Learning Styles of Generation Z Latinos: A Mixed-Methods Exploratory Study of Two Cohorts of Business University Students

The Latino population is projected to double by 2060 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017), while current bachelor degree attainment for Hispanics continues to hover around a stubborn low 12% (NCES, 2017). Additionally, research on Generation Z Latino learning preferences is sparse. At the same time, studies have shown that knowing about learning styles and culture can have positive impacts on learners’ academic performance and teachers’ classroom management ability (Nieto, 2004; Reese, Jensen, & Ramirez, 2014). Therefore, studying learning styles and culture can help prepare educators better to fulfill this generation’s needs by enabling them to integrate cultural accommodations into their teaching. The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to study the learning styles of two cohorts of Generation Z Latino students, one at a south Texas university and one at a Bolivian university, and explore the role of cultural factors on their learning styles. This mixed methodology study combined Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov’s Values Survey Module and Felder and Silverman’s Learning Styles Inventory, in addition to demographic questions. The two cohorts studied were comprised of Latino university students who were majoring in business or related majors and were born on 1996 or later. Survey data from the 264 participants who completed the survey were analyzed in SPSS using descriptive analytics, t-tests, and a two by two factorial ANOVA test. Additionally, 25 interviews were conducted with Latina female students. Similar to the survey participants, interview participants were also majoring in business or related majors and were born on 1996 or later. The 1.5-hour interview was conducted individually and included an arts-based activity. The recorded interviews were then transcribed. The study used grounded theory to analyze the qualitative data. Regarding cultural dimensions, the south Texas and the Bolivian cohorts ranked on the low range in masculinity, low range in long-term orientation, and low range in individualism. Both groups ranked mid-range in indulgence versus restraint. However, the Bolivian cohort ranked extremely low in power distance. The U.S. cohort ranked mid-range on the power distance dimension. Furthermore, analysis of the data revealed both groups preferred the visual, sensing, sequential, and global learning styles. Additionally, t-tests revealed there was a significant difference in the sequential-global scales at the south Texas university (M = 12.74, SD = 3.810) and the Bolivian university (M = 14.38, SD = 3.994); t(263) = 2.77, p = .0006. An interaction between culture and gender was found to be significant, F(1,261) = 7.377, p = .007 on the sensing-intuitive dimension. The qualitative analysis revealed family cohesiveness nature as a way to interact with the world, food and celebration as a way to strengthen community, and values as foundational cultural themes. Regarding generational factors, the following matter to Generation Z participants: price, quality, comfort, looks, and friendliness. Generation Z’s relationship with technology was found to be intimate. However, participants recognized the excessive use of mobile devices principally could be problematic since it could interfere with maintaining relationships with others. Participants’ beliefs about learning were categorized on the following categories: beliefs about their life journey, beliefs about self, beliefs about individuals in the classroom, and beliefs about learning preferences. Learning beliefs were found to link back to cultural and generational themes and reflected the cultural dimension and learning styles scores. The theory generated proposed that culture and generation served to form the basis of a foundational paradigm. Family, nature, food, and values generated a certain set of core beliefs that the participants held. The participants’ beliefs about learning could all be connected back their core beliefs. Learners’ learning beliefs were critical because they constituted a set of expectations, motivations, and ultimately behaviors. As a result of understanding learners’ preferences and beliefs, recruiters, instructional designers, educators, and researchers could make potential modifications and cultural accommodations for Latino learners. One of the limitations of this study was the sample size. Additionally, the study was limited to two universities and one field of study. Also, participants were successful students and were from the first wave of Generation Z students. Future research may expand on this topic by focusing on specific sets of beliefs, focusing on male Generation Z students, and conducting similar studies in other Latino countries

Efficacy and safety of the CVnCoV SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine candidate in ten countries in Europe and Latin America (HERALD): a randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 trial

