Percepção sobre educação virtual em estudantes universitários de Ciências da Saúde, no tempo da COVID-19

Objective: To know the perception of university students of health sciences about virtual education. Material and methods: Descriptive study in 293 students of the Faculty of Health Sciences of the Jorge Basadre Grohmann National University in Tacna, Peru, during the second semester of the year 2020. A virtual questionnaire with prior informed consent with 26 closed questions was applied. Descriptive statistics were used and data were analyzed with STATA version 16. Results: In the development of virtual classes, students use more cell frequency (65 %) and laptops (62.4 %), with wireless internet (59.3 %). 87.7 % felt that their teaching and training has been affected and is insufficient, due to the lack of adaptation of the teacher to this modality and the lack of audiovisual resources for clinical practice (73.4 %); consider it very important that the practical classes are face-to face (91.1 %). There were negative effects on the socio-economic situation of students (54.6 %) and uncertainty about their academic future. Students perceived problems in their mental health mainly stress (30.3 %) and anxiety (21.5 %); even physical discomfort such as back pain (21.8 %) and burning eyes (21.6 %). Conclusion: The perception of university students of Health Sciences versus virtual education around different learning conditions is negative. They suggest a return to face-to-face classes mainly for clinical practice.Objetivo: Conocer la percepción de estudiantes universitarios de Ciencias de la Salud sobre la educación virtual. Material y métodos: Estudio descriptivo en 293 estudiantes de la Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud de la Universidad Nacional Jorge Basadre Grohmann en Tacna, Perú, durante el segundo semestre del año 2020. Se aplicó un cuestionario virtual previo consentimiento informado con 26 preguntas cerradas. Se utilizó estadística descriptiva y los datos se analizaron con STATA versión 16. Resultados: En el desarrollo de clases virtuales, los estudiantes utilizan con mayor frecuencia celular (65 %) y laptop (62,4 %), con internet inalámbrico (59,3 %). El 87,7 % percibió que su enseñanza y su formación se ha visto afectada y es insuficiente, debido a la falta de adaptación del docente a esta modalidad y a la falta de recursos audiovisuales para la práctica clínica (73,4 %); consideran muy importante que las clases prácticas sean presenciales (91,1 %). Se presentaron efectos negativos en la situación socioeconómica de los alumnos (54,6 %) e incertidumbre sobre su futuro académico. Los estudiantes percibieron problemas en su salud mental principalmente estrés (30,3 %) y ansiedad (21,5 %); incluso malestares físicos como dolor de espalda (21,8 %) y ardor de ojos (21,6 %). Conclusión: La percepción de estudiantes universitarios de Ciencias de la Salud frente a la educación virtual en torno a diferentes condiciones del aprendizaje es negativa. Sugieren retor no a clases presenciales principalmente para la práctica clínica

Factors that predict life sciences student persistence in undergraduate research experiences.

Undergraduate research experiences (UREs) have the potential to benefit undergraduates and longer UREs have been shown to lead to greater benefits for students. However, no studies have examined what causes students to stay in or consider leaving their UREs. In this study, we examined what factors cause students to stay in their UREs, what factors cause students to consider leaving their UREs, and what factors cause students to leave their UREs. We sampled from 25 research-intensive (R1) public universities across the United States and surveyed 768 life sciences undergraduates who were currently participating in or had previously participated in a URE. Students answered closed-ended and open-ended questions about factors that they perceived influenced their persistence in UREs. We used logistic regression to explore to what extent student demographics predicted what factors influenced students to stay in or consider leaving their UREs. We applied open-coding methods to probe the student-reported reasons why students chose to stay in and leave their UREs. Fifty percent of survey respondents considered leaving their URE, and 53.1% of those students actually left their URE. Students who reported having a positive lab environment and students who indicated enjoying their everyday research tasks were more likely to not consider leaving their UREs. In contrast, students who reported a negative lab environment or that they were not gaining important knowledge or skills were more likely to leave their UREs. Further, we identified that gender, race/ethnicity, college generation status, and GPA predicted which factors influenced students' decisions to persist in their UREs. This research provides important insight into how research mentors can create UREs that undergraduates are willing and able to participate in for as long as possible

Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of a booster regimen of Ad26.COV2.S vaccine against COVID-19 (ENSEMBLE2) : results of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background Despite the availability of effective vaccines against COVID-19, booster vaccinations are needed to maintain vaccine-induced protection against variant strains and breakthrough infections. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Janssen) as primary vaccination plus a booster dose. Methods ENSEMBLE2 is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial including crossover vaccination after emergency authorisation of COVID-19 vaccines. Adults aged at least 18 years without previous COVID-19 vaccination at public and private medical practices and hospitals in Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, France, Germany, the Philippines, South Africa, Spain, the UK, and the USA were randomly assigned 1:1 via a computer algorithm to receive intramuscularly administered Ad26.COV2.S as a primary dose plus a booster dose at 2 months or two placebo injections 2 months apart. The primary endpoint was vaccine efficacy against the first occurrence of molecularly confirmed moderate to severe-critical COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days after booster vaccination, which was assessed in participants who received two doses of vaccine or placebo, were negative for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR at baseline and on serology at baseline and day 71, had no major protocol deviations, and were at risk of COVID-19 (ie, had no PCR-positive result or discontinued the study before day 71). Safety was assessed in all participants; reactogenicity, in terms of solicited local and systemic adverse events, was assessed as a secondary endpoint in a safety subset (approximately 6000 randomly selected participants). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04614948, and is ongoing. Findings Enrolment began on Nov 16, 2020, and the primary analysis data cutoff was June 25, 2021. From 34 571 participants screened, the double-blind phase enrolled 31 300 participants, 14 492 of whom received two doses (7484 in the Ad26.COV2.S group and 7008 in the placebo group) and 11 639 of whom were eligible for inclusion in the assessment of the primary endpoint (6024 in the Ad26.COV2.S group and 5615 in the placebo group). The median (IQR) follow-up post-booster vaccination was 36 center dot 0 (15 center dot 0-62 center dot 0) days. Vaccine efficacy was 75 center dot 2% (adjusted 95% CI 54 center dot 6-87 center dot 3) against moderate to severe-critical COVID-19 (14 cases in the Ad26.COV2.S group and 52 cases in the placebo group). Most cases were due to the variants alpha (B.1.1.7) and mu (B.1.621); endpoints for the primary analysis accrued from Nov 16, 2020, to June 25, 2021, before the global dominance of delta (B.1.617.2) or omicron (B.1.1.529). The booster vaccine exhibited an acceptable safety profile. The overall frequencies of solicited local and systemic adverse events (evaluated in the safety subset, n=6067) were higher among vaccine recipients than placebo recipients after the primary and booster doses. The frequency of solicited adverse events in the Ad26.COV2.S group were similar following the primary and booster vaccinations (local adverse events, 1676 [55 center dot 6%] of 3015 vs 896 [57 center dot 5%] of 1559, respectively; systemic adverse events, 1764 [58 center dot 5%] of 3015 vs 821 [52 center dot 7%] of 1559, respectively). Solicited adverse events were transient and mostly grade 1-2 in severity. Interpretation A homologous Ad26.COV2.S booster administered 2 months after primary single-dose vaccination in adults had an acceptable safety profile and was efficacious against moderate to severe-critical COVID-19. Studies assessing efficacy against newer variants and with longer follow-up are needed. Funding Janssen Research & Development. Copyright (c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd