Comparison of problem-based and team-based learning strategies: a multi-institutional investigation

Objectives: Over time, pedagogical practices in higher education have evolved significantly, which has led to the development of collaborative learning strategies. The study aims to compare the two most prominent ones – problem-based learning (PBL) and team-based learning (TBL). The comparison, integrated with Virtual Scenarios (VSs), involves student cohorts from various European institutions, specifically focusing on both PBL and TBL methods. The study is distinctive in its use of a consistent PBL/TBL methodology, ensured via joint staff training, and explores the perspectives of students and educators on these learning techniques. The overarching aim is to examine how PBL and TBL, coupled with VSs, influence problem-solving skills, independent learning, and student engagement. Methods: The examination was made using feedback from 399 students and 11 tutors collected in four trials held in three institutions based in Czechia, the United Kingdom and Romania. The data gathered from surveys and a focus group discussion contained qualitative as well as quantitative data, such as Likert scale questions. To analyse the overall trends in learners’ satisfaction with PBL and TBL sessions, the mean score calculated from the transformed Likert scale questions was compared between sessions and among institutions using multivariate ANOVA. Results: The students’ satisfaction and learning experience are heavily influenced by specific conditions, primarily their prior experience, room and technical set-up, group composition and especially the personality of a tutor. Overall, both strategies were found to be well-received by students used to traditional teaching methods. Students accustomed to PBL did not find TBL more engaging or useful. The identified advantages of TBL over PBL were the presence of a content expert, readiness tests, acquiring the same knowledge ensured through the collective presence of all students in one session and unified pre-class materials. However, TBL is more demanding on room set-up and teaching staff coordination. Conclusion: Both strategies have been found to have pros and cons and neither showed clear superiority over the other one. An institution newly implementing PBL or TBL needs to focus on different aspects than an institution planning to switch from PBL to TBL

Cross-Lineage Influenza B and Heterologous Influenza A Antibody Responses in Vaccinated Mice: Immunologic Interactions and B/Yamagata Dominance

The annually reformulated trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) includes both influenza A/subtypes (H3N2 and H1N1) but only one of two influenza B/lineages (Yamagata or Victoria). In a recent series of clinical trials to evaluate prime-boost response across influenza B/lineages, influenza-naïve infants and toddlers originally primed with two doses of 2008–09 B/Yamagata-containing TIV were assessed after two doses of B/Victoria-containing TIV administered in the subsequent 2009–10 and 2010–11 seasons. In these children, the Victoria-containing vaccines strongly recalled antibody to the initiating B/Yamagata antigen but induced only low B/Victoria antibody responses. To further evaluate this unexpected pattern of cross-lineage vaccine responses, we conducted additional immunogenicity assessment in mice. In the current study, mice were primed with two doses of 2008–09 Yamagata-containing TIV and subsequently boosted with two doses of 2010–11 Victoria-containing TIV (Group-Yam/Vic). With the same vaccines, we also assessed the reverse order of two-dose Victoria followed by two-dose Yamagata immunization (Group-Vic/Yam). The Group-Yam/Vic mice showed strong homologous responses to Yamagata antigen. However, as previously reported in children, subsequent doses of Victoria antigen substantially boosted Yamagata but induced only low antibody response to the immunizing Victoria component. The reverse order of Group-Vic/Yam mice also showed low homologous responses to Victoria but subsequent heterologous immunization with even a single dose of Yamagata antigen induced substantial boost response to both lineages. For influenza A/H3N2, homologous responses were comparably robust for the differing TIV variants and even a single follow-up dose of the heterologous strain, regardless of vaccine sequence, substantially boosted antibody to both strains. For H1N1, two doses of 2008–09 seasonal antigen significantly blunted response to two doses of the 2010–11 pandemic H1N1 antigen. Immunologic interactions between influenza viruses considered antigenically distant and in particular the cross-lineage influenza B and dominant Yamagata boost responses we have observed in both human and animal studies warrant further evaluation

Canadian oncogenic human papillomavirus cervical infection prevalence: Systematic review and meta-analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) infection prevalence is required to determine optimal vaccination strategies. We systematically reviewed the prevalence of oncogenic cervical HPV infection among Canadian females prior to immunization.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We included studies reporting DNA-confirmed oncogenic HPV prevalence estimates among Canadian females identified through searching electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE) and public health websites. Two independent reviewers screened literature results, abstracted data and appraised study quality. Prevalence estimates were meta-analyzed among routine screening populations, HPV-positive, and by cytology/histology results.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Thirty studies plus 21 companion reports were included after screening 837 citations and 120 full-text articles. Many of the studies did not address non-response bias (74%) or use a representative sampling strategy (53%).</p> <p>Age-specific prevalence was highest among females aged < 20 years and slowly declined with increasing age. Across all populations, the highest prevalence estimates from the meta-analyses were observed for HPV types 16 (routine screening populations, 8 studies: 8.6% [95% confidence interval 6.5-10.7%]; HPV-infected, 9 studies: 43.5% [28.7-58.2%]; confirmed cervical cancer, 3 studies: 48.8% [34.0-63.6%]) and 18 (routine screening populations, 8 studies: 3.3% [1.5-5.1%]; HPV-infected, 9 studies: 13.6% [6.1-21.1%], confirmed cervical cancer, 4 studies: 17.1% [6.4-27.9%].</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our results support vaccinating females < 20 years of age, along with targeted vaccination of some groups (e.g., under-screened populations). The highest prevalence occurred among HPV types 16 and 18, contributing a combined cervical cancer prevalence of 65.9%. Further cancer protection is expected from cross-protection of non-vaccine HPV types. Poor study quality and heterogeneity suggests that high-quality studies are needed.</p