Design thinking in entrepreneurship education : understanding framing and placements of problems

Abstract: Orientation: Design thinking presented an alternative lens for entrepreneurship education. Research purpose: The purpose of this article was to illustrate (with a framework) the benefits of encouraging a design-based mindset when exploring problem placement and framing to create new opportunities for entrepreneurship students. Motivation for the study: The role of placement and framing of open-complex problems has not been fully embraced in the literature on design thinking for entrepreneurship education. The seminal work of Richard Buchannan (a great influencer in the realm of design thinking) offered a deeper insight into the placement and framing of problems that could assist educators to facilitate thinking skills relevant to deal with the unpredictable contexts that future entrepreneurs have to be prepared for..

Investigation of SARS-CoV-2 faecal shedding in the community: a prospective household cohort study (COVID-LIV) in the UK

Background SARS-CoV-2 is frequently shed in the stool of patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The extent of faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 among individuals in the community, and its potential to contribute to spread of disease, is unknown. Methods In this prospective, observational cohort study among households in Liverpool, UK, participants underwent weekly nasal/throat swabbing to detect SARS-CoV-2 virus, over a 12-week period from enrolment starting July 2020. Participants that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were asked to provide a stool sample three and 14 days later. In addition, in October and November 2020, during a period of high community transmission, stool sampling was undertaken to determine the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 faecal shedding among all study participants. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected using Real-Time PCR. Results A total of 434 participants from 176 households were enrolled. Eighteen participants (4.2%: 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5–6.5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 virus on nasal/throat swabs and of these, 3/17 (18%: 95% CI 4–43%) had SARS-CoV-2 detected in stool. Two of three participants demonstrated ongoing faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2, without gastrointestinal symptoms, after testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples. Among 165/434 participants without SARS-CoV-2 infection and who took part in the prevalence study, none had SARS-CoV-2 in stool. There was no demonstrable household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among households containing a participant with faecal shedding. Conclusions Faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 occurred among community participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, during a period of high community transmission, faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 was not detected among participants without SARS-CoV-2 infection. It is unlikely that the faecal-oral route plays a significant role in household and community transmission of SARS-CoV-2

Prophylaxis against disseminated Mycobacterium avium complex with weekly azithromycin, daily rifabutin, or both

Background: Azithromycin is active in treating Mycobacterium avium complex disease, but it has not been evaluated as primary prophylaxis in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Because the drug is concentrated in macrophages and has a long half-life in tissue, there is a rationale for once-weekly dosing. Methods: We compared three prophylactic regimens in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial involving 693 HIV- infected patients with fewer than 100 CD4 cells per cubic millimeter. The patients were assigned to receive rifabutin (300 mg daily), azithromycin (1200 mg weekly), or both drugs. They were monitored monthly with blood cultures for M. avium complex. Results: In an intention-to-treat analysis, the incidence of disseminated M. avium complex infection at one year was 15.3 percent with rifabutin, 7.6 percent with azithromycin, and 2.8 percent with both drugs. The risk of the infection in the azithromycin group was half that in the rifabutin group (hazard ratio, 0.53; P=0.008). The risk was even lower when two-drug prophylaxis was compared with rifabutin alone (hazard ratio, 0.28; P\u3c0.001) or azithromycin alone (hazard ratio, 0.53; P=0.03). Among the patients in whom azithromycin prophylaxis was not successful, 11 percent of M. avium complex isolates were resistant to azithromycin. Dose-limiting toxic effects were more common with the two-drug combination than with azithromycin alone (hazard ratio, 1.67; P= 0.03). Survival was similar in all three groups. Conclusions: For protection against disseminated M. avium complex infection, once-weekly azithromycin is more effective than daily rifabutin and infrequently selects for resistant isolates. Rifabutin plus azithromycin is even more effective but is not as well tolerated