Befriending the Boogeyman: Using Improvisation Methods to Motivate Employees and Mitigate Fear of Failure

This project combines improvisation principles with design thinking concepts to create new exercises which can be used in the workplace to mitigate the impacts of fear of failure within an organization. The main research question for this project is as follows: How might we combine design thinking and improvisation principles to mitigate the negative impacts of fear of failure in an organization? Fear of failure is a pervasive feeling which impacts organizations of all sizes, sectors, and maturities, and can have devastating impacts on organizational culture. These impacts include cynicism, lack of motivation, high employee turnover, and low self esteem. This project study uses evidence from academic literature as well as primary research to pinpoint the most pressing impacts of fear of failure and define points of intervention where improvisation principles would be most beneficial. This project culminates in several new exercises which can be used by teams within an organization to mitigate these main impacts, giving way for higher levels of employee communication, creative thinking, and innovation potential

Comparison of a single vs. a four intradermal sterile water injection for relief of lower back pain for women in labour : A randomised controlled trial

Objective: sterile water injections are a simple, safe, effective, non-pharmacological technique for relieving back pain in labour, however the number of injections required to achieve optimal analgesia is unknown. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the degree and duration of analgesia provided by a single injection of sterile water, compared to four injections. Design: randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Participants and setting: three hundred and five women in labour at term, requesting analgesia for back pain were recruited from two metropolitan hospitals in Brisbane, Australia. Intervention: participants were randomly assigned to receive either one (n=147) or four (n=158) sterile water injections. Outcome measures: difference in self-reported pain measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS) between baseline and 30. mins post-intervention. The clinically acceptable margin of difference was defined as ≤1. cm on the VAS between the single injection compared to four injection technique. Secondary outcomes include VAS score on injection and 10, 60, 90 and 120. mins post-intervention, analgesia use, mode of birth and maternal satisfaction. Findings: the mean difference in the pre and post (30. mins) injection scores between two groups was -1.48. cm (95% CI -2.10, -0.86) in favour of the FI technique, however the injection pain associated with the FI was significantly greater than that of the SI technique (

Impact on Caesarean section rates following injections of sterile water (ICARIS): a multicentre randomised controlled trial

Background: Sterile water injections have been used as an effective intervention for the management of back pain during labour. The objective of the current research is to determine if sterile water injections, as an intervention for back pain in labour, will reduce the intrapartum caesarean section rate.Methods/design: Design: A double blind randomised placebo controlled trial. Setting: Maternity hospitals in Australia. Participants: 1866 women in labour, ≥18 years of age who have a singleton pregnancy with a fetus in a cephalic presentation at term (between 37 + 0 and 41 + 6 weeks gestation), who assess their back pain as equal to or greater than seven on a visual analogue scale when requesting analgesia and able to provide informed consent.Intervention: Participants will be randomised to receive either 0.1 to 0.3 millilitres of sterile water or a normal saline placebo via four intradermal injections into four anatomical points surrounding the Michaelis' rhomboid over the sacral area. Two injections will be administered over the posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS) and the remaining two at two centimetres posterior, and one centimetre medial to the PSIS respectively.Main outcome measure:Proportion of women who have a caesarean section in labour.Randomisation: Permuted blocks stratified by research site.Blinding (masking):Double-blind trial in which participants, clinicians and research staff blinded to group assignment.Funding:Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Trial registration:Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (No ACTRN12611000221954).Discussion: Sterile water injections, which may have a positive effect on reducing the CS rate, have been shown to be a safe and simple analgesic suitable for most maternity settings. A procedure that could reduce intervention rates without adversely affecting safety for mother and baby would benefit Australian families and taxpayers and would reduce requirements for maternal operating theatre time. Results will have external validity, as the technique may be easily applied to maternity populations outside Australia. In summary, the results of this trial will contribute High level evidence on the impact of SWI on intrapartum CS rates and provide evidence of the analgesic effect of SWI on back pain

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

Effects of once-weekly exenatide on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular effects of adding once-weekly treatment with exenatide to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes, with or without previous cardiovascular disease, to receive subcutaneous injections of extended-release exenatide at a dose of 2 mg or matching placebo once weekly. The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The coprimary hypotheses were that exenatide, administered once weekly, would be noninferior to placebo with respect to safety and superior to placebo with respect to efficacy. RESULTS: In all, 14,752 patients (of whom 10,782 [73.1%] had previous cardiovascular disease) were followed for a median of 3.2 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.4). A primary composite outcome event occurred in 839 of 7356 patients (11.4%; 3.7 events per 100 person-years) in the exenatide group and in 905 of 7396 patients (12.2%; 4.0 events per 100 person-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.00), with the intention-to-treat analysis indicating that exenatide, administered once weekly, was noninferior to placebo with respect to safety (P<0.001 for noninferiority) but was not superior to placebo with respect to efficacy (P=0.06 for superiority). The rates of death from cardiovascular causes, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, and the incidence of acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, medullary thyroid carcinoma, and serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes with or without previous cardiovascular disease, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between patients who received exenatide and those who received placebo