Accounting students and communication apprehension: a study of Spanish and UK students

Accounting is about measuring and communicating. Accounting bodies and employers have expressed opinions, which have been supported by research results, advocating that greater emphasis is placed on the development of communication skills throughout the education and training of accountants. Consequently, an increasing number of accounting programmes now include communication skills as educational objectives or learning outcomes, and have integrated activities into the curriculum specifically to develop these skills. It is important to recognise that certain factors can severely restrict the development of communication skills; a major factor is communication apprehension. Research suggests that the existence of high levels of communication apprehension will make efforts to improve communication skills ineffective. Previous research findings indicate that accounting students have high levels of communication apprehension. This paper compares and contrasts the levels and profiles of communication apprehension exhibited by accounting students at the (UK University) and those at the (ESP University). The levels of communication apprehension are also compared with those of students from other disciplines at the same institutions. The results confirm the high levels of communication apprehension in European accounting students. There are notable differences between the two countries however in certain underlying factors.</p

Education, implementation, and teams : 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with treatment recommendations

For this 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations, the Education, Implementation, and Teams Task Force applied the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, study design, time frame format and performed 15 systematic reviews, applying the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidance. Furthermore, 4 scoping reviews and 7 evidence updates assessed any new evidence to determine if a change in any existing treatment recommendation was required. The topics covered included training for the treatment of opioid overdose; basic life support, including automated external defibrillator training; measuring implementation and performance in communities, and cardiac arrest centers; advanced life support training, including team and leadership training and rapid response teams; measuring cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance, feedback devices, and debriefing; and the use of social media to improve cardiopulmonary resuscitation application

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Outcome measures in ULCP:the modified 5-Year-Olds'-Index-development and reliability

Objective: Can we reliably discriminate severity within the existing categories of the 5-Year-Olds’ Index? Design: Retrospective method comparison and development study. Setting: School of Oral and Dental Science, University of Bristol. Methods: Dental study models of 5-year-olds with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) were collected from the archives of 2 national cleft surveys (n = 351). One hundred randomly selected models were ranked to construct the modified 5-Year-Olds’ Index and also scored using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Reliability testing was performed on 51 study models. Visual analogue scale scores were used to aid statistical analysis and investigate the reliability of a VAS for outcome measurement. The modified 5-Year-Olds’ Index was then applied to 198 study models of 5-year-olds with UCLP. Results: The modified 5-Year-Olds’ Index showed excellent intra and interexaminer agreement (intraclass correlation &gt; 0.94) and good discrimination of severity. When applied to the Cleft Care UK participants (n = 198), the modified 5-Year-Olds’ Index showed good discrimination of severity within the better categories (groups 1-3) of the 5-Year-Olds’ Index. Visual analogue Scale scores resulted in unacceptable variation between measurements. Conclusions: The new modified 5-Year-Olds’ Index is a reliable method of assessing outcomes at 5 years of age and showed improved discriminatory power between the “better” outcome categories than the original 5-Year-Olds’ Index. A VAS was found to be unsuitable for assessing outcome at 5 years of age for children with UCLP. </jats:sec

Supplemental Material, Reference_Models - Outcome Measures in ULCP: The Modified 5-Year-Olds’-Index—Development and Reliability

<p>Supplemental Material, Reference_Models for Outcome Measures in ULCP: The Modified 5-Year-Olds’-Index—Development and Reliability by Tarun K. Mittal, Anthony J. Ireland, Nikki E. Atack, Sam D. Leary, Joyce I. Russell, Scott A. Deacon, Andy R. Ness, and Jonathan R. Sandy in The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal</p