The impact of diagnostic methods on the diagnosis of Clostridiodes difficile infection

Background. Clostridiodes difficile is a common cause of healthcare-associated diarrhoea. Laboratory testing for C. difficile infection (CDI) remains an area of confusion, as there is not a single accepted reference standard or a single best test.Objectives. To analyse the impact of different diagnostic methods on reported CDI rates. In addition, CDI incidence rates at Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic Hospital (CMJAH), Johannesburg, South Africa, were determined.Methods. Results of stool samples submitted for C. difficile testing at CMJAH from 1 January 2014 to 31 August 2017 were reviewed. From January 2014 to July 2016, samples were tested by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or toxin immunoassay, and from August 2016 to August 2017, algorithm-based testing (glutamate dehydrogenase and toxin immunoassay followed by PCR) was performed.Results. A total of 4 829 samples were submitted. For the first period, toxin immunoassay and PCR showed a positivity rate of 11.4% and 21.1%, respectively, with an overall positivity rate of 18.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15.6 - 21.9). For the second period, the positivity rate was 15.9% (95% CI 11.3 - 17.7). This rate included samples that were GDH-positive and either showed toxin production or had a positive Xpert result. The CDI incidence for the two periods was different, with an incidence rate of 8.8 and 6.1 per 10 000 patient-days for the first and second periods, respectively.Conclusions. The choice of laboratory testing method has a major impact on the diagnosis of CDI, and therefore on reported rates of CDI. Standardisation of laboratory testing and incidence rate reporting is required in order to obtain robust and reliable data

Preparing isiXhosa home language teachers for the 21st century classroom: Student teachers' experiences, challenges and reflections

The aim of the article is to identify the gaps between theory and practice in pre-service teacher training with special reference to the teaching of isiXhosa as a home language in the Further Education and Training (FET) phase (Grades 10–12) in some Western Cape high schools. The article is based on data that was collected from Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) students taking isiXhosa (home language) as one of their teaching method subjects as part of their pre-service training. The data were collected by means of an open-ended questionnaire, semi-structured interviews and an analysis of student teachers’ reflective journals. The article provides an analysis of PGCE students’ experiences and reflections on the teaching of isiXhosa as a home language in schools. It argues that if there is a gap between theory underpinning initial pre-service training and actual practice in schools, there will be no significant improvement in the teaching of isiXhosa as a home language. It concludes by proposing ways of improving both pre-service and in-service teacher education practice to develop African languages as academic or intellectual languages at school level

COMPARE Forum: The idea of North-South and South-South collaboration

The idea of having a Compare Forum focusing on the above title was first discussed with one of the Editors of Compare during a PhD defence in Oslo in 2011. The PhD dissertation itself was linked to a larger project in which researchers from the North (Norway) and the South (South Africa) had been collaborating in educational research for over 10 years. Despite the fact that North-South collaboration is not a new issue on the agenda (King 1985) it is still a timely topic to explore, particularly given the recent growth and moves towards North-South-South collaboration or even South-South Cooperation in Education and Development (Chisholm and Steiner-Khamsi 2009). Thus, any discussion of research collaboration, whether North-South or South-South, is seen as an ideal topic for comparative education, particularly when exploring why there should be collaboration at all and if so what are some of the challenges. While it may be argued that the difference between North-South and South-South collaboration may simply be a question of geography, King (1985) reminds us that collaboration is not necessarily between equals and that collaboration at times ‘appears to be a process initiated in the North, and in which the South participates, as a counterpart’ (184). Ultimately, the differences go beyond simple geographic location to issues of funding and power, something that each of the contributions will touch upon in their own way. While cooperation may mean working with someone, it does suggest that one partner provides information or resources to the other, while collaboration suggests a more equal partnership in which researchers work alongside each other. For the majority of our contributors, we use collaboration as opposed to cooperation, although the literature is not always so clear on this distinction.Web of Scienc