Innovative methods of assessment in law:the value of open book exams as a catalyst for improving teaching and learning in the law school

The question of whether open-book examinations (OBE) are preferable to closed book examinations (CBE) is not a new one. However, little has been written on the question of the use of OBE in the discipline of law or as a means of promoting more effective teaching and learning. This article will examine the arguments for and against the utilisation of OBE as opposed to CBE for students of law at university level. Utilising secondary data, as well as a primary small-scale empirical study the author explores student views of OBE and CBE and their significance for teaching and learning in law. It is suggested that the issue may not be simply a question of choice of assessment methods and their value but rather involves examining and evaluating approaches to teaching, learning and curriculum design. In conclusion it is argued that there are several factors which need to be taken into account when deciding what form of assessment is the most appropriate for these students but that the key requirement is that the course design and teaching, learning and assessment methods are aligned and considered as a whole, matching learning outcomes to teaching and learning activities and to the form of assessment chosen. Only within this context can OBE promote more effective learning

Foregrounding socio-economic rights in transitional justice:realising justice for violations of economic and social rights

Transitional justice has traditionally ignored or sidelined violations of economic and social rights, focussing on violations of civil and political rights as the primary grave human rights violations to be addressed when seeking justice for past atrocities. This paper explores the omission of these rights from the field and uncovers the shortcomings of such an approach. It will argue that there is a need for transitional justice to address both deliberate violations of economic and social rights resulting from conflict or repression, but also structural violations which have acted as root causes of conflict within the State. It is submitted that past experiences of prosecutorial and restorative justice illustrate that violations of economic and social rights have been acknowledged as background information rather than primary concerns for transitional justice. In conclusion it is contended that economic and social rights need to be brought to the foreground of transitional justice processes in order to ensure effective transitional justice which reflects the needs and rights of the local population, and addresses the root causes of conflict, thus preventing conflict reoccurring around the same sources. The inclusion of economic and social rights concerns within transitional justice mechanisms will therefore contribute to a more holistic and inclusive transitional justice process

Reclaiming the peacebuilding agenda:economic and social rights as a legal framework for building positive peace : a human security plus approach to peace-building

This article examines the exclusion of economic and social rights from peacebuilding. The peacebuilding process has become dominated by a liberal agenda resulting in a ‘one size fits all’ model of peacebuilding. As a consequence, the inclusion of human rights within the mandate of peacebuilding has also been limited to a liberal conception of human rights constituting only civil and political rights. It is argued that an alternative approach is required which refocuses the peacebuilding agenda on human security: a hybrid ‘human security plus’ approach to peacebuilding (or a ‘inclusive’ human rights approach) will ensure the protection and promotion of economic, social and cultural rights, while maintaining protection of civil and political rights, throughout the whole peacebuilding process: from peace agreements to post-conflict reconstruction. The result will be a reclaiming of the peacebuilding agenda to improve its effectiveness and provide a legal framework for building positive peace

Design of a phase III multicenter trial to evaluate the efficacy of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine in children across diverse transmission settings in Africa