Background: Additional safe and efficacious vaccines are needed to control the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety of the CVnCoV SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine candidate. Methods: HERALD is a randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 clinical trial conducted in 47 centres in ten countries in Europe and Latin America. By use of an interactive web response system and stratification by country and age group (18–60 years and ≥61 years), adults with no history of virologically confirmed COVID-19 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intramuscularly either two 0·6 mL doses of CVnCoV containing 12 μg of mRNA or two 0·6 mL doses of 0·9% NaCl (placebo) on days 1 and 29. The primary efficacy endpoint was the occurrence of a first episode of virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 of any severity and caused by any strain from 15 days after the second dose. For the primary endpoint, the trial was considered successful if the lower limit of the CI was greater than 30%. Key secondary endpoints were the occurrence of a first episode of virologically confirmed moderate-to-severe COVID-19, severe COVID-19, and COVID-19 of any severity by age group. Primary safety outcomes were solicited local and systemic adverse events within 7 days after each dose and unsolicited adverse events within 28 days after each dose in phase 2b participants, and serious adverse events and adverse events of special interest up to 1 year after the second dose in phase 2b and phase 3 participants. Here, we report data up to June 18, 2021. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04652102, and EudraCT, 2020–003998–22, and is ongoing. Findings: Between Dec 11, 2020, and April 12, 2021, 39 680 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either CVnCoV (n=19 846) or placebo (n=19 834), of whom 19 783 received at least one dose of CVnCoV and 19 746 received at least one dose of placebo. After a mean observation period of 48·2 days (SE 0·2), 83 cases of COVID-19 occurred in the CVnCoV group (n=12 851) in 1735·29 person-years and 145 cases occurred in the placebo group (n=12 211) in 1569·87 person-years, resulting in an overall vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 of 48·2% (95·826% CI 31·0–61·4; p=0·016). Vaccine efficacy against moderate-to-severe COVID-19 was 70·7% (95% CI 42·5–86·1; CVnCoV 12 cases in 1735·29 person-years, placebo 37 cases in 1569·87 person-years). In participants aged 18–60 years, vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease was 52·5% (95% CI 36·2–64·8; CVnCoV 71 cases in 1591·47 person-years, placebo, 136 cases in 1449·23 person-years). Too few cases occurred in participants aged 61 years or older (CVnCoV 12, placebo nine) to allow meaningful assessment of vaccine efficacy. Solicited adverse events, which were mostly systemic, were more common in CVnCoV recipients (1933 [96·5%] of 2003) than in placebo recipients (1344 [67·9%] of 1978), with 542 (27·1%) CVnCoV recipients and 61 (3·1%) placebo recipients reporting grade 3 solicited adverse events. The most frequently reported local reaction after any dose in the CVnCoV group was injection-site pain (1678 [83·6%] of 2007), with 22 grade 3 reactions, and the most frequently reported systematic reactions were fatigue (1603 [80·0%] of 2003) and headache (1541 [76·9%] of 2003). 82 (0·4%) of 19 783 CVnCoV recipients reported 100 serious adverse events and 66 (0·3%) of 19 746 placebo recipients reported 76 serious adverse events. Eight serious adverse events in five CVnCoV recipients and two serious adverse events in two placebo recipients were considered vaccination-related. None of the fatal serious adverse events reported (eight in the CVnCoV group and six in the placebo group) were considered to be related to study vaccination. Adverse events of special interest were reported for 38 (0·2%) participants in the CVnCoV group and 31 (0·2%) participants in the placebo group. These events were considered to be related to the trial vaccine for 14 (<0·1%) participants in the CVnCoV group and for five (<0·1%) participants in the placebo group. Interpretation: CVnCoV was efficacious in the prevention of COVID-19 of any severity and had an acceptable safety profile. Taking into account the changing environment, including the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants, and timelines for further development, the decision has been made to cease activities on the CVnCoV candidate and to focus efforts on the development of next-generation vaccine candidates. Funding: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and CureVac

Health status after invasive or conservative care in coronary and advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, the primary analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction with initial angiography and revascularization plus guideline-based medical therapy (invasive strategy) as compared with guideline-based medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) in participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate of &lt;30 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 or receipt of dialysis). A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status. METHODS We assessed health status with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) before randomization and at 1.5, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. The primary outcome of this analysis was the SAQ Summary score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating less frequent angina and better function and quality of life). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate the treatment effect with the invasive strategy. RESULTS Health status was assessed in 705 of 777 participants. Nearly half the participants (49%) had had no angina during the month before randomization. At 3 months, the estimated mean difference between the invasive-strategy group and the conservative-strategy group in the SAQ Summary score was 2.1 points (95% credible interval, 120.4 to 4.6), a result that favored the invasive strategy. The mean difference in score at 3 months was largest among participants with daily or weekly angina at baseline (10.1 points; 95% credible interval, 0.0 to 19.9), smaller among those with monthly angina at baseline (2.2 points; 95% credible interval, 122.0 to 6.2), and nearly absent among those without angina at baseline (0.6 points; 95% credible interval, 121.9 to 3.3). By 6 months, the between-group difference in the overall trial population was attenuated (0.5 points; 95% credible interval, 122.2 to 3.4). CONCLUSIONS Participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease did not have substantial or sustained benefits with regard to angina-related health status with an initially invasive strategy as compared with a conservative strategy

Management of coronary disease in patients with advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND Clinical trials that have assessed the effect of revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease have routinely excluded those with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS We randomly assigned 777 patients with advanced kidney disease and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing to be treated with an initial invasive strategy consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization (if appropriate) added to medical therapy or an initial conservative strategy consisting of medical therapy alone and angiography reserved for those in whom medical therapy had failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. A key secondary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 123 patients in the invasive-strategy group and in 129 patients in the conservative-strategy group (estimated 3-year event rate, 36.4% vs. 36.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.29; P=0.95). Results for the key secondary outcome were similar (38.5% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.29). The invasive strategy was associated with a higher incidence of stroke than the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 9.32; P=0.004) and with a higher incidence of death or initiation of dialysis (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.11; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease, advanced chronic kidney disease, and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used