Efficacia dei vaccini: strategie di pensiero e fraintendimenti quando dobbiamo valutarla

On 11 February 2021, a statement issued by the Rome Medical Association informed the public that some doctors were refusing the Astrazeneca vaccine. This fact, together with the media coverage it has attracted, has led to a growing belief among the population that there are first- and second-league vaccines. Specifically, that the former have been developed by Pfizer whereas the latter have been developed by Astrazeneca. This belief stems from considerations about the efficacy rates of both; rates that at first glance, from the figures pre- sented by the media, seem very different from each other. In fact, when talking about the efficacy of a vaccine it is necessary to distinguish between “absolute efficacy” (ARR) and “relative efficacy” (RRR). This distinction is fundamen- tal because while the first concerns effectiveness with respect to the entire population, the second concerns effectiveness with respect to the experimental and control group. These two measures are very different from each other and a misunderstanding of them can lead to overestimating a difference which in reality is small. The starting hypothesis of this work is that individuals, be them doctors (therefore more similar to terms such as vaccines, experimental groups, samples and efficacy) or not, when hearing talk of effectiveness put in place strategies of thought that lead them to think of absolute rather than relative effectiveness. To test this hypothesis, three reasoning tasks were presented following a whithin-participant protocol to 500 participants. The results show that the thought strategies put in place when it comes to “effectiveness” lead to incorrectly equate absolute efficiency to relative efficiency. In this way the difference between vaccines is overestimated and a scenario is envisaged where there are first- and second-league vaccines. Results document that this error also happens for those who practice medicine. Therefore, it becomes urgent to take action to bring forward a clear communication that clearly distinguishes between ARR and RRR

Body in the forefront, again? Distance learning drawbacks and implications for policy

The COVID-19 pandemic launched a challenge on the education system and required schools to make organizational changes in order to continue serving the local community. Essential to this process are support teachers who play a key role as agents of change. Despite their role, the perspectives, desires, and needs of these teachers have since been neglected, despite their centrality in contemporary Italy. Accordingly, the specific aim of this study revolves around supporting teachers’ experiences with digital technologies (i.e., learning applications, telecommunication media, and interactive devices) within a pandemic context, especially technologies used to maintain the educational bond with students with disabilities. Attuned to an interpretative paradigm, this qualitative research has an ethnographic design, which was implemented in a secondary school in a Northern Italian city. Throughout the article, we discuss the three main drawbacks found in fieldwork: (i) the prevailing change in bureaucratic management; (ii) the pervading mind–body binarism in teaching; and (iii) a long-term vision for inclusion being subject to a passive logic of adaptation. Finally, we reflect on some emerging implications. The first points to a necessary move from a rationalistic school management to an alternative model focused more on guaranteeing social justice among educational stakeholders. The second is that the very introduction of a new technology should be aimed at engaging actors whose work has been invisible to date in a school setting to empower them as key agents for change. The third suggests that, to overcome community disaggregation and mind-body binarism, a teacher-researcher figure is needed, a figure with holistic skills in addition to those of a technical nature delivered by institutional training programs

Shareability: novel perspective on human-media interaction

Interpersonal communication in the twenty-first century is increasingly taking place within digital media. This poses the problem of understanding the factors that may facilitate or hinder communication processes in virtual contexts. Digital media require a human-machine interface, and the analysis of human-machine interfaces traditionally focuses on the dimension of usability. However, interface usability pertains to the interaction of users with digital devices, not to the interaction of users with other users. Here we argue that there is another dimension of human-media interaction that has remained largely unexplored, but plays a key role in interpersonal communication within digital media: shareability. We define shareability as the resultant of a set of interface features that: (i) make sharing of materials with fellow users easy, efficient, and timely (sharing-related usability); (ii) include features that intuitively invite users to share materials (sharing-related affordances); and (iii) provide a sensorimotor environment that includes perceptual information about both presented materials and the behavior of other users that are experiencing these materials through the medium at hand (support to shared availability). Capitalizing on concepts from semiotics, proxemics, and perceptual and cognItive neuroscience, we explore potential criteria to asses shareability in human-machine interfaces. Finally, we show how these notions may be applied in the analysis of three prototypical cases: online gaming, visual communication on social media, and online distance teaching

Underuse of Anthracyclines in Women with HER-2+ Advanced Breast Cancer

This article examines how discouraging the use of anthracyclines in combination with trastuzumab in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive metastatic breast cancer because of fears of cardiotoxicity has influenced the use of these agents in this patient setting

Trastuzumab with either docetaxel or vinorelbine as first-line treatment for patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer : a retrospective comparison

Background Combinations of trastuzumab with either docetaxel or vinorelbine are considered valuable treatment options for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients. We performed a retrospective comparison of the clinical outcomes associated with either one of these combinations. Methods From a multi-institutional database we retrieved 179 patients treated with either docetaxel or vinorelbine plus trastuzumab as first-line therapy for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. Results Docetaxel-trastuzumab was superior to vinorelbine-trastuzumab in terms of response rate (RR: 77 vs 57%, p = 0.01) and median overall survival (OS: 35 vs 23 months, p = 0.04), but not in median time to progression (TTP: 12 vs 10 months, p = 0.53). At multivariate analysis, type of treatment was not associated with TTP but was an independent predictor of OS, with a significant reduction in the risk of death in favor of docetaxel-trastuzumab (HR 0.474, 95% IC 0,303-0.742, p < 0.01). Conclusion Docetaxel or vinorelbine, when combined with trastuzumab, provide excellent rates of tumor control in patients with previously untreated HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. Docetaxel may offer some advantage in terms of response rate and resulted in a significantly prolonged overall survival, which, because of the retrospective design of our study, deserves further investigation in prospective trials