A multimedia tutorial shell with qualitative assessment in biology

The project is developing methods to produce multimedia tutorials relatively quickly and cheaply, using a generic software shell suitable for any subject area. The shell is a version of one produced originally as part of the HEFC-funded TLTP initiative by the Biodiversity Consortium. Tutorials presented in the shell will provide the student with a structured learning experience that will allow their initial knowledge level or their knowledge acquisition and progress to be qualitatively and quantitatively assessed. Where areas of weakness are revealed by the assessment, students will be advised to study particular parts of the tutorial in order to improve their understanding

High Grade Acadian Regional Metamorphism in South-Central Massachusetts

Guidebook for field trips in Connecticut and south central Massachusetts: New England Intercollegiate Geological Conference 74th annual meeting, University of Connecticut, Storrs Connecticut , October 2 and 3, 1982: Trip P-

Statin use and adverse effects among adults \u3e 75 years of age: Insights from the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) registry

Background: Current statin use and symptoms among older adults in routine community practice have not been well characterized since the release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline. Methods and results: We compared statin use and dosing between adults \u3e75 and ≤75 years old who were eligible for primary or secondary prevention statin use without considering guideline-recommended age criteria. The patients were treated at 138 US practices in the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) registry in 2015. Patient surveys also evaluated reported symptoms while taking statins. Multivariable logistic regression models examined the association between older age and statin use and dosing. Among 6717 people enrolled, 1704 (25%) were \u3e75 years old. For primary prevention, use of any statin or high-dose statin did not vary by age group: any statin, 62.6% in those \u3e75 years old versus 63.1% in those ≤75 years old (P=0.83); high-dose statin, 10.2% versus 12.3% in the same groups (P=0.14). For secondary prevention, older patients were slightly less likely to receive any statin (80.1% versus 84.2% [P=0.003]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.01 [P=0.06]), but were much less likely to receive a high-intensity statin (23.5% versus 36.2% [PP=0.0001]). Among current statin users, older patients were slightly less likely to report any symptoms (41.3% versus 46.6%; P=0.003) or myalgias (27.3% versus 33.3%; Conclusions: Overall use of statins was similar for primary prevention in those aged \u3e75 years versus younger patients, yet older patients were less likely to receive high-intensity statins for secondary prevention. Statins appear to be similarly tolerated in older and younger adult

Exploring the costs and outcomes of sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening interventions targeting men in football club settings: preliminary cost-consequence analysis of the SPORTSMART pilot randomised controlled trial

Background: The objective of this study was to compare the costs and outcomes of two sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening interventions targeted at men in football club settings in England, including screening promoted by team captains. Methods: A comparison of costs and outcomes was undertaken alongside a pilot cluster randomised control trial involving three trial arms: (1) captain-led and poster STI screening promotion; (2) sexual health advisor-led and poster STI screening promotion and (3) poster-only STI screening promotion (control/comparator). For all study arms, resource use and cost data were collected prospectively. Results: There was considerable variation in uptake rates between clubs, but results were broadly comparable across study arms with 50% of men accepting the screening offer in the captain-led arm, 67% in the sexual health advisor-led arm and 61% in the poster-only control arm. The overall costs associated with the intervention arms were similar. The average cost per player tested was comparable, with the average cost per player tested for the captain-led promotion estimated to be £88.99 compared with £88.33 for the sexual health advisor-led promotion and £81.87 for the poster-only (control) arm. Conclusions: Costs and outcomes were similar across intervention arms. The target sample size was not achieved, and we found a greater than anticipated variability between clubs in the acceptability of screening, which limited our ability to estimate acceptability for intervention arms. Further evidence is needed about the public health benefits associated with screening interventions in non-clinical settings so that their cost-effectiveness can be fully evaluated

Patient-reported reasons for declining or discontinuing statin therapy: Insights from the PALM registry

Background: Many adults eligible for statin therapy for cardiovascular disease prevention are untreated. Our objective was to investigate patient‐reported reasons for statin underutilization, including noninitiation, refusal, and discontinuation.Methods and Results: This study included the 5693 adults recommended for statin therapy in the PALM (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) registry. Patient surveys evaluated statin experience, reasons for declining or discontinuing statins, and beliefs about statins and cardiovascular disease risk. Overall, 1511 of 5693 adults (26.5%) were not on treatment. Of those not on a statin, 894 (59.2%) reported never being offered a statin, 153 (10.1%) declined a statin, and 464 (30.7%) had discontinued therapy. Women (relative risk: 1.22), black adults (relative risk: 1.48), and those without insurance (relative risk: 1.38) were most likely to report never being offered a statin. Fear of side effects and perceived side effects were the most common reasons cited for declining or discontinuing a statin. Compared with statin users, those who declined or discontinued statins were less likely to believe statins are safe (70.4% of current users vs. 36.9% of those who declined and 37.4% of those who discontinued) or effective (86.3%, 67.4%, and 69.1%, respectively). Willingness to take a statin was high; 67.7% of those never offered and 59.7% of patients who discontinued a statin would consider initiating or retrying a statin.Conclusions: More than half of patients eligible for statin therapy but not on treatment reported never being offered one by their doctor. Concern about side effects was the leading reason for statin refusal or discontinuation. Many patients were willing to reconsider statin therapy if offered

