Planning and Evaluating Science Video Programs Using Communication Science

Science-based videos could be of greater benefit to viewers if video producers understand what decisions and actions these audiences may be considering that can be affected by the videos. Such understanding may be developed through interviews, focus groups, and surveys, which should provide guidance for elements of both the style and content of the video production. The success of the videos in assisting viewers’ understanding and decision making should then be evaluated, for example through surveys, as described here. Following such a process may increase the effectiveness of such videos, thereby also improving the return on the producer’s investment in personnel, time, and other resources. For example, the results of climate change video evaluations presented here do indicate that members of the populations for whom the videos were intended rated them highly, obtained information they considered useful from the videos and were influenced to act on the concerns they had relating to the science topic (climate change risks)

Methods for Engaging Leaders in Climate Science and Providing Local Decision Support

Oregon Sea Grant and its partner states have received a Sectoral Applications Research Project (SARP) grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to refine outreach methods for coastal communities with specific attention to climate change. This paper will focus on the SARP project and a related case study with county leaders in Oregon, and will answer the following research questions: How do Oregon coastal leaders in our case study perceive the risks associated with climate change? What does applying the Social Construction Framework (Schneider and Ingram, 1993) show about climate change leaders and the policy process? The approach taken to analyze information users includes collecting county leaders’ responses on the risks posed by climate change through semi-­‐structured interviews and analyzing those responses for the purpose of recommending further activities and materials that might be useful to this chosen group of leaders. Presented in the following sections of this essay are a literature review, an outline of methods and study design, the findings from interviews, an analysis of those findings, and a discussion of recommendations and policy implications based on this study

The Grizzly, October 12, 2006

Editorial: Call to Responsibility • Letter of Apology • New Shopping Center Near Campus • Spring Registration Just Around the Corner • Preventing Sexual Assault • Sexual Assault Awareness on Campus • New Incentive Program Underway for CAB • Ursinus Students Evoke Shakespeare\u27s Spirit in Two Gentlemen of Verona • Degas: His Work, His Vision, His Camera • Opinions: On Habeas Corpus; Hurt Feelings; Fundamental Importance of Negative Campaigning • Bears Pull Out Victory in Second Half Comeback • Men\u27s Soccer Capture First Win • A Look Into Ursinus College Fall Athleticshttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1721/thumbnail.jp

Consequences of gas flux model choice on the interpretation of metabolic balance across 15 lakes

Ecosystem metabolism and the contribution of carbon dioxide from lakes to the atmosphere can be estimated from free-water gas measurements through the use of mass balance models, which rely on a gas transfer coefficient (k) to model gas exchange with the atmosphere. Theoretical and empirically based models of k range in complexity from wind-driven power functions to complex surface renewal models; however, model choice is rarely considered in most studies of lake metabolism. This study used high-frequency data from 15 lakes provided by the Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (GLEON) to study how model choice of k influenced estimates of lake metabolism and gas exchange with the atmosphere. We tested 6 models of k on lakes chosen to span broad gradients in surface area and trophic states; a metabolism model was then fit to all 6 outputs of k data. We found that hourly values for k were substantially different between models and, at an annual scale, resulted in significantly different estimates of lake metabolism and gas exchange with the atmosphere

ACC/AHA guideline update for perioperative cardiovascular evaluation for noncardiac surgery - Executive summary: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (Committee to Update the 1996 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery)

These guidelines represent an update of those published in 1996 and are intended for physicians who are involved in the preoperative, operative, and postoperative care of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. They provide a framework for considering cardiac risk of noncardiac surgery in a variety of patient and surgical situations. The overriding theme of these guidelines is that preoperative intervention is rarely necessary simply to lower the risk of surgery unless such intervention is indicated irrespective of the preoperative context. The purpose of preoperative evaluation is not simply to give medical clearance but rather to perform an evaluation of the patient’s current medical status; make recommendations concerning the evaluation, management, and risk of cardiac problems over the entire perioperative period; and provide a clinical risk profile that the patient, primary physician, anesthesiologist, and surgeon can use in making treatment decisions that may influence short- and long-term cardiac outcomes. The goal of the consultation is to identify the most appropriate testing and treatment strategies to optimize care of the patient, provide assessment of both short- and long-term cardiac risk, and avoid unnecessary testing in this era of cost containment

ACC/AHA guideline update for perioperative cardiovascular evaluation for noncardiac surgery - Executive summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1996 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery)

These guidelines represent an update of those published in 1996 and are intended for physicians who are involved in the preoperative, operative, and postoperative care of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. They provide a framework for considering cardiac risk of noncardiac surgery in a variety of patient and surgical situations. The overriding theme of these guidelines is that preoperative intervention is rarely necessary simply to lower the risk of surgery unless such intervention is indicated irrespective of the preoperative context. The purpose of preoperative evaluation is not simply to give medical clearance but rather to perform an evaluation of the patient’s current medical status; make recommendations concerning the evaluation, management, and risk of cardiac problems over the entire perioperative period; and provide a clinical risk profile that the patient, primary physician, anesthesiologist, and surgeon can use in making treatment decisions that may influence short- and long-term cardiac outcomes. The goal of the consultation is to identify the most appropriate testing and treatment strategies to optimize care of the patient, provide assessment of both short- and long-term cardiac risk, and avoid unnecessary testing in this era of cost containment

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