Community Willingness to Participate in a Dengue Study in Aceh Province, Indonesia

Background: Dengue virus infection is the most rapidly spreading vector-borne disease in the world. Essential research on dengue virus transmission and its prevention requires community participation. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the factors that are associated with the willingness of communities in high prevalence areas to participate in dengue research. The aim of this study was to explore factors associated with the willingness of healthy community members in Aceh province, Indonesia, to participate in dengue research that would require phlebotomy. Methodology/Principal Findings: A community-based cross-sectional study was carried out in nine regencies and municipalities of Aceh from November 2014 to March 2015. Interviews using a set of validated questionnaires were conducted to collect data on demography, history of dengue infection, socioeconomic status, and knowledge, attitude and practice regarding dengue fever. Two-step logistic regression and Spearman's rank correlation (rs) analysis were used to assess the influence of independent variables on dependent variables. Among 535 participants, less than 20% had a good willingness to participate in the dengue study. The factors associated with good willingness to participate were being female, working as a civil servant, private employee or entrepreneur, having a high socioeconomic status and good knowledge, attitude and practice regarding dengue. Good knowledge and attitude regarding dengue were positive independent predictors of willingness to participate (OR: 2.30 [95% CI: 1.36-3.90] and 3.73 [95% CI: 2.24-6.21], respectively). Conclusion/Significance: The willingness to participate in dengue research is very low among community members in Aceh, and the two most important associated factors are knowledge and attitude regarding dengue. To increase participation rate, efforts to improve the knowledge and attitude of community members regarding dengue fever and dengue-related research is required before such studies are launched

Assessment of Awake Prone Positioning in Hospitalized Adults with COVID-19: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial

Importance: Awake prone positioning may improve hypoxemia among patients with COVID-19, but whether it is associated with improved clinical outcomes remains unknown. Objective: To determine whether the recommendation of awake prone positioning is associated with improved outcomes among patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemia who have not received mechanical ventilation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic nonrandomized controlled trial was conducted at 2 academic medical centers (Vanderbilt University Medical Center and NorthShore University HealthSystem) during the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 501 adult patients with COVID-19-associated hypoxemia who had not received mechanical ventilation were enrolled from May 13 to December 11, 2020. Interventions: Patients were assigned 1:1 to receive either the practitioner-recommended awake prone positioning intervention (intervention group) or usual care (usual care group). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome analyses were performed using a bayesian proportional odds model with covariate adjustment for clinical severity ranking based on the World Health Organization ordinal outcome scale, which was modified to highlight the worst level of hypoxemia on study day 5. Results: A total of 501 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [15.3] years; 284 [56.7%] were male; and most [417 (83.2%)] were self-reported non-Hispanic or non-Latinx) were included. Baseline severity was comparable between the intervention vs usual care groups, with 170 patients (65.9%) vs 162 patients (66.7%) receiving oxygen via standard low-flow nasal cannula, 71 patients (27.5%) vs 62 patients (25.5%) receiving oxygen via high-flow nasal cannula, and 16 patients (6.2%) vs 19 patients (7.8%) receiving noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation. Nursing observations estimated that patients in the intervention group spent a median of 4.2 hours (IQR, 1.8-6.7 hours) in the prone position per day compared with 0 hours (IQR, 0-0.7 hours) per day in the usual care group. On study day 5, the bayesian posterior probability of the intervention group having worse outcomes than the usual care group on the modified World Health Organization ordinal outcome scale was 0.998 (posterior median adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.63; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 1.16-2.31). However, on study days 14 and 28, the posterior probabilities of harm were 0.874 (aOR, 1.29; 95% CrI, 0.84-1.99) and 0.673 (aOR, 1.12; 95% CrI, 0.67-1.86), respectively. Exploratory outcomes (progression to mechanical ventilation, length of stay, and 28-day mortality) did not differ between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this nonrandomized controlled trial, prone positioning offered no observed clinical benefit among patients with COVID-19-associated hypoxemia who had not received mechanical ventilation. Moreover, there was substantial evidence of worsened clinical outcomes at study day 5 among patients recommended to receive the awake prone positioning intervention, suggesting potential harm. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04359797

The rise of the phoenix : methodological innovation as a discourse of renewal

Every 500 years (or 540, 1000, 1461, even 12,994, depending on the cultural context!), the legendary and beautifully plumaged Phoenix1 self-cremates in its nest of cinnamon twigs, rising again to embalm its predecessor in an egg of myrrh. Something of a Jungian archetype, the Phoenix symbolizes the universal cycle of birth, death and re-birth, figuring widely in religious and secular imagery, and in classical and popular culture. Renewal is the theme of this paper, but in the more mundane context of organizational resilience. Resilience is a cosmopolitan idea, encountered in many disparate domains, ranging from ecological policy (e.g. Folke et al., 2002) to child welfare (Newman and Blackburn, 2002). Although its definition is elusive (Cho et al., 2006) and its utility contested (even in seemingly well-entrenched terrain),2 the concept has gained recent prominence in the management literature, especially among the enthusiasts of ‘positive psychology’ (Luthans, 2002). Its proselytizers see resilience as an organizational capacity that can be designed and fostered as a protective shield against the apocalyptic turbulence and uncertainty of the contemporary business environment (Mallik, 1998; Hamel and Välikangas, 2003; Sheffi, 2005). Resilience is ‘the key skill for surviving in the multitude of changes as we move into the digital economy … [leaders] must cultivate the resilience of the workforce and create appropriate systems. If an organization does not create new strategies and systems that enhance organizational resilience, it will not adapt’ (Pulley, 1997)