Measurement of low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in primary and secondary prevention patients: Insights from the PALM registry

Background The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults recommended testing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ( LDL -C) to identify untreated patients with LDL -C ≥190 mg/dL, assess lipid-lowering therapy adherence, and consider nonstatin therapy. We sought to determine whether clinician lipid testing practices were consistent with these guidelines. Methods and Results The PALM (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) registry enrolled primary and secondary prevention patients from 140 US cardiology, endocrinology, and primary care offices in 2015 and captured demographic data, lipid treatment history, and the highest LDL -C level in the past 2 years. Core laboratory lipid levels were drawn at enrollment. Among 7627 patients, 2787 (36.5%) had no LDL -C levels measured in the 2 years before enrollment. Patients without chart-documented LDL -C levels were more often women, nonwhite, uninsured, and non-college graduates (all P\u3c0.01). Patients without prior lipid testing were less likely to receive statin treatment (72.6% versus 76.0%; P=0.0034), a high-intensity statin (21.5% versus 24.3%; P=0.016), nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy (24.8% versus 27.3%; P=0.037), and had higher core laboratory LDL -C levels at enrollment (median 97 versus 92 mg/dL; P\u3c0.0001) than patients with prior LDL -C testing. Of 166 individuals with core laboratory LDL -C levels ≥190 mg/dL, 36.1% had no LDL -C measurement in the prior 2 years, and 57.2% were not on a statin at the time of enrollment. Conclusions In routine clinical practice, LDL -C testing is associated with higher-intensity lipid-lowering treatment and lower achieved LDL -C level

Intensity of lipid lowering with statin therapy in patients with cerebrovascular disease versus coronary artery disease: Insights from the PALM Registry

Background Current treatment guidelines strongly recommend statin therapy for secondary prevention. However, it remains unclear whether patients\u27 perceptions of cardiovascular risk, beliefs on cholesterol, or the intensity of prescribed statin therapy differs for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) versus cerebrovascular disease (CeVD) versus both CAD and CeVD (CAD&CeVD). Methods and Results The PALM (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) registry collected data on statin use, intensity, and core laboratory low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels for 3232 secondary prevention patients treated at 133 US clinics. Among individuals with CeVD only (n=403), CAD only (n=2202), and CeVD&CAD (n=627), no significant differences were observed in patient-perceived cardiovascular disease risk, beliefs on cholesterol lowering, or perceived effectiveness and safety of statin therapy. However, patients with CeVD only were less likely to receive any statin therapy (76.2% versus 86.2%; adjusted odds ratio 0.64, 95% CI 0.45-0.91), or guideline-recommended statin intensity (34.6% versus 50.4%; adjusted odds ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.45-0.81) than those with CAD only. Individuals with CeVD only were also less likely to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol \u3c100 mg/dL (59.2% versus 69.7%; adjusted odds ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.99) than individuals with CAD alone. There were no significant differences in the use of any statin therapy or guideline-recommended statin intensity between individuals with CAD&CeVD and those with CAD only. Conclusions Despite lack of significant differences in patient-perceived cardiovascular risk or statin beliefs, patients with CeVD were significantly less likely to receive higher intensity statin or achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol \u3c100 mg/dL than those with CAD only

Process evaluation for complex interventions in primary care: understanding trials using the normalization process model

Background: the Normalization Process Model is a conceptual tool intended to assist in understanding the factors that affect implementation processes in clinical trials and other evaluations of complex interventions. It focuses on the ways that the implementation of complex interventions is shaped by problems of workability and integration.Method: in this paper the model is applied to two different complex trials: (i) the delivery of problem solving therapies for psychosocial distress, and (ii) the delivery of nurse-led clinics for heart failure treatment in primary care.Results: application of the model shows how process evaluations need to focus on more than the immediate contexts in which trial outcomes are generated. Problems relating to intervention workability and integration also need to be understood. The model may be used effectively to explain the implementation process in trials of complex interventions.Conclusion: the model invites evaluators to attend equally to considering how a complex intervention interacts with existing patterns of service organization, professional practice, and professional-patient interaction. The justification for this may be found in the abundance of reports of clinical effectiveness for interventions that have little hope of being implemented in real healthcare setting