Leveraging Skype in the Classroom for Science Communication: A Streaming Science – Scientist Online Approach

A growing need exists to identify, implement, and research alternative methods to communicate with, educate, and engage youth about science, in order to increase science literacy and knowledge of future societal decision-makers. Electronic field trips (EFTs) are one channel of non-formal communication and education that have been introduced in agricultural and natural resources to reach youth audiences with science-based information in real-time. EFTs can be conducted in several different ways due to the proliferation of video production and web-streaming technologies. The following professional development article offers science communication professionals and scientists a detailed model and specific steps to develop and host an EFT via the Skype in the Classroom platform. The outlined model builds off of prior application and research from the Streaming Science online science communication platform and offers a secondary model for effective EFT implementation and research. The authors describe the establishment of an online science communication network, the development of the Streaming Science: Scientist Online format, content creation, the production team structure, and mobile production hardware and software. Scientist Online EFT program outcomes in terms of participation are noted, as well as student outcomes in the form of excerpts to demonstrate student engagement are shared

A systematic review and consensus definitions for standardised end-points in perioperative medicine: pulmonary complications

BackgroundThere is a need for robust, clearly defined, patient-relevant outcome measures for use in randomised trials in perioperative medicine. Our objective was to establish standard outcome measures for postoperative pulmonary complications research

Assessing soil health in a thermic region of the southern great plains, using the soil management assessment framework (SMAF)

The soil management assessment framework (SMAF) has been widely used as a tool to quantify soil health. However, SMAF was developed using data from only a few climate conditions in the United States and regional verification is often suggested. We evaluated SMAF's short-term performance in a thermic/hyperthermic region, aiming to 1) evaluate the sensitivity of SMAF scores to changes in individual soil properties and 2) quantify soil health changes using SMAF. Treatments include two levels of summer crop and two levels of tillage in an annually planted wheat system. SMAF soil health metrics were measured for Burleson clay soil (BC site) and Parrita sandy clay loam soil (PSCL site) for 0–5 cm soil depth. At the BC site, βgluc and SOC SMAF scores displayed no statistical differences when compared to their respective soil properties. βgluc measurement also helped to highlight the treatment difference observed for wheat yield. This suggests that scoring curves of βgluc used in SMAF may need to be modified, especially for clayey soils. The results also show that SMAF scores were not correlated with wheat yield at both sites, suggesting that multiple year data may be needed to understand this relationship. Overall, in a thermic region, SMAF was found to be helpful to understand short-term soil health status. However, due to clay correction in SMAF algorithm, SMAF scores can show lower sensitivity in the clayey soils of these thermic regions

Policy-relevant differences between secondhand and thirdhand smoke: strengthening protections from involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke pollutants

Starting in the 1970s, individuals, businesses and the public have increasingly benefited from policies prohibiting smoking indoors, saving thousands of lives and billions of dollars in healthcare expenditures. Smokefree policies to protect against secondhand smoke exposure, however, do not fully protect the public from the persistent and toxic chemical residues from tobacco smoke (also known as thirdhand smoke) that linger in indoor environments for years after smoking stops. Nor do these policies address the economic costs that individuals, businesses and the public bear in their attempts to remediate this toxic residue. We discuss policy-relevant differences between secondhand smoke and thirdhand smoke exposure: persistent pollutant reservoirs, pollutant transport, routes of exposure, the time gap between initial cause and effect, and remediation and disposal. We examine four policy considerations to better protect the public from involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke pollutants from all sources. We call for (a) redefining smokefree as free of tobacco smoke pollutants from secondhand and thirdhand smoke; (b) eliminating exemptions to comprehensive smoking bans; (c) identifying indoor environments with significant thirdhand smoke reservoirs; and (d) remediating thirdhand smoke. We use the case of California as an example of how secondhand smoke-protective laws may be strengthened to encompass thirdhand smoke protections. The health risks and economic costs of thirdhand smoke require that smokefree policies, environmental protections, real estate and rental disclosure policies, tenant protections, and consumer protection laws be strengthened to ensure that the public is fully protected from and informed about the risks of thirdhand smoke exposure

朝鮮干潟地利用論

Background: The Standardising Endpoints for Perioperative Medicine group was established to derive an appropriate set of endpoints for use in clinical trials related to anaesthesia and perioperative medicine. Anaesthetic or analgesic technique during cancer surgery with curative intent may influence the risk of recurrence or metastasis. However, given the current equipoise in the existing literature, prospective, randomised, controlled trials are necessary to test this hypothesis. As such, a cancer subgroup was formed to derive endpoints related to research in onco-anaesthesia based on a current evidence base, international consensus and expert guidance. Methods: We undertook a systematic review to identify measures of oncological outcome used in the oncological, surgical, and wider literature. A multiround Delphi consensus process that included up to 89 clinician–researchers was then used to refine a recommended list of endpoints. Results: We identified 90 studies in a literature search, which were the basis for a preliminary list of nine outcome measures and their definitions. A further two were added during the Delphi process. Response rates for Delphi rounds one, two, and three were 88% (n=9), 82% (n=73), and 100% (n=10), respectively. A final list of 10 defined endpoints was refined and developed, of which six secured approval by ≥70% of the group: cancer health related quality of life, days alive and out of hospital at 90 days, time to tumour progression, disease-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival (and 5-yr overall survival). Conclusion: Standardised endpoints in clinical outcomes studies will support benchmarking and pooling (meta-analysis) of trials. It is therefore recommended that one or more of these consensus-derived endpoints should be considered for inclusion in clinical trials evaluating a causal effect of anaesthesia–analgesia technique on oncological outcomes

