Interdisciplinary Studies Integration from the Faculty Point of View: A Case Study

The purpose of the case study was to examine the perceptions of university faculty regarding the impact that integrating interdisciplinarity into the undergraduate curriculum had on their work in curriculum development and teaching; specifically, as it related to the navigation away from their discipline specializations, and through completion of professional development, creation of new courses (First-Year Seminar), and teaching FYS. Because they serve roles in the development and delivery of the curriculum that are integral to the institution and its culture, faculty perceptions about the process of change and the establishment of interdisciplinarity in the undergraduate curriculum are significant. A researcher-developed survey and participant interviews were used to collect data. The study population consisting of faculty who taught the First-Year Seminar (a required general education course in the undergraduate curriculum) were surveyed. A sample of faculty representing a cross-section of disciplines was interviewed for their perspectives on preparation, development, teaching, and reflections of their interdisciplinary courses. Findings from the case study revealed that FYS faculty perceived their role as integral to university-wide initiatives to establish interdisciplinarity in the undergraduate curriculum; that they focused on interdisciplinary learning activities and assignments supportive of the university’s learning outcomes; that they spent a greater amount of time researching and designing different types of projects focused on active learning than in their disciplinary-specific courses; processes instead of products were stressed in FYS classes (e.g., critical thinking and problem solving, the core modes of thinking in FYS); and, their interdisciplinary backgrounds prior to completing the required professional development course were important to their interdisciplinary curriculum development and teaching. Overall, the study’s participants perceived that their interdisciplinary work provided opportunities to explore new approaches to teaching and learning outside of their disciplinary specializations. While they valued their interdisciplinary work, FYS faculty reported unexpected challenges such as an unusually large of amount of time required for interdisciplinary work, a need for increased knowledge in unfamiliar disciplines, and development of new classroom strategies focused on teaching primarily freshman students

Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation

Contains fulltext : 125374.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Edoxaban is a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor with proven antithrombotic effects. The long-term efficacy and safety of edoxaban as compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation is not known. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial comparing two once-daily regimens of edoxaban with warfarin in 21,105 patients with moderate-to-high-risk atrial fibrillation (median follow-up, 2.8 years). The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism. Each edoxaban regimen was tested for noninferiority to warfarin during the treatment period. The principal safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: The annualized rate of the primary end point during treatment was 1.50% with warfarin (median time in the therapeutic range, 68.4%), as compared with 1.18% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.79; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.99; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 1.07; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.31; P=0.005 for noninferiority). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was a trend favoring high-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 0.87; 97.5% CI, 0.73 to 1.04; P=0.08) and an unfavorable trend with low-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 1.13; 97.5% CI, 0.96 to 1.34; P=0.10). The annualized rate of major bleeding was 3.43% with warfarin versus 2.75% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91; P<0.001) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.55; P<0.001). The corresponding annualized rates of death from cardiovascular causes were 3.17% versus 2.74% (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97; P=0.01), and 2.71% (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.96; P=0.008), and the corresponding rates of the key secondary end point (a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes) were 4.43% versus 3.85% (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.96; P=0.005), and 4.23% (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Both once-daily regimens of edoxaban were noninferior to warfarin with respect to the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism and were associated with significantly lower rates of bleeding and death from cardiovascular causes. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development; ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00781391.)