The role of public relations education in preparing students for managerial roles

The entire dissertation/thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file (which also appears in the research.pdf); a non-technical general description, or public abstract, appears in the public.pdf file.Title from title screen of research.pdf file (viewed on April 2, 2008)Includes bibliographical references.Thesis (M.A.) University of Missouri-Columbia 2007.Dissertations, Academic -- University of Missouri--Columbia -- Journalism.While undergraduate programs do include elements of theory and goals of developing students' critical thinking and problem solving abilities, an underlying purpose in higher education is ultimately to prepare students for the workforce. In public relations, much of the workforce training involves developing technical skills such as writing, editing, and publication design. While these skills are critical for entry level positions, how well are universities preparing public relations students to advance to managerial positions? This study focused on practitioners with 5-10 years experience, because it represents a point in their careers when practitioners are both seeking and achieving career advancement. Participants were first screened through a questionnaire to determine whether they are primarily fulfilling managerial or technician roles in their organizations. Those selected for the sample were then asked to participate in depth interviews. This study provides practical suggestions for how education can better prepare students for career advancement. While practitioners can gain managerial skills later through job experience, observation and professional development programs, researchers and practitioners suggest some skills should be taught at the undergraduate level. These practitioners provide steps that students and recent graduates can follow to help them move up the career ladder

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

Public Relations Ethics Senior PR Pros Tell Us How to Speak Up and Keep Your Job

Many senior public relations executives consider ethics counsel to be one of their core responsibilities. Raising ethical concerns to more senior leaders can be quite intimidating as “speaking truth to power” can have serious consequences for someone’s career, so senior public relations executives have mastered the art of using less confrontational strategies. This book ranks and describes these various strategies with specific examples of how public relations executives have used them. The insights are based on nearly 150 in-depth interviews as well as survey research. Learn about the process of gaining influence and the mistakes to avoid when navigating internal politics. Many of the lessons are applicable to public relations counsel generally

Functional Imagery Training versus Motivational Interviewing for Weight Loss: A randomised controlled trial of brief individual interventions for overweight and obesity

Objective: Functional Imagery Training (FIT) is a new brief motivational intervention based on the Elaborated Intrusion theory of desire. FIT trains the habitual use of personalised, affective, goal-directed mental imagery to plan behaviours, anticipate obstacles, and mentally try out solutions from previous successes. It is delivered in the client-centred style of Motivational Interviewing (MI). We tested the impact of FIT on weight loss, compared with time- and contact-matched MI. Design: We recruited 141 adults with BMI (kg/m²) ≥25, via a community newspaper, to a single-centre randomised controlled trial. Participants were allocated to one of two active interventions: FIT or MI. Primary data collection and analyses were conducted by researchers blind to interventions. All participants received two sessions of their allocated intervention; the first face-to-face (1 h), the second by phone (maximum 45 min). Booster calls of up to 15 min were provided every 2 weeks for 3 months, then once-monthly until 6 months. Maximum contact time was 4 h of individual consultation. Participants were assessed at Baseline, at the end of the intervention phase (6 months), and again 12 months post-baseline. Main outcome measures: Weight (kg) and waist circumference (WC, cm) reductions at 6 and 12 months. Results: FIT participants (N = 59) lost 4.11 kg and 7.02 cm of WC, compared to.74 kg and 2.72 cm in the MI group (N = 55) at 6 months (weight mean difference (WMD) = 3.37 kg, p <.001, 95% CI [−5.2, −2.1], waist-circumference mean difference (WCMD) = 4.3 cm, p <.001, 95% CI [−6.3,−2.6]). Between-group differences were maintained and increased at month 12: FIT participants lost 6.44 kg (W) and 9.1 cm (WC) compared to the MI who lost.67 kg and 2.46 cm (WMD = 5.77 kg, p <.001, 95% CI [−7.5, −4.4], WCMD = 6.64 cm, p <.001, 95% CI [−7.5, −4.4]). Conclusion: FIT is a theoretically informed motivational intervention which offers substantial benefits for weight loss and maintenance of weight reduction, compared with MI alone, despite including no lifestyle education or advice.</p

Intravenous vitamin C for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 : two harmonized randomized clinical trials