BACKGROUND\ud \ud GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals and the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative are working in partnership to develop a malaria vaccine to protect infants and children living in malaria endemic regions of sub-Saharan Africa, which can be delivered through the Expanded Programme on Immunization. The RTS,S/AS candidate vaccine has been evaluated in multiple phase I/II studies and shown to have a favourable safety profile and to be well-tolerated in both adults and children. This paper details the design of the phase III multicentre efficacy trial of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine candidate, which is pivotal for licensure and policy decision-making.\ud \ud METHODS\ud \ud The phase III trial is a randomized, controlled, multicentre, participant- and observer-blind study on-going in 11 centres associated with different malaria transmission settings in seven countries in sub-Saharan Africa. A minimum of 6,000 children in each of two age categories (6-12 weeks, 5-17 months) have been enrolled. Children were randomized 1:1:1 to one of three study groups: (1) primary vaccination with RTS,S/AS01 and booster dose of RTS,S/AS01; (2) primary vaccination with RTS,S/AS01 and a control vaccine at time of booster; (3) primary vaccination with control vaccine and a control vaccine at time of booster. Primary vaccination comprises three doses at monthly intervals; the booster dose is administered at 18 months post-primary course. Subjects will be followed to study month 32. The co-primary objectives are the evaluation of efficacy over one year post-dose 3 against clinical malaria when primary immunization is delivered at: (1) 6-12 weeks of age, with co-administration of DTPwHepB/Hib antigens and OPV; (2) 5-17 months of age. Secondary objectives include evaluation of vaccine efficacy against severe malaria, anaemia, malaria hospitalization, fatal malaria, all-cause mortality and other serious illnesses including sepsis and pneumonia. Efficacy of the vaccine against clinical malaria under different transmission settings, the evolution of efficacy over time and the potential benefit of a booster will be evaluated. In addition, the effect of RTS,S/AS01 vaccination on growth, and the safety and immunogenicity in HIV-infected and malnourished children will be assessed. Safety of the primary course of immunization and the booster dose will be documented in both age categories.\ud \ud CONCLUSIONS\ud \ud This pivotal phase III study of the RTS,S/AS01 candidate malaria vaccine in African children was designed and implemented by the Clinical Trials Partnership Committee. The study will provide efficacy and safety data to fulfil regulatory requirements, together with data on a broad range of endpoints that will facilitate the evaluation of the public health impact of the vaccine and will aid policy and implementation decisions.\ud \ud TRIAL REGISTRATION\ud \ud Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00866619

Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Long Term Safety, Immunogenicity and Efficacy of RTS,S/AS02(D) Malaria Vaccine in Infants Living in a Malaria-Endemic Region.

The RTS,S/AS malaria candidate vaccine is being developed with the intent to be delivered, if approved, through the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) of the World Health Organization. Safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of the RTS,S/AS02(D) vaccine candidate when integrated into a standard EPI schedule for infants have been reported over a nine-month surveillance period. This paper describes results following 20 months of follow up. This Phase IIb, single-centre, randomized controlled trial enrolled 340 infants in Tanzania to receive three doses of RTS,S/AS02(D) or hepatitis B vaccine at 8, 12, and 16 weeks of age. All infants also received DTPw/Hib (diphtheria and tetanus toxoids, whole-cell pertussis vaccine, conjugated Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine) at the same timepoints. The study was double-blinded to month 9 and single-blinded from months 9 to 20. From month 0 to 20, at least one SAE was reported in 57/170 infants who received RTS,S/AS02(D) (33.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 26.5, 41.2) and 62/170 infants who received hepatitis B vaccine (36.5%; 95% CI: 29.2, 44.2). The SAE profile was similar in both vaccine groups; none were considered to be related to vaccination. At month 20, 18 months after completion of vaccination, 71.8% of recipients of RTS,S/AS02(D) and 3.8% of recipients of hepatitis B vaccine had seropositive titres for anti-CS antibodies; seroprotective levels of anti-HBs antibodies remained in 100% of recipients of RTS,S/AS02(D) and 97.7% recipients of hepatitis B vaccine. Anti-HBs antibody GMTs were higher in the RTS,S/AS02(D) group at all post-vaccination time points compared to control. According to protocol population, vaccine efficacy against multiple episodes of malaria disease was 50.7% (95% CI: -6.5 to 77.1, p = 0.072) and 26.7% (95% CI: -33.1 to 59.6, p = 0.307) over 12 and 18 months post vaccination, respectively. In the Intention to Treat population, over the 20-month follow up, vaccine efficacy against multiple episodes of malaria disease was 14.4% (95% CI: -41.9 to 48.4, p = 0.545). The acceptable safety profile and good tolerability of RTS,S/AS02(D) in combination with EPI vaccines previously reported from month 0 to 9 was confirmed over a 20 month surveillance period in this infant population. Antibodies against both CS and HBsAg in the RTS,S/AS02(D) group remained significantly higher compared to control for the study duration. Over 18 months follow up, RTS,S/AS02(D) prevented approximately a quarter of malaria cases in the study population. CLINICAL TRIALS: Gov identifier: NCT00289185

