Squaring the Circle Through Outreach: Building Student Engagement from Scratch

OBJECTIVE The Library works with campus and community partners in order to make a positive impact on students, campus, and community. This poster describes a year of student events and engagement, the challenges and insights from those events, and the collective impact they have had on meeting student needs, increasing library visibility on campus, and enhancing communications between students and the library. METHODS Needs assessment survey was conducted in Fall 2018 to measure what students would most like from the Library. Adjacently, the Library executed a number of events at varying times of year to engage the students such as Cookies & Cram, Pi Day, Fuel Your Brain for Finals, and Fridays in the Park. RESULTS These Library events reached 675 students (approximately 23% of student body). The data from the student satisfaction survey indicated that the Library is meeting student needs in engagement and activity. This indication is reiterated by students’ positive feedback after every event. CONCLUSIONS This year, student engagement was a success. Students indicated being positively impacted by the events coordinated by the Library. The Library intends to continue to meet student needs, increase library visibility on campus, and enhance communication between the library and students. In the future, consideration will be taken towards overlapping schedules of students

Health Sciences Libraries: Supporting Public Libraries Supporting All of Us

Title: Health Sciences Libraries: Supporting Public Libraries Supporting All of Us Objective: Public libraries are known for being community-centered institutions providing equitable access to information and resources, playing an important role in improving individuals\u27 access to health-related information. This project aimed to examine the perceived role and current practices of inner-city public librarians in delivering health-related information to members of their community. Methods: An online survey was created using Qualtrics and distributed to branch libraries within a single library system serving diverse socioeconomic and demographic groups. The survey consisted of eighteen multiple choice and open-ended questions. Information was collected around four domains: demographics, perception of the role of public libraries in proving health-related information, current practices in providing health-related information, and perceived need for training to better support patrons with health information access. Both quantitative and qualitative assessments were conducted from the responses. Results: 64 completed survey responses were collected from thirteen of the eighteen branch libraries surveyed. Understanding medical jargon, communicating with patrons, and limited availability of print resources were noted as being the top challenges in providing health-related information to patrons. When asked for health-related information, the majority of respondents reported consulting books from the library catalog as their go-to resources. 96% of respondents indicated that library employees need training on health literacy and ways to effectively provide health-related information to patrons. Conclusions: Survey results indicated that many library workers believe public libraries play a significant role in providing equitable access to health-related information to patrons. However, many of respondents reported a need or want for additional training regarding available resources for finding adequate health-related information online. This study shows there is opportunity for health sciences libraries to partner with public libraries on programming and training needs in order to better support the needs of our communities

Squaring an Open Circle: Trends and Opportunities in Open Access Publishing, Promotion, and Impact

This poster will examine the trends surrounding scholarly communications amongst faculty authors at UTHSC to determine prevalence of Open Access (OA) publishing in order to formulate a strategy for the library to reallocate services and funds to meet the changing needs of the Library’s users. Using bibliographic analysis and citation analysis for the prior 10 years (2009-2018), we hope to discover the following: the trend with respect to OA publishing amongst UTHSC faculty including the difference between Gold OA and Green OA; the specific journals in which UTHSC faculty choose to publish; and, the impact of OA publishing versus traditional models with respect to citations. Using filters built into the Web of Science database, the authors were able to isolate OA articles authored by UTHSC affiliated faculty. Citations in which a UTHSC affiliated author is listed as the corresponding author were included in the OA results. The resulting citations were grouped by year of publication and Gold/Green OA to determine potential growth trends. Further, Gold OA results were filtered by journal title to determine in which journals faculty were publishing. Finally, the OA output was compared with non-OA results from the same period to determine what, if any, impact OA had on impact of the scholarship with respect to citations

Population-Based Precision Cancer Screening: A Symposium on Evidence, Epidemiology, and Next Steps.

Precision medicine, an emerging approach for disease treatment that takes into account individual variability in genes, environment, and lifestyle, is under consideration for preventive interventions, including cancer screening. On September 29, 2015, the National Cancer Institute sponsored a symposium entitled "Precision Cancer Screening in the General Population: Evidence, Epidemiology, and Next Steps". The goal was two-fold: to share current information on the evidence, practices, and challenges surrounding precision screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers, and to allow for in-depth discussion among experts in relevant fields regarding how epidemiology and other population sciences can be used to generate evidence to inform precision screening strategies. Attendees concluded that the strength of evidence for efficacy and effectiveness of precision strategies varies by cancer site, that no one research strategy or methodology would be able or appropriate to address the many knowledge gaps in precision screening, and that issues surrounding implementation must be researched as well. Additional discussion needs to occur to identify the high priority research areas in precision cancer screening for pertinent organs and to gather the necessary evidence to determine whether further implementation of precision cancer screening strategies in the general population would be feasible and beneficial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(11); 1449-55. ©2016 AACR.U.S. National Cancer InstituteThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from the American Association for Cancer Research via http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-055

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) Prove Highly Effective for Long-Term Data Availability in PLOS ONE. Federer, L. M. (2022). Long-term availability of data associated with articles in PLOS ONE. PLOS ONE 17(8), Article e0272845. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272845

Objective – To retrieve a range of PLOS ONE data availability statements and quantify their ability to point to the study data efficiently and accurately. Research questions focused on availability over time, availability of URLs versus DOIs, the ability to locate resources using the data availability statement and availability based on data sharing method.Design – Observational study.Setting – PLOS ONE archive.Subjects – A corpus of 47,593 data availability statements from research articles in PLOS ONE between March 1, 2014, and May 31, 2016.Methods – Use of custom R scripts to retrieve 47,593 data availability statements; of these, 6,912 (14.5%) contained at least one URL or DOI. Once these links were extracted, R scripts were run to fetch the resources and record HTTP status codes to determine if the resource was discoverable. To address the potential for the DOI or URL to fetch but not actually contain the appropriate data, the researchers selected at random and manually retrieved the data for 350 URLs and 350 DOIs.Main Results – Of the unique URLs, 75% were able to be automatically retrieved by custom R scripts. In the manual sample of 350 URLs, which was used to test for accuracy of the URLs in containing the data, there was a 78% retrieval rate. Of the unique DOIs, 90% were able to be automatically retrieved by custom R scripts. The manual sample of 350 DOIs had a 98% retrieval rate.Conclusion – DOIs, especially those linked with a repository, had the highest rate of success in retrieving the data attached to the article. While URLs were better than no link at all, URLs are susceptible to content drift and need more management for long-term data availability