Abstract: Importance The efficacy of vitamin C for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is uncertain.Objective To determine whether vitamin C improves outcomes for patients with COVID-19.Design, Setting, and Participants Two prospectively harmonized randomized clinical trials enrolled critically ill patients receiving organ support in intensive care units (90 sites) and patients who were not critically ill (40 sites) between July 23, 2020, and July 15, 2022, on 4 continents.InterventionsPatients were randomized to receive vitamin C administered intravenously or control (placebo or no vitamin C) every 6 hours for 96 hours (maximum of 16 doses).Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was a composite of organ support-free days defined as days alive and free of respiratory and cardiovascular organ support in the intensive care unit up to day 21 and survival to hospital discharge. Values ranged from -1 organ support-free days for patients experiencing in-hospital death to 22 organ support-free days for those who survived without needing organ support. The primary analysis used a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented efficacy (improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both), an OR less than 1 represented harm, and an OR less than 1.2 represented futility.Results Enrollment was terminated after statistical triggers for harm and futility were met. The trials had primary outcome data for 1568 critically ill patients (1037 in the vitamin C group and 531 in the control group; median age, 60 years [IQR, 50-70 years]; 35.9% were female) and 1022 patients who were not critically ill (456 in the vitamin C group and 566 in the control group; median age, 62 years [IQR, 51-72 years]; 39.6% were female). Among critically ill patients, the median number of organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the vitamin C group vs 10 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.88 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.73 to 1.06]) and the posterior probabilities were 8.6% (efficacy), 91.4% (harm), and 99.9% (futility). Among patients who were not critically ill, the median number of organ support-free days was 22 (IQR, 18 to 22 days) for the vitamin C group vs 22 (IQR, 21 to 22 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.80 [95% CrI, 0.60 to 1.01]) and the posterior probabilities were 2.9% (efficacy), 97.1% (harm), and greater than 99.9% (futility). Among critically ill patients, survival to hospital discharge was 61.9% (642/1037) for the vitamin C group vs 64.6% (343/531) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.92 [95% CrI, 0.73 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 24.0% for efficacy. Among patients who were not critically ill, survival to hospital discharge was 85.1% (388/456) for the vitamin C group vs 86.6% (490/566) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.86 [95% CrI, 0.61 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 17.8% for efficacy.Conclusions and Relevance In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, vitamin C had low probability of improving the primary composite outcome of organ support-free days and hospital survival

Intravenous Vitamin C for Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: Two Harmonized Randomized Clinical Trials.

IMPORTANCE: The efficacy of vitamin C for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether vitamin C improves outcomes for patients with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Two prospectively harmonized randomized clinical trials enrolled critically ill patients receiving organ support in intensive care units (90 sites) and patients who were not critically ill (40 sites) between July 23, 2020, and July 15, 2022, on 4 continents. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive vitamin C administered intravenously or control (placebo or no vitamin C) every 6 hours for 96 hours (maximum of 16 doses). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of organ support-free days defined as days alive and free of respiratory and cardiovascular organ support in the intensive care unit up to day 21 and survival to hospital discharge. Values ranged from -1 organ support-free days for patients experiencing in-hospital death to 22 organ support-free days for those who survived without needing organ support. The primary analysis used a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented efficacy (improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both), an OR less than 1 represented harm, and an OR less than 1.2 represented futility. RESULTS: Enrollment was terminated after statistical triggers for harm and futility were met. The trials had primary outcome data for 1568 critically ill patients (1037 in the vitamin C group and 531 in the control group; median age, 60 years [IQR, 50-70 years]; 35.9% were female) and 1022 patients who were not critically ill (456 in the vitamin C group and 566 in the control group; median age, 62 years [IQR, 51-72 years]; 39.6% were female). Among critically ill patients, the median number of organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the vitamin C group vs 10 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.88 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.73 to 1.06]) and the posterior probabilities were 8.6% (efficacy), 91.4% (harm), and 99.9% (futility). Among patients who were not critically ill, the median number of organ support-free days was 22 (IQR, 18 to 22 days) for the vitamin C group vs 22 (IQR, 21 to 22 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.80 [95% CrI, 0.60 to 1.01]) and the posterior probabilities were 2.9% (efficacy), 97.1% (harm), and greater than 99.9% (futility). Among critically ill patients, survival to hospital discharge was 61.9% (642/1037) for the vitamin C group vs 64.6% (343/531) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.92 [95% CrI, 0.73 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 24.0% for efficacy. Among patients who were not critically ill, survival to hospital discharge was 85.1% (388/456) for the vitamin C group vs 86.6% (490/566) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.86 [95% CrI, 0.61 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 17.8% for efficacy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, vitamin C had low probability of improving the primary composite outcome of organ support-free days and hospital survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT04401150 (LOVIT-COVID) and NCT02735707 (REMAP-CAP)