Systematic review and consensus definitions for the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative: clinical indicators

Background: Clinical indicators are powerful tools to quantify the safety and quality of patient care. Their validity is often unclear and definitions extremely heterogeneous. As part of the International Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) initiative, this study aimed to derive a set of standardised and valid clinical outcome indicators for use in perioperative clinical trials. Methods: We identified clinical indicators via a systematic review of the anaesthesia and perioperative medicine literature (PubMed/OVID, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library). We performed a three-stage Delphi consensus-gaining process that involved 54 clinician–researchers worldwide. Indicators were first shortlisted and the most suitable definitions for evaluation of quality and safety interventions determined. Indicators were then assessed for validity, reliability, feasibility, and clarity. Results: We identified 167 clinical outcome indicators. Participation in the three Delphi rounds was 100% (n=13), 68% (n=54), and 85% (n= 6), respectively. A final list of eight outcome indicators was generated: surgical site infection at 30 days, stroke within 30 days of surgery, death within 30 days of coronary artery bypass grafting, death within 30 days of surgery, admission to the intensive care unit within 14 days of surgery, readmission to hospital within 30 days of surgery, and length of hospital stay (with or without in-hospital mortality). They were rated by the majority of experts as valid, reliable, easy to use, and clearly defined. Conclusions: These clinical indicators can be confidently used as endpoints in clinical trials measuring quality, safety, and improvement in perioperative care. Registration: PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016042102 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php? ID=CRD42016042102)

Systematic review and consensus definitions for the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative: clinical indicators

Background: Clinical indicators are powerful tools to quantify the safety and quality of patient care. Their validity is often unclear and definitions extremely heterogeneous. As part of the International Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) initiative, this study aimed to derive a set of standardised and valid clinical outcome indicators for use in perioperative clinical trials. Methods: We identified clinical indicators via a systematic review of the anaesthesia and perioperative medicine literature (PubMed/OVID, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library). We performed a three-stage Delphi consensus-gaining process that involved 54 clinician–researchers worldwide. Indicators were first shortlisted and the most suitable definitions for evaluation of quality and safety interventions determined. Indicators were then assessed for validity, reliability, feasibility, and clarity. Results: We identified 167 clinical outcome indicators. Participation in the three Delphi rounds was 100% (n=13), 68% (n=54), and 85% (n= 6), respectively. A final list of eight outcome indicators was generated: surgical site infection at 30 days, stroke within 30 days of surgery, death within 30 days of coronary artery bypass grafting, death within 30 days of surgery, admission to the intensive care unit within 14 days of surgery, readmission to hospital within 30 days of surgery, and length of hospital stay (with or without in-hospital mortality). They were rated by the majority of experts as valid, reliable, easy to use, and clearly defined. Conclusions: These clinical indicators can be confidently used as endpoints in clinical trials measuring quality, safety, and improvement in perioperative care. Registration: PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016042102 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php? ID=CRD42016042102).</p

Systematic review and consensus definitions for the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative: clinical indicators

BACKGROUND: Clinical indicators are powerful tools to quantify the safety and quality of patient care. Their validity is often unclear and definitions extremely heterogeneous. As part of the International Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) initiative, this study aimed to derive a set of standardised and valid clinical outcome indicators for use in perioperative clinical trials. METHODS: We identified clinical indicators via a systematic review of the anaesthesia and perioperative medicine literature (PubMed/OVID, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library). We performed a three-stage Delphi consensus-gaining process that involved 54 clinician-researchers worldwide. Indicators were first shortlisted and the most suitable definitions for evaluation of quality and safety interventions determined. Indicators were then assessed for validity, reliability, feasibility, and clarity. RESULTS: We identified 167 clinical outcome indicators. Participation in the three Delphi rounds was 100% (n=13), 68% (n=54), and 85% (n= 6), respectively. A final list of eight outcome indicators was generated: surgical site infection at 30 days, stroke within 30 days of surgery, death within 30 days of coronary artery bypass grafting, death within 30 days of surgery, admission to the intensive care unit within 14 days of surgery, readmission to hospital within 30 days of surgery, and length of hospital stay (with or without in-hospital mortality). They were rated by the majority of experts as valid, reliable, easy to use, and clearly defined. CONCLUSIONS: These clinical indicators can be confidently used as endpoints in clinical trials measuring quality, safety, and improvement in perioperative care. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016042102 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php? ID=CRD42016042102)