A Randomized Trial Assessing the Safety and Immunogenicity of AS01 and AS02 Adjuvanted RTS,S Malaria Vaccine Candidates in Children in Gabon

Background:The malaria vaccine candidate antigen RTS,S includes parts of the pre-erythrocytic stage circumsporozoite protein fused to the Hepatitis B surface antigen. Two Adjuvant Systems are in development for this vaccine, an oil-in water emulsion – based formulation (AS02) and a formulation based on liposomes (AS01).Methods & Principal Findings:In this Phase II, double-blind study (NCT00307021), 180 healthy Gabonese children aged 18 months to 4 years were randomized to receive either RTS,S/AS01E or RTS,S/AS02D, on a 0–1–2 month vaccination schedule. The children were followed-up daily for six days after each vaccination and monthly for 14 months. Blood samples were collected at 4 time-points. Both vaccines were well tolerated. Safety parameters were distributed similarly between the two groups. Both vaccines elicited a strong specific immune response after Doses 2 and 3 with a ratio of anti-CS GMT titers (AS02D/AS01E) of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.68–1.15) post-Dose 3. After Doses 2 and 3 of experimental vaccines, anti-CS and anti-HBs antibody GMTs were higher in children who had been previously vaccinated with at least one dose of hepatitis B vaccine compared to those not previously vaccinated.Conclusions:RTS,S/AS01E proved similarly as well tolerated and immunogenic as RTS,S/AS02D, completing an essential step in the age de-escalation process within the RTS,S clinical development plan

Evaluation of RTS,S/AS02A and RTS,S/AS01B in Adults in a High Malaria Transmission Area

This study advances the clinical development of the RTS,S/AS01B candidate malaria vaccine to malaria endemic populations. As a primary objective it compares the safety and reactogenicity of RTS,S/AS01B to the more extensively evaluated RTS,S/AS02A vaccine.A Phase IIb, single centre, double-blind, controlled trial of 6 months duration with a subsequent 6 month single-blind follow-up conducted in Kisumu West District, Kenya between August 2005 and August 2006. 255 healthy adults aged 18 to 35 years were randomized (1ratio1ratio1) to receive 3 doses of RTS,S/AS02A, RTS,S/AS01B or rabies vaccine (Rabipur; Chiron Behring GmbH) at months 0, 1, 2. The primary objective was the occurrence of severe (grade 3) solicited or unsolicited general (i.e. systemic) adverse events (AEs) during 7 days follow up after each vaccination.Both candidate vaccines had a good safety profile and were well tolerated. One grade 3 systemic AE occurred within 7 days of vaccination (RTS,S/AS01B group). No unsolicited AEs or SAEs were related to vaccine. A marked increase in anti-CS antibody GMTs was observed post Dose 2 of both RTS,S/AS01B (31.6 EU/mL [95% CI: 23.9 to 41.6]) and RTS,S/AS02A (16.7 EU/mL [95% CI: 12.9 to 21.7]). A further increase was observed post Dose 3 in both the RTS,S/AS01B (41.4 EU/mL [95% CI: 31.7 to 54.2]) and RTS,S/AS02A (21.4 EU/mL [95% CI: 16.0 to 28.7]) groups. Anti-CS antibody GMTs were significantly greater with RTS,S/AS01B compared to RTS,S/AS02A at all time points post Dose 2 and Dose 3. Both candidate vaccines produced strong anti-HBs responses. Vaccine efficacy in the RTS,S/AS01B group was 29.5% (95% CI: -15.4 to 56.9, p = 0.164) and in the RTS,S/AS02A group 31.7% (95% CI: -11.6 to 58.2, p = 0.128).Both candidate malaria vaccines were well tolerated over a 12 month surveillance period. A more favorable immunogenicity profile was observed with RTS,S/AS01B than with RTS,S/AS02A.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00197054