Agricultural Communications Lesson Plans for High School Agriculture Programs

In today’s workforce, individuals are expected to be able to communicate effectively through all means of communication. This includes video, graphics, emails, social media, and in person. In the agriculture industry, these means of communication have become crucial to promoting agricultural literacy throughout the world. It is important for young people to have a grasp on professionally utilizing these communication methods so that they can use them in future careers as well as advocating for the agriculture industry. The role of technology and social media is rapidly increasing in everyday life and becoming a key learning tool in secondary education. Social media has become one of the most effective ways for people to promote agricultural literacy (The Power of Social Media in Agriculture: A Guide to Social Media Success, n.d.). Lesson plans incorporating technology should “help students work at their own pace, encourage creative, original expression, improve higher order thinking skills, and expose students to authentic, real-world examples and situations” (Seamon, 1999). It is crucial for students to properly understand how to use social media websites as well as email and in person communication to increase their credibility when promoting agriculture

Let’s Focus In: A Guide to Eye Tracking Technology in Agricultural Communications Research

Communicating with the public about the agricultural industry often presents challenges in learning how to convey messages that are deemed as salient to various types of people. Media is understood through complex cognitive processes that result in varying attitudes throughout interaction with a stimulus, thus requiring methods that go beyond traditional self-report measures. The majority of agricultural communication research has encompassed quantitative and qualitative research, which often does not account for changes throughout media consumption. Eye tracking is an underutilized resource in agricultural communication that can be used to yield further insight into areas of interest that elicit visual attention and can signal further processing of information. This professional development paper examines the contributions of eye tracking research in agricultural communication and provides an overview of strategies for implementation in both research and practice

Sticking to the facts: A systematic review of the effects of therapeutic tape in lateral epicondylalgia

Objective: To systematically identify, appraise, and examine evidence regarding the effects of therapeutic tape on pain and function in individuals with lateral epicondylalgia (LE). Methods: Five electronic databases were systematically searched up to March 2018. Full-text, peer-reviewed, English-language studies were included if they had an LE population, a standalone tape condition, and an outcome related to pain or function. Results: Eight out of 2022 screened studies were included. Three studies demonstrated immediate (i.e. within 1 h) improvements in pain and pain-free grip strength following diamond deloading rigid tape. One study reported immediate improvements in proprioception following transverse rigid tape. The immediate effects of longitudinal kinesiotape were inconsistent. One study reported improvements in pain and pain-free grip strength, while another study reported no effect on pain, strength, or muscle activity. Two studies examined short-term (i.e. within six weeks) kinesiotape application. One study reported two weeks of longitudinal kinesiotape improved pain and maximum grip strength. The other study reported one week of diamond kinesiotape improved patient-reported pain and function, but not maximum grip strength. Conclusions: In individuals with LE, diamond deloading rigid tape may immediately improve pain and strength. There is conflicting evidence regarding kinesiotape effects in both immediate and short-term timeframes

Sticking to the facts: A systematic review of the effects of therapeutic tape in lateral epicondylalgia

Objective: To systematically identify, appraise, and examine evidence regarding the effects of therapeutic tape on pain and function in individuals with lateral epicondylalgia (LE). Methods: Five electronic databases were systematically searched up to March 2018. Full-text, peer-reviewed, English-language studies were included if they had an LE population, a standalone tape condition, and an outcome related to pain or function. Results: Eight out of 2022 screened studies were included. Three studies demonstrated immediate (i.e. within 1 h) improvements in pain and pain-free grip strength following diamond deloading rigid tape. One study reported immediate improvements in proprioception following transverse rigid tape. The immediate effects of longitudinal kinesiotape were inconsistent. One study reported improvements in pain and pain-free grip strength, while another study reported no effect on pain, strength, or muscle activity. Two studies examined short-term (i.e. within six weeks) kinesiotape application. One study reported two weeks of longitudinal kinesiotape improved pain and maximum grip strength. The other study reported one week of diamond kinesiotape improved patient-reported pain and function, but not maximum grip strength. Conclusions: In individuals with LE, diamond deloading rigid tape may immediately improve pain and strength. There is conflicting evidence regarding kinesiotape effects in both immediate and short-term timeframes. © 2019 Elsevier Lt

The immediate effects of therapeutic tape on pain and function in lateral epicondylalgia: A systematic review

Introduction: Lateral epicondylalgia (LE) is a common musculoskeletal condition with a complex, multifactorial pathophysiology. There is currently limited consensus guiding optimal treatment; however, it is widely accepted that conservative interventions such as exercise, manual therapy, electrotherapy, or therapeutic taping, are preferred to surgical management. Although therapeutic taping is used by many therapists, synthesised evidence from a systematic review regarding the effectiveness of therapeutic taping in LE is lacking. Our review aims to identify and analyse the existing evidence regarding the effects of therapeutic taping on immediate measures of pain and function in individuals with LE

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health