeks 3 and 6. The primary safety measures were the incidence of predefined GI adverse events (AEs) and peripheral oedema. The secondary safety measures included effect of treatment on the mean sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressure (msSBP and msDBP). Tolerability of lumiracoxib 400 mg was assessed by the incidence of AEs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Lumiracoxib and rofecoxib displayed similar GI safety profiles with no statistically significant difference in predefined GI AEs between the two groups (43.5% <it>vs</it>. 37.4%, respectively). The incidence and severity of individual predefined GI AEs was comparable between the two groups. The incidence of peripheral oedema was low and identical in both the groups (<it>n </it>= 9, 5.8%). Only one patient in the lumiracoxib group and three patients in the rofecoxib group had a moderate or severe event. At Week 6 there was a significantly lower msSBP and msDBP in the lumiracoxib group compared to the rofecoxib group (<it>p </it>< 0.05). A similar percentage of patients in both groups showed an improvement in target joint pain and disease activity. The tolerability profile was similar in both the treatment groups.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Lumiracoxib 400 mg od (four times the recommended dose in OA) provided a comparable GI safety profile to rofecoxib 25 mg od (therapeutic dose). However, lumiracoxib was associated with a significantly better BP profile as compared to rofecoxib.</p> <p>Trial registration number -</p> <p>NCT00637949</p

Levofloxacin prophylaxis in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma (TEAMM): a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Myeloma causes profound immunodeficiency and recurrent, serious infections. Around 5500 new cases of myeloma are diagnosed per year in the UK, and a quarter of patients will have a serious infection within 3 months of diagnosis. We aimed to assess whether patients newly diagnosed with myeloma benefit from antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infection, and to investigate the effect on antibiotic-resistant organism carriage and health care-associated infections in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. METHODS: TEAMM was a prospective, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in patients aged 21 years and older with newly diagnosed myeloma in 93 UK hospitals. All enrolled patients were within 14 days of starting active myeloma treatment. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to levofloxacin or placebo with a computerised minimisation algorithm. Allocation was stratified by centre, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and intention to proceed to high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation. All investigators, patients, laboratory, and trial co-ordination staff were masked to the treatment allocation. Patients were given 500 mg of levofloxacin (two 250 mg tablets), orally once daily for 12 weeks, or placebo tablets (two tablets, orally once daily for 12 weeks), with dose reduction according to estimated glomerular filtration rate every 4 weeks. Follow-up visits occurred every 4 weeks up to week 16, and at 1 year. The primary outcome was time to first febrile episode or death from all causes within the first 12 weeks of trial treatment. All randomised patients were included in an intention-to-treat analysis of the primary endpoint. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN51731976, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, number 2011-000366-35. FINDINGS: Between Aug 15, 2012, and April 29, 2016, we enrolled and randomly assigned 977 patients to receive levofloxacin prophylaxis (489 patients) or placebo (488 patients). Median follow-up was 12 months (IQR 8-13). 95 (19%) first febrile episodes or deaths occurred in 489 patients in the levofloxacin group versus 134 (27%) in 488 patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·66, 95% CI 0·51-0·86; p=0·0018. 597 serious adverse events were reported up to 16 weeks from the start of trial treatment (308 [52%] of which were in the levofloxacin group and 289 [48%] of which were in the placebo group). Serious adverse events were similar between the two groups except for five episodes (1%) of mostly reversible tendonitis in the levofloxacin group. INTERPRETATION: Addition of prophylactic levofloxacin to active myeloma treatment during the first 12 weeks of therapy significantly reduced febrile episodes and deaths compared with placebo without increasing health care-associated infections. These results suggest that prophylactic levofloxacin could be used for patients with newly diagnosed myeloma undergoing anti-myeloma therapy. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research