An investigation into the factors that attract young students to the Open University and support their studies to module completion

The research investigates the reasons why students aged 18-24 come to the Open University and the factors that influence their decision. It also examines their learning experience and the key factors that lead to successful study. The research population comprised new Open University students with no previous higher education qualification, studying one of four introductory level modules in the Faculties of Arts, Social Sciences, Health and Social Care or Science. Data were compared by module and from students aged 18-20 (Group 1) and 21-24 (Group 2). An online survey was administered to 827 students and yielded 231 responses. In addition, 40 students volunteered to participate in semi-structured email interviews. The discussion of the data was focused on the three theoretical concepts of transitions, networks of intimacy and cultural capital. The findings indicate that students' decisions about higher education study were mainly influenced by family members and friends. They were studying principally to improve their job or career prospects although many were seeking to redress negative educational experiences in the past and to prove to themselves and others that they could study successfully at higher education level. They were attracted to the Open University by its flexibility, cost-effectiveness and open access policy. Respondents' study experience was largely very positive but students in Group 1 in particular missed face -to-face tutor contact and social integration with other students. The majority of respondents in both groups expressed confidence about their progress on the module although women in particular had underlying doubts about their academic ability. Successful students had developed a number of coping strategies for managing the conflicting demands of work, study and family

Determining external randomised pilot trial feasibility in preparation for a definitive trial: a web-based survey of corresponding authors of external pilot trial publications

Background External randomised pilot trials aim to determine whether a future definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) should be conducted, and if so, how. However, not every pilot trial that suggests that a definitive trial will be feasible will progress to a definitive study. In this study, we surveyed corresponding authors of external randomised pilot trial publications to assess pilot trial outcomes in terms of feasibility and progression. Methods Web-based surveys were sent to corresponding authors of external randomised pilot trial publications, open for four weeks between January and February 2022. Four surveys were produced depending on whether the corresponding author had published a trial protocol or results publication, and whether progression criteria were reported. Surveys asked whether a future RCT was considered feasible, whether progression criteria were met (if applicable), what other factors informed the assessment of pilot trial feasibility, and whether the pilot trial has progressed to further research. Data was analysed using descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis. Results 98 of 276 corresponding authors completed the survey (average response rate of 36% across all surveys). Of these, 89 respondents indicated that their trial had completed. Ninety per cent of respondents who were corresponding authors of completed pilot trials stated that their pilot trial was either feasible (42/89, 47%) or feasible with changes to the trial design (38/89, 43%), yet only 66% (59/89) reported the intention to conduct a future definitive trial. Availability of funding for a future definitive trial and changing priorities of the Chief Investigator were the most common barriers to progression identified. Qualitative research findings was the most frequent factor considered both by corresponding authors who reported and who did not report progression criteria when determining trial feasibility. Conclusions Just under one quarter (21/89, 24%) of respondents who considered their external randomised pilot trial to be feasible, or feasible with changes, did not intend to conduct a definitive trial highlighting research inefficiency and waste. Trial registration Open Science Framework osf.io/d28hr [20 December 2021

Reporting performance of prognostic models in cancer: a review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Appropriate choice and use of prognostic models in clinical practice require the use of good methods for both model development, and for developing prognostic indices and risk groups from the models. In order to assess reliability and generalizability for use, models need to have been validated and measures of model performance reported. We reviewed published articles to assess the methods and reporting used to develop and evaluate performance of prognostic indices and risk groups from prognostic models.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We developed a systematic search string and identified articles from PubMed. Forty-seven articles were included that satisfied the following inclusion criteria: published in 2005; aiming to predict patient outcome; presenting new prognostic models in cancer with outcome time to an event and including a combination of at least two separate variables; and analysing data using multivariable analysis suitable for time to event data.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In 47 studies, Cox models were used in 94% (44), but the coefficients or hazard ratios for the variables in the final model were reported in only 72% (34). The reproducibility of the derived model was assessed in only 11% (5) of the articles. A prognostic index was developed from the model in 81% (38) of the articles, but researchers derived the prognostic index from the final prognostic model in only 34% (13) of the studies; different coefficients or variables from those in the final model were used in 50% (19) of models and the methods used were unclear in 16% (6) of the articles. Methods used to derive prognostic groups were also poor, with researchers not reporting the methods used in 39% (14 of 36) of the studies and data derived methods likely to bias estimates of differences between risk groups being used in 28% (10) of the studies. Validation of their models was reported in only 34% (16) of the studies. In 15 studies validation used data from the same population and in five studies from a different population. Including reports of validation with external data from publications up to four years following model development, external validation was attempted for only 21% (10) of models. Insufficient information was provided on the performance of models in terms of discrimination and calibration.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Many published prognostic models have been developed using poor methods and many with poor reporting, both of which compromise the reliability and clinical relevance of models, prognostic indices and risk groups derived from them.</p

Reporting methods in studies developing prognostic models in cancer: a review

Development of prognostic models enables identification of variables that are influential in predicting patient outcome and the use of these multiple risk factors in a systematic, reproducible way according to evidence based methods. The reliability of models depends on informed use of statistical methods, in combination with prior knowledge of disease. We reviewed published articles to assess reporting and methods used to develop new prognostic models in cancer.We developed a systematic search string and identified articles from PubMed. Forty-seven articles were included that satisfied the following inclusion criteria: published in 2005; aiming to predict patient outcome; presenting new prognostic models in cancer with outcome time to an event and including a combination of at least two separate variables; and analysing data using multivariable analysis suitable for time to event data.In 47 studies, prospective cohort or randomised controlled trial data were used for model development in only 33% (15) of studies. In 30% (14) of the studies insufficient data were available, having fewer than 10 events per variable (EPV) used in model development. EPV could not be calculated in a further 40% (19) of the studies. The coding of candidate variables was only reported in 68% (32) of the studies. Although use of continuous variables was reported in all studies, only one article reported using recommended methods of retaining all these variables as continuous without categorisation. Statistical methods for selection of variables in the multivariate modelling were often flawed. A method that is not recommended, namely, using statistical significance in univariate analysis as a pre-screening test to select variables for inclusion in the multivariate model, was applied in 48% (21) of the studies.We found that published prognostic models are often characterised by both use of inappropriate methods for development of multivariable models and poor reporting. In addition, models are limited by the lack of studies based on prospective data of sufficient sample size to avoid overfitting. The use of poor methods compromises the reliability of prognostic models developed to provide objective probability estimates to complement clinical intuition of the physician and guidelines

Application of Advanced Reservoir Characterization, Simulation, and Production Optimization Strategies to Maximize Recovery in Slope and Basin Clastic Reservoirs, West Texas (Delaware Basin)

The objective of this Class III project is to demonstrate that detailed reservoir characterization of clastic reservoirs in basinal sandstones of the Delaware Mountain Group in the Delaware Basin of West Texas and New Mexico is a cost-effective way to recover more of the original oil in place by strategic infill-well placement and geologically based field development. Reservoirs in the Delaware Mountain Group have low producibility (average recovery <14 percent of the original oil in place) because of a high degree of vertical and lateral heterogeneity caused by depositional processes and post-depositional diagenetic modification. Detailed correlations of the Ramsey sandstone reservoirs in Geraldine Ford field suggest that lateral sandstone continuity is less than interpreted by previous studies. The degree of lateral heterogeneity in the reservoir sandstones suggests that they were deposited by eolian-derived turbidites. According to the eolian-derived turbidite model, sand dunes migrated across the exposed shelf to the shelf break during sea-level lowstands and provided well-sorted sand for turbidity currents or grain flows into the deep basin. Cyclic changes in sea level were an important cause of vertical heterogeneity in the reservoir interval at Geraldine Ford field. Ramsey sandstones were deposited during periods of relative sea-level fall in high-order cycles. Laterally continuous organic-rich siltstones, which were deposited in periods of relative sea-level rise during the high-order cycles, create vertical flow barriers within the reservoir. The sealing facies above the Ramsey sandstone is interpreted to be a particularly effective trap because it was deposited at a time of sea-level rise at three scales of cyclicity.Bureau of Economic Geolog

Toward a Resilient Global Society: Air, Sea Level, Earthquakes, and Weather

Society’s progress along the four corners of prepare, absorb, respond and adapt resilience square is uneven, in spite of our understanding of the foundational science and a growing sense that urgent action is needed. The resilience vignettes describe the meaning and impact of current and near‐term change in four major domains: human health impacts from air pollution, coastal inundation from sea‐level rise, damaging earthquakes in populated areas, and impacts from extreme precipitation. Given our understanding of the scientific principles, societal action, from preparation to adaption, will be critical in minimizing the negative impacts of change. The unprecedented rates of change in today’s Earth system argue for urgent action in support of a resilient global society.Key PointsUnprecedented rates of change in the Earth system argue for more urgent action in support of a resilient global societyExperts describe the meaning and impact of current and near‐term change in four major domainsWe take an ensemble approach to highlight the similarities for actionable decision‐makingPeer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151889/1/eft2547_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151889/2/eft2547.pd

The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed

Objectives To examine the reporting characteristics and methodological details of randomised trials indexed in PubMed in 2000 and 2006 and assess whether the quality of reporting has improved after publication of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement in 2001

Association between trial registration and positive study findings: cross sectional study (Epidemiological Study of Randomized Trials—ESORT)

Objective To assess whether randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that were registered were less likely to report positive study findings compared with RCTs that were not registered and whether the association varied by funding source. Design Cross sectional study. Study sample All primary RCTs published in December 2012 and indexed in PubMed by November 2013. Trial registration was determined based on the report of a trial registration number in published RCTs or the identification of the trial in a search of trial registries. Trials were separated into prospectively and retrospectively registered studies. Main outcome measure Association between trial registration and positive study findings. Results 1122 eligible RCTs were identified, of which 593 (52.9%) were registered and 529 (47.1%) were not registered. Overall, registration was marginally associated with positive study findings (adjusted risk ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.98), even with stratification as prospectively and retrospectively registered trials (0.87, 0.74 to 1.03 and 0.88, 0.78 to 1.00, respectively). The interaction term between overall registration and funding source was marginally statistically significant and relative risk estimates were imprecise (0.75, 0.63 to 0.89 for non-industry funded and 1.03, 0.79 to 1.36 for industry funded, P interaction=0.046). Furthermore, a statistically significant interaction was not maintained in sensitivity analyses. Within each stratum of funding source, relative risk estimates were also imprecise for the association between positive study findings and prospective and retrospective registration. Conclusion Among published RCTs, there was little evidence of a difference in positive study findings between registered and non-registered clinical trials, even with stratification by timing of registration. Relative risk estimates were imprecise in subgroups of non-industry and industry